R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: October 01 ,2010 Sudama and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Argued by: For the land acquired vide notifications dated 5 th and 15 th May, 1997 Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukul Aggarwal & Mr. Narender Sura, Mr. Shailendra Jain, Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Mr. Amit Jain, Mr. Sanjay Vij, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Mr. S. K. Yadav, Mr. R. A. Yadav, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia and Mr. Raghujit S. Madan, Advocates for HUDA. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. For the land acquired vide notification dated 8.9.1997 Mr. Shailendra Jain, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Sanjay Vij, Mr. Amit Jain, Mr. Narender Sura, Mr. P.R. Yadav, Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Mr. Pardeep Bajaj for Mr. R. S. Khosla, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1824 of 2006; R.F.A. Nos. 4199 to 4390, 4431, 5228 to 5233, 5256 to 5264, 5269, 5270, 5283 to 5291, 5416, 5519 to 5550, 5792 to 5806, 5814 and 5815 of 2008; R.F.A. Nos. 113 to 124, 126 to 132, 158, 159, 169, 244 to 259, 296, R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [2] 303 to 306, 317, 318, 346, 402 to 404, 611 to 619, 631, 639, 821, 822,, 1014 to 1207, 1496, 1497, 1553, 1734, 1831, 1832, 1964, 1993, 2027, 2049, 2051, 2682, 2683, 2686, 2864, 2865, 3103, 3106, 3110, 3162, 3350 to 3353, 4033, 4114 and 4187 of 2009 and R.F.A. No. 616 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The case in hand relates to acquisition of land vide notifications dated 5.5.1997, 15.5.1997 and 8.9.1997 pertaining to villages Kanhai, Samaspur, Wazirabad, Bindapur and Chakarpur. 2. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State/HUDA, the prayer is for reduction thereof. 3. In the bunch, there are some appeals, which arise out of the award of the learned court below, which was subject-matter of appeals in first round of litigation, when the cases were remanded back by this court vide judgment in R.F.A. No. 2263 of 2004 –Mahipal and others v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 26.4.2006. 4. The acquisition of compact block of land in the present set of appeals is pertaining to four villages, situated in the vicinity. The same being Samaspur, Wazirabad, Kanhai and Bindapur in District Gurgaon. The land had been acquired for development as Sectors 51 and 52, Gurgaon. Acquisition regarding village Kanhai 5. Vide notification dated 5.5.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,`the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 7.70 acres of land in village Kanhai, District Gurgaon for residential, commercial and institutional area in Sector 52 at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 4.5.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award assessed compensation @ ` 12,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 9,60,000/- per acre for Allabrani land; ` 8,40,000/- per acre for Bhood land and ` 7,20,000/- per acre for Banjar and Gair Mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 361/- per square yard. Acquisition regarding village Samaspur 6. Vide notification dated 15.5.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 89.87 acres, situated in village Samaspur, District Gurgaon R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [3] was acquired by the State of Haryana for residential, commercial and institutional area in Sector 51, Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 14.5.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 13.5.2000, assessed the market value @ ` 5,40,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 4,20,000/- per acre for allabarani land; ` 3,60,000/- per acre for Bhood land and ` 2,40,000/- per acre for banjar and gair mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 361/- per square yard. Acquisition regarding village Wazirabad 7. Vide notification dated 15.5.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana acquired 193.16 acres of land in village Wazirabad, District Gurgaon for residential, commercial and institutional area in Sector 52 at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 4.5.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector vide award dated 3.5.2000 assessed compensation @ ` 12,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 9,60,000/- per acre for Allabarani land; ` 8,40,000/- per acre Bhood land and ` 7,20,090/- per acre for Banjar and Gair Mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 361/- per square yard. Acquisition regarding village Bindapur 8. Vide notification dated 15.5.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana acquired 42.48 acres of land in village Bindapur, District Gurgaon for residential, commercial and institutional area in Sector 51 at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 4.5.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector vide award dated 3.5.2000 assessed compensation @ ` 6,,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 4,20,000/- per acre for Magda land; ` 3,60,000/- per acre for Bhood land and ` 2,40,000/- per acre for Banjar and Gair Mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 361/- per square yard. 9. Some of the land owners preferred appeals against the award of the learned court below. This Court vide detailed judgment in Mahipal's case (supra) remanded the matters back with a direction to the learned court below for fresh determination of market value of the acquired land. On remand, the learned court R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [4] below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 717/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. 10. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners submitted that the impugned award of the learned court below deserves to be modified and the compensation enhanced primarily on two grounds, namely, that correct value, as is depicted in the sale deeds produced by the land owners, has not been taken. Sale instances, which were produced on record, were pertaining to the land which was part of the acquired land, adjoining the acquired land or was surrounded by it. In fact, the entire area in the vicinity had already been developed by the private colonisers after purchasing the land. They had been issued requisite licences by the government for the purpose. The area of land sold and dealt with in various sale deeds was quite a big chunk which should be relied upon as such without applying any cut therein. In fact, in the present case, even the exercise of power by the government for acquisition of land was quite arbitrarily as substantial land was released after the same was notified under Section 4 of the Act while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act. Even subsequent thereto as well, certain land was released before the award was announced. 11. While addressing arguments pertaining to acquisition of land of village Wazirabad, submitted that average sale consideration paid in the sale deeds produced on record pertaining to land of village Wazirabad comes to ` 1290.64. Entire area in the vicinity had already been developed as the private builders had purchased land in these sectors and started development activity. The average sale consideration paid in the sale deeds pertaining to village Samaspur was lesser. It would not be appropriate to deprive the land owners of village Wazirabad the amount of compensation on the basis of sale instances for the land pertaining to their village only because the value of land of the neighbouring village was lesser. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 – Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, the submission was that no cut should be applied for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land in terms of the sale deeds produced on record. It is a matter of common knowledge as is even accepted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pran Sukh's case (supra) that sale transactions were always under valued for various reasons including saving of stamp duty. The same has even been judicially accepted. 12. Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate appearing for the land owners in some of the appeals submitted that the area around the acquired land in fact, had already R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [5] been developed. As is evident from the notification vide which the acquisition was carried out, the acquired land was meant to be used for development as Sectors 51 and 52, HUDA, Gurgaon. It is adjoining to Sectors 45 and 46. Sector 57 is located beyond Sectors 51 and 52. After development, the plots were offered by HUDA for sale on different dates in various neighbouring sectors, the details of which are as under: Exhibit Sector Date of floatation in LAC No. 920 of 2000 ..................................................................................................................... PW3/A 51 17.3.2003 PW3/B 32 and 44 P5/6 45 19.6.1997 P4/A 43 9.11.2001 P4/B 27 and 28 18.6.2001 P4/C 52 14.10.2002 P4/D 57 12.2.2004 P4/E 46 10.8.1995” 13. Learned counsel further referred to various licences issued to the builders in the area for development of land, which were much prior to even the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, which clearly established that the private builders had already started development in the area and the prices of the land had shoot up. The real fact, according to him, is that the private builders, who purchase the land by way of negotiations, try to buy as much land in the area as they can to make it a single block of land at one location, however, still they cannot compel all the land owners to sell the land. It is only these small pockets of land which are subsequently acquired by the State for the purpose of development. Some of the small pockets, which are acquired by the State, cannot even be developed as such considering their isolated location and the size of the plot. There are many instances which show that the State in these circumstances play in the hands of private builders and after acquisition of land, the same is transferred to the private builders so as to enable them to develop the land owned by them in a more appropriate manner. In fact, the procedure required for acquisition for the purpose of private parties is not followed. The reference was made to exchange deed (Ex. PW14/A in LAC No. 920 of 2000). Referring to the above instances, it was submitted that the land forming part of Khasra No. 540/2 was already purchased by a private builder, however, the owner of the land forming part of Khasra Nos. 528, 529, 531, 539, 541, 542, 684 and 685 refused to R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [6] the demand of that builder. However, this land owner was helpless when the State exercised its power under the Act. The power was mis-used than used as after acquisition the land was transferred to the builder. Meaning thereby that acquisition was