R.F.A. No. 1388 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R.F.A. No. 1388 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.3.2011 State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants versus Darsho Devi and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the appeals bearing RFA No. 1388 to 1391 of 2011, as the same arise out of common acquisition. The State of Haryana is in appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below seeking reduction in the compensation for the acquired land. The bunch of appeals pertain to the valuation of land sought to be acquired for construction of BML Hansi Branch, Butana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel vide notification dated 23.8.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') by the State of Haryana, situated within the revenue estate of village Sampan Kheri, Hadbast No. 4, Tehsil and District Kaithal. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19.9.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide award dated 17.1.2006 assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ ` 6,00,000/- per acre vide award dated 3.12.2010. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, the State is in appeal before this court. R.F.A. No. 1388 of 2011 2 Learned counsel for the State submitted that the court below had not given any reasoning whatsoever while determining the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land. It had merely applied a thumb rule. He further argued that the value of the land of each area is different keeping in view the location and other advantages. But in the present case, the learned court below without there being any site plan produced on record by the land owners assessed the compensation for the acquired land. It is due to the policy of the State Government that the value of the land was determined @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre by the Collector, otherwise the value of the land in the area was not as has been awarded by the learned court below. The prayer was for restoration of award of the Collector. Heard learned counsel State and perused the relevant referred record. There is no dispute that Government had issued a policy on 6.4.2007, whereby the minimum rates as were fixed in the year 2005 for acquisition of land were revised. The relevant extract of policy, dated 6.4.2007, is as under:- "Sub: Fixation of floor rates for the acquisition of land for public purpose in the State of Haryana. Ref: This Department Memo No. 2025-R-5-2005/4299, dated 28.4.2005. Vide this Department Memo. under reference, minimum floor rates for acquiring land for public purposes for various Departments as well as other State Agencies were fixed by the Haryana Government as follows: i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Gurgaon. Rs. 15.00 lacs per acre ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub-Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State. Rs.12.50 lacs per acre. iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State. Rs. 05.00 lacs per acre. (These floor rates did not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894). 2. Now it has been observed that with the passage of time market rates of the land have increased substantially. Therefore, R.F.A. No. 1388 of 2011 3 Haryana Government has re-considered this matter and has decided to re-fix these floor rates as follows: i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Gurgaon. Rs. 20.00 lacs per acre ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub-Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State. Rs.16.00 lacs per acre. iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State. Rs. 08.00 lacs per acre. 3. These floor rates do not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. These revised rates will be applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894." As per the aforesaid letter dated 6.4.2007 the minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State was fixed @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre and the rates are applicable to all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the award was announced by the Collector on 17.1.2006 whereas the policy dated 6.4.2007 comes into force with effect on 22.3.2007. A perusal of aforesaid policies shows that from the year 2005 to 2007 the State of Haryana itself had increased the value of the land by 60% in the area in question i.e. from ` 5,00,000/- to ` 8,00,000/- per acre. These revised rates are applicable on the awards announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 23.8.2005 and the award by the Collector was announced on 17.1.2006. A perusal of the aforesaid policies shows that after a gap of nearly two years, the minimum compensation payable for acquisition of land was enhanced @ 30% per annum or the price as shown in 2005 is 37.5% less than the price shown in the year 2007. This is evident of rising prices of land on which there is lot of pressure in recent times because of demand for urbanization and other infrastructural facilities. The aforesaid policy letter, in my opinion, can be considered as a piece of evidence R.F.A. No. 1388 of 2011 4 showing the value of the land and considering the fact that the award in the present case was announced about one year prior thereto, a reasonable cut can be applied. Considering the aforesaid factors, in my opinion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of appeals filed by the State will not affect the merits of the appeal of the landowners, in case filed by them. The same shall be considered independently. 18.3.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge