RFA No. 2625 of 2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.4.2009 (1) R.F.A. No. 2625 of 2000 (O&M) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Mulakh Raj and others ...Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 2626 of 2000 (O&M) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Kala Singh and others ...Respondents (3) R.F.A. No. 2627 of 2000 (O&M) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Murari Lal and others ...Respondents (4) R.F.A. No. 2628 of 2000 (O&M) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Jarnail Singh and others ...Respondents (5) R.F.A. No. 225 of 2001 (O&M) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Som Dutt and others ...Respondents (6) R.F.A. No. 226 of 2001 (O&M) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Pawan Kumar (deceased) through LRs & others ..Respondents RFA No. 2625 of 2000 [2] (7) R.F.A. No. 227 of 2001 (O&M) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Parmod Kumar and others ...Respondents (8) R.F.A. No. 228 of 2001 (O&M) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Parmod Kumar and others ...Respondents (9) R.F.A. No. 686 of 2001 (O&M) Kala Singh and others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents (10) R.F.A. No. 765 of 2001 (O&M) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Sant Lal and another ...Respondents (11) R.F.A. No. 781 of 2001 (O&M) Jarnail Singh and others ...Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents (12) R.F.A. No. 782 of 2001 (O&M) Murari Lal ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents (13) R.F.A. No. 5746 of 2001 (O&M) Sant Lal ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents RFA No. 2625 of 2000 [3] CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Ravi Mattor, Advocate for Mr. Pawan Mutneja, Advocate for Indian Oil Corporation. Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate for the land owners. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the State. RAJESH BINDAL J This order shall dispose of a bunch of 13 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. R.F.A. Nos. 2625 to 2628 of 2000, 225 to 228 and 765 of 2001 have been filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. R.F.A. Nos. 686, 781, 782 and 5746 of 2001 have been filed by the land owners seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. The facts have been noticed from R.F.A. No. 2625 of 2000. Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 1.7.1994, issued under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short, 'the Act'), the State of Haryana acquired 206 kanals and 3 marlas of land in village Bohli for setting up of Petrol Oil Lubricant Depot. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value of the land at the following rates:- Chahi Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. Brani Rs. 1,40,000/- per acre. Gairmumkin Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre Banjar Kadim Rs. 1,30,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners/claimants filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Court below assessed the market value of the acquired land at uniform rate of Rs. 1,98,000/- per acre. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the Court below had totally failed to appreciate the evidence led by the land owners on record in terms of which the compensation, as has been determined for acquisition of the RFA No. 2625 of 2000 [4] land, deserves to be enhanced. Reference was made to acquisition of land for IBPC, vide which Banjar land was purchased by it on May 16, 1994 @ Rs. 2.50 lacs per acre. The acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated 1.7.1994 and the quality of land was also chahi/nehri for which even more compensation was required to be paid. As against this, the learned Court below has merely relied upon an earlier award pertaining to the acquisition for Indian Oil Corporation, which was carried out nearly one year back and on that increase of 12% has been awarded. The submission is that once just prior to the acquisition in the present case big chunk of land was purchased by another oil company under similar circumstances, the consideration as has been paid therein should be the minimum amount of compensation payable for the acquisition of the land in the present case considering the fact that the land in question is also forming part of revenue estate of village Bohli. Further it was submitted that the area in the vicinity was being developed at a fast pace for the reason that big refinery and petro chemical complex had been set up by the Indian Oil Corporation in village Bohli and the acquisition therefor was made more than a decade before the present acquisition. It was for this reason that all the oil companies were acquiring land in the vicinity of petro- Chemical complex to set up their oil depots. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as HPCL submitted that award pertaining to the acquisition of land by IBPC cannot be made basis for determination of value of the acquired land for the reason that correct value was not shown therein. It was for the reason, as has been noticed by learned Court in the impugned award, that the State persuaded the company to pay more amount as compensation for the land which belonged to Gram Panchayat. The company, which acquired the land, being rich, paid that amount. He further submitted that other sale transactions are pertaining to small pieces of land which cannot as such be relied upon for the purpose of determination of fair value of acquired land which is a large chunk of 206 kanals and 3 marlas. It was further RFA No. 2625 of 2000 [5] submitted that the land which was acquired by IBPC was located at a far off place as compared to the land in question. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the land owners. Once a big chunk of land has been purchased by another oil company for the same purpose and forming part of the revenue estate of village Bohli by private negotiation with the State, I do not find any reason not to rely upon that award for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land in the present case. The reason which was projected by learned counsel for the State before learned Court below and was accepted, cannot stand judicial scrutiny. Nothing lies in the mouth of the State to submit that for the land which was acquired by IBPC, on persuasion, the company had agreed to pay much more amount as compared to market value. There was no good reason therefor. If the land in the vicinity can be purchased by one oil company at a particular price, there is no good reason to differentiate the cases of land owners in the present set of appeals to hold that they would be entitled to the different amount of compensation. Accordingly, in my view, the land owners in the present appeals are also entitled to compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. (RAJESH BINDAL) 15.4.2009 JUDGE mk