RFA No.1686 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RFA No.1686 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.12.2010 **** State of Haryana through Collector Karnal and others . . . . Appellants Vs. Ram Pal and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.H.S. Hooda, A.G. Haryana with Mr.Anjum Ahmed, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the appellants. Mr.S.K. Rana, Advocate for the respondents (in RFA Nos. 1686,1687,1693,1694,1695,1706,1710,1712, 2047,2048,2049,2050,2055,2056, 2062, 2063,2071,2073,2206 and 2207 of 2010) Mr.Suman Jain, Advocate with Mr.Man Mohan, Advocate for the respondents (in RFA Nos.2044, 2046, 2051, 2054, 2057, 2058, 2062, 2064, 2067, 2069, 2070, 2072, 2210 of 2010) Mr.H.N. Sahu, Advocate for the respondents (in RFA Nos.1688 to 1692, 1696 to 1700, 1702 to 1704 of 2010) Mr.Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents (in RFA Nos.1709 and 1711 of 2010) Ms.Maninder Kaur, Advocate for Ms.Sonia G. Singh,Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4,6&7 (in RFA No.2212 of 2010) None for the respondents (in RFA Nos.1701,1705,1707, 1708, 2045,2052,2053,2059, 2060,2061,2065,2066,2068,2211 of 2010) **** RFA No.1686 of 2010 (O&M) -2- RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of a bunch of 62 appeals, namely, RFA Nos.1686 to 1712, 2044 to 2073, 2206, 2207, 2210 to 2212 of 2010 all filed by the State of Haryana challenging the award of the learned reference Court in respect of the acquisition of land of village Uplana and Salwan in Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal. It would be pertinent to mention here that all the appeals were admitted and were fixed for consideration of application for stay. At this stage, learned counsel for the State has very fairly brought to the notice of this Court that in respect the same acquisition and award of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal pertaining to other villages namely, Phaphrana and Rattak, the State had also filed appeals which have been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The brief facts of this case are that vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 9.8.2005 followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 12.9.2005, land measuring 44.58 acres of village Uplana, Hadbast No.78, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal was acquired, which was actually found at the spot as 45.54 acres, for the public purpose, namely, for the construction of BML Hansi–Butana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel from RD 268712 to 334212. The Land Acquisition Collector, Karnal (for short ‘the Collector) vide his award No.9 for the year 2005 dated 28.12.2005 assessed the market value of the acquired land in two categories, namely, `6 lacs per acre for Nehri and Chahi and `7 lacs per acre for Gair Mumkin. Besides this, compensation was also awarded towards tube-wells and some trees. The landowners claimed `35 lacs per acre in their objections filed under Section 18 of the Act in which the learned reference Court re- assessed the compensation @ `8 lacs per acre for Nehri & Chahi and `9 lacs per acre for Gair Mumkin land besides awarding other statutory benefits in terms of the amended Act. Similarly, vide the same notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 54.64 Acres of land situated in village Salwan, Hadbast No.95, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal, which was actually RFA No.1686 of 2010 (O&M) -3- found at the spot as 55.70 acres, was acquired for the same public purpose, from RD 268712 to 334212. The Collector vide his award No.3 for the year 2006 dated 16.2.2006 assessed the market value of the acquired land in two categories, namely, `6 lacs per acre for Nehri and Chahi and `7 lacs per acre for Gair Mumkin land which was revised by the learned reference Court vide its impugned order dated 11.11.2009 to a sum of `8 lacs and `9 lacs, respectively, besides awarding other statutory benefits as per the amended Act. In both the cases, the learned reference Court had relied upon the earlier award in LAC case No.179 of 2006 titled as Lakhmi Chand Vs. Haryana State and others, which was pertaining to village Phaphrana. That the State of Haryana had challenged the correctness of the award of the learned reference Court in respect of the acquisition of land of village Phaphrana which was acquired by the same notification in which compensation awarded by the Collector and the learned reference Court was also the same by way of RFA No.3926 of 2008 titled as Haryana State and others Vs. Lakhmi Chand, which was dismissed by this Court on 10.08.2010 as a result of which, the amount awarded by the learned reference Court was maintained. Similarly, the State of Haryana had also challenged the award of the learned reference Court in respect of the acquisition of land of village Rattak, Hadbast No.76, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal by way of RFA No.1237 of 2009 titled as State of Haryana and others Vs. Mangat Singh and another which was also dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 28.10.2010 on the basis of order passed in RFA No.3926 of 2008 titled as Haryana State and others Vs. Lakhmi Chand decided on 10.8.2010. It is also pertinent to mention here that the claimant, with respect to the acquisition of village Phaphrana namely, Maman Singh had filed RFA No. 5582 of 2008 titled as Maman Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and others which was also dismissed in terms of the order passed by this Court in RFA No.3926 of 2008 titled as Haryana State and others Vs. Lakhmi Chand decided on 10.8.2010. In view of the aforesaid facts, which have not been disputed by both the counsel for the parties and especially when there is no RFA No.1686 of 2010 (O&M) -4- other ground pressed by learned counsel for the State for reducing compensation awarded by the learned reference Court or any evidence which has not been taken into consideration by the coordinate Bench of this Court at the time of dismissal of those appeals of Village Phaphrana and Rattak, I do not find any reason to disturb the order of the learned reference Court in respect of the acquisition of Village Salwan and Village Uplana for the purpose of reducing the compensation already determined. Hence, the appeals filed by the State of Haryana only, with regard to the acquisition of land of village Uplana and Salwan, in which the compensation has been determined by the learned reference Court to the tune of `8 lacs per acre for Nehri & Chahi and `9 lacs per acre for Gair Mumkin, are dismissed and the award of the learned reference Court in this regard is maintained. It is also pertinent to mention here that along with these appeals there are some other appeals filed by the claimants pertaining to Village Uplana and Salwan. On the last date of hearing, this Court had directed the Registry to list all the cases together namely, the appeals filed by the claimants as well. Hence, some of the appeals filed by the claimants are listed today out of which, in one of the case namely, RFA No.3535 of 2010, claimants have filed application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) in which notice has been issued by this Court to the State of Haryana separately. Thus, the appeals filed by the claimants are not being decided as the claimants are claiming compensation on the basis of additional evidence over and above the order passed by this Court in the case of land relating to village Phapharana and Rattak. With this clarification, appeals filed by the State are hereby dismissed whereas appeals filed by the claimants in respect of village Salwan and Uplana are hereby ordered to be segregated, which will be decided separately. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 23.12.2010 JUDGE Vivek