carried out only for the benefit of the builder. This fact was even admitted by PW14-Om Parkash Kanungo while appearing before the court., 14. Learned counsel for the land owners further relied upon communications between Land Acquisition Collector, HUDA, Gurgaon to Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon (Ex. PW11/1 to Ex. PW11/20 in LAC No. 920 of 2000). Referring to the aforesaid communications, it was submitted that Tehsildar was asked for regarding the value of land in the area. He had informed that on the basis of sale deeds registered in the area during the last one year before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the same was ` 50,55,360/- per acre for Chahi land. However, still the Collector assessed the compensation at such a low rate which was quite arbitrary. It cannot be disputed that the land owners are entitled to compensation for the acquired land as existed on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act considering its future potentiality as well. Once the sale deeds were registered in the area at quite high rate as were even admitted by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Gurgaon in the correspondence, there was no reason to deny the land owners the same amount of compensation. It was in fact, the value as depicted in various sale transactions registered, the record of which was available with the Collector. There was no reason to dispute the genuineness thereof, as the sale deeds were good in number and it was not that some isolated sale transaction was got registered by one of the land owners to claim higher rate of compensation. 15. Besides producing sale deeds, which were registered close to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the land owners in the present case have also produced various sale deeds registered one year prior thereto and also subsequent to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The submission was the consideration paid in the aforesaid sale deeds clearly established that the value, as is shown in the sale deeds, produced by them which were registered close to the acquisition of land was just and fair and the trend of prices in the area, which increased 2-1/2 times within a period of one year after the acquisition. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that as has been claimed by the land owners, substantial portions of land in the area had already been developed by the builders after purchase of land by private negotiations. Small portions of land, which were left R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [7] out, were in fact inferior in quality and it was the reason that the builders did not buy the same. The State had in fact come to the rescue of those land owners by acquiring that land as well, otherwise these were small pockets left in between which were not even fit for agriculture purposes. The land owners should not be granted same rate as is shown in the sale deeds produced by them. The builders in the present case, who purchased the land from various land owners, had in fact paid the price which may not be genuine for the reason that they were in need of the land to make a minimum chunk for getting a licence issued in their favour for development thereof. It cannot be said to be a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. However, learned counsel was fair enough to submit that genuineness of the transactions as such is not in dispute, as there is no material produced on record by the State as such from which it could be opined that the sale transactions produced on record by the land owners were not genuine. He further submitted that the contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners that various sale deeds, though registered on same day where the seller was one but the buyers were different should be taken cumulatively to show that it was a big chunk of land is not tenable. All the sale deeds should be taken individually showing the transaction for a small plot of land and while assessing the compensation even if those sale deeds are relied upon, the land owners cannot be held entitled to same amount of compensation and appropriate cut is required to be applied in the present case, it should not be less than 1/3rd. 17. He further submitted that prior to the present acquisition, about 7 years back, acquisition of land of village Wazirabad was carried out vide notification dated 16.4.1990. This court had assessed the value of the land acquired in the year 1990 @ ` 212/- per square yard, which was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8609-8613 of 2001—Bhim Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 24.9.2003. As the acquired land was also situated in the vicinity, in terms of various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, at the most the land owners should be awarded increase @12% per annum thereon and nothing more. 18. He further submitted that the learned court below had gone wrong in not appreciating the sale deeds produced on record by the State. In fact, those have not even been referred to in the impugned award. The average consideration paid therein was ` 200/- per square yard. Though exact location thereof has not been pointed out on any site plan produced on record, however, the fact is that the land pertains to the revenue estate of village Wazirabad. R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [8] 19. Another contention raised by the learned counsel was that the land owners in the present case had led evidence only for the land pertaining