Regular First Appeal No. 1263 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Regular First Appeal No. 1263 of 1994 Date of Decision: November 04, 2008 Paltu Ram and anothers .....Appellants vs. State of Haryan and another .....Respondents Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate in RFA No. 1347 of 1994 for the appellants. Mr. H.S.Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, AAG, Haryana for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This order shall dispose of 22 Regular First Appeals No.620 to 624, 888, 970 to 972, 1263, 1262, 1264, 1265, 1345, 1347, 1563 to 1569 , of 1994 filed by the land owners/claimants as well as the State of Haryana against the award of the Reference court as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals Vide notification dated 25.7.1989 published on 21.8.1989 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), land situated in the revenue estate of village Sutana Tehsil and District Panipat was proposed to be acquired at public expense for public purpose, namely for the extension of disposal area of Stage IV of Panipat Thermal Power Regular First Appeal No. 1263 of 1994 -2- Project, Panipat. This notification was followed by a notification of declaration dated 14.3.1990 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 17.1.1991, assessed the market value of the acquired land by dividing the same into two categories as Nehri/Chahi @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre and Banjar Kadim @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award, the land owners by invoking the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, filed objections in which it was inter alia alleged that the Collector has not taken into consideration the sale instances and other relevant facts for determination of the market value. It was pleaded that the acquired land is situated in between village Jattal and Assandh road at a distance of 6 Kilometers from the Municipal Area of Panipat which is suitable for commercial, residential and industrial purposes. In reply, the allegations made by the land owners/claimants were denied and it was alleged that the compensation awarded by the Collector is quite fair and reasonable. The Reference court, after appreciating the evidence on record and while relying upon an award Ex. P/1 pertaining to village Jattal, assessed the compensation of the acquired land at a flat rate of Rs. 1,40,000/- per acre while observing as under:- “If the oral evidence and the sale instances brought on record by the parties are excluded from consideration then the only piece of evidence remains to be examined in the present case, is the copy of earlier award Ex.P1. In other words, I have only to depend on Ex.P1 in this regard, if that is otherwise found to be of similarly situated land. At this stage it may be mentioned here that petitioners in LAC case No.93 of 92 has Regular First Appeal No. 1263 of 1994 -3- categorically pleading in para 4 of the reference petition that their land adjoins the land of village Jattal. This had not been specifically denied by the respondent in the pleadings. The situation of the disputed land has also been shown in the site plan Ex.R1 produced by the State, which reveals that the disputed land is situated near the land of village Jattal. Rati Ram PW3 has categorically stated that the land of village Jattal was also acquired along with the disputed land vide same notification dated 25th July 1989 for the same purpose. PW3 has maintained that their land adjoins the boundary of the land of village Jattal, so acquired land is of the same quality and kind. He has next stated that the land of their village Sutana adjoins the land of village Khukhrana as well as village Jattal. In this regard, the next to note is the testimony of Jagmal Singh Patwari RW1, who has categorically admitted that the land of village Sutana adjoins the land of village Jattal which is at a distance of 7/8 kilometers from Municipal Area of Panipat. The statement of PW3 remains unchallenged. In other words if the pleadings of the parties and the above mentioned evidence on record is put together then to my mind, no one can escape in recording an irresistible conclusion that the land of village Sutana (in present reference petitions) and the land of village Khukhrana and Jattal are of same quality, Regular First Appeal No. 1263 of 1994 -4- same potential value and similar kind of land, which had been acquired vide the same notification as in the present case. I have gone through the earlier award Ex.P1 in which the land of village Jattal had been acquired by the same notification dated 25th July, 89 and for the same public purpose as in the present case. In other words the earlier award Ex.P1 is of the similarly situated land and pertains to the same notification, and can safely be relied upon for determination of the market value in the present case, because now it is well settled that in the matter relating to land acquisition, the judgment/award of a Court with regard to similar land or property would be relevant piece of evidence. The judgment Ex.P1 can also be relied upon on the base of doctrine of 'Stare-decisis' that is to say that the decision of a Judicial Court should be at par with regard to similarly situated land. The reliance in this regard can be placed to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Major Dhayan Singh vs. Union of India 1992(3) L.J.R. page 700. This judgment is the complete answer to the problem in hand.” I have heard Mr. C.B.Goel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in R.F.A.No. 1347 of 1994 and Mr. H.S.Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. None of the counsel for the parties could raise any meaningful argument for the purpose of persuading this Court to differ Regular First Appeal No. 1263 of 1994 -5- with the finding recorded by the court below especially where it is observed that the acquired land adjoins the boundary of village Jattal, which is of the same quality and kind. This fact has not only been stated by the witness of the claimant but also by Jagmal Singh, Patwari-RW-1 and is also shown in site plan Ex.R-1 produced by the State. In view of the above facts, a firm finding of fact has been recorded by the learned court below on the basis of previous award. Thus, I do not find any merit in the present appeals filed either by the claimants/land owners or by the State. Therefore, the present appeals are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE November 04, 2008 paramjit