to villages Wazirabad and Samaspur. For the land pertaining to villages Kanahai and Bindapur, there is no independent evidence led. In the absence thereof, the land owners pertaining to land of those two villages cannot be awarded compensation relying upon the evidence led for villages Wazirabad and Samaspur and they could possibly be awarded compensation only by adding 12% per annum on the value as assessed in Bhim Singh's case (supra), which would come out to ` 390/- per square yard, after adding that amount in ` 212/- per square yard. 20. As far as learned counsel appearing for HUDA is concerned, initially he sought an adjournment. However, the same was refused as the date of hearing for today was fixed about 10 days back with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Faced with the situation, the only argument he raised was that he adopts the contentions raised by learned counsel for the State, as has always been the plea in other similar cases. 21. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that acquisition in the present case was for development of the land for the purpose of Sectors 51 and 52, HUDA, Gurgaon. It is per chance that it pertained to the revenue estate of four villages. It was not a single block of land, as admittedly the area in the vicinity had been developed and the acquired land was either located in small pockets within the area developed by the private builders or was surrounded by it. The entire acquired land should be assessed at the same rate. Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pran Sukh's case (supra), it was submitted that in the aforesaid case, the land pertained to four villages and for the purpose of assessment of value thereof, the sale transactions pertaining to the land of one of the villages was relied upon. As far as sale deeds produced by the State are concerned, the submission was that firstly those cannot be relied upon considering the fact that the area pertaining thereto had not been located on any site plan produced on record and secondly, the land owners are entitled to the best price which was available for the land in the area on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 22. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. 23. It is pertinent to mention here that evidence before the learned court below was led primarily in LAC Nos. 70—Dalip v. State of Haryana and others, 497-Mahipal v. State of Haryana and others, 728 of 2000—Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, and 920 of 2000—Amar Nath v. State of Haryana and R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [9] others. 24. Before I proceed to deal with the issue regarding valuation of land, it would be appropriate to deal with the location thereof and also the development activities which are taking place in the area. 25. Learned counsel for the land owners referred to documents [Ex.P6 to Ex. P26, Ex. P32 to Ex. P36 (LAC No. 728 of 2000) and Ex. PW8/1 to Ex. P8/13 (LAC No. 920 of 2000)], which are in the form of licences granted by the State of Haryana for the purpose of setting up of residential colonies and group housing societies in villages Wazirabad, Bindapur, Tigra, Chakarpur, Kanhai and Sukhrali. The first licence in the series was granted on 17.1.1992 (Ex. P10) to M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Limited. The licence for development was pertaining to the land located in villages Wazirabad and Sukhrali. 26. Vide Ex. P27 (LAC No. 728 of 2000), Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana had granted permission to M/s DLF Universal Limited for change of land use for establishment of golf course at village Wazirabad on an area of 77.90 acres and club building over an area of 1,100 square yards. 27. The aforesaid documents, whereby the State of Haryana had awarded licences to various builders to carry out development activities in the area in the form of development as residential colonies, golf course and club clearly show that a lot of development activity was in progress in the area beginning from the year 1992 and at a very fast pace in the years 1995 and 1996 when number of licences were awarded to various builders. 28. Even the site plan (Ex. PW8/A in LAC No. 920 of 2000), produced by the land owners clearly shows that acquisition of land by the State is not in the form of a chunk of land located at one place, rather, it is situated in different pockets scattered at different places. At some places, it is in the form of small plots, which is surrounded by the area for which licences had already been granted to the builders for development or were in the process of grant when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. 29. A perusal of another site plan (Ex. P18 in LAC No. 497 of 2000) produced on record by the land owners shows the topography of various sectors located in the area. The acquisition in the present case is for the purpose of development as Sectors 51 and 52. On the site plan, substantial portion of land in Sectors 51 and 52 is already shown in possession of the builders for which they had been granted licences for development for residential purposes. 30. Learned counsel for the land owners has also invited the attention of this court to various brochures produced on record showing as to when the R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [10] developed plots in various neighbouring sectors were offered for sale by HUDA. A perusal of the site plan (Ex. P18 in LAC No. 497 of 2000) shows that Sectors 51 and 52 are surrounded by Sectors