R.F.A. No. 3541 of 2006, [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 3541 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: September 14, 2010 Nand Ram and others ... Appellants vs. State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Mr. M. K. Mittal, and Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. H. S. Hooda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for HSIIDC Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order will dispose of the following appeals: R.F.A. Nos. 3541 and 3542 of 2006; R.F.A. Nos. 2983, 3179 to 3192, 3194, 3195, 3206 to 3209, 3212, 3237 to 3256, 3257, 3259, 3260, 3464, 3494, 3495, 3504, 3554 to 3557, 3959, 3960, 3962 to 3969, 3996 to 4032, 4071 to 4077, 4115 to 4123, 4134, 4180 to 4185, 4225 to 4242, 4442 to 4492, 4618, 4936 to 4943, 4992, 4993, 5123, 5577 and 5581 of 2009; R.F.A. Nos. 400 to 405, 552 TO 555 OF 2010 and Cross Objections Nos. 24-CI to 27-CI, 29-CI, 32-CI to 35-CI, 41-CI, 47-CI to 51-CI, 57-CI, 68-CI, 76-CI, 140-CI, 142-CI, 147-CI, 149- CI, 154-CI, 159-CI and 160-CI of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. In the appeals and cross-objections filed by the land owners, the prayer is for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. 3. In the appeals filed by Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, `the Corporation'), the prayer is for reduction in the compensation awarded to the land owners for the acquired land. R.F.A. No. 3541 of 2006, [2] 4. The acquisition of compact block of land in the present set of appeals is pertaining to six villages, namely Chirhara, Suthani, Jalalpur, Suthana, Asalwas and Jaliawas, Tehsil Bawal in District Rewari. FACTS Acquisition regarding village Chirhara 5. Vide notification dated 11.12.1995, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 249 kanals and 4 marlas of land in village Chirhara, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari for development as Industrial Growth Centre at Bawal. The same was followed by notification dated 24.1.1996, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed compensation @ ` 1,43,000/- per acre for Chahi and Gair Mumkin land; ` 1,15,000/- per acre for Barani land; ` 1,65,000/- per acre for land upto the depth of two acres of the road and ` 6,00,000/- per acre upto the depth of two acres on National Highway No. 8. 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 @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre upto the depth of 500 yards on both sides of National Highway No. 8 as well as State Highway (Rewari-Bawal road) and ` 4,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land. Acquisition regarding village Jaliawas 6. Vide same notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 503 kanals and 2 marlas in village Jaliawas, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari was acquired for the same purpose. The same was followed by notification dated 24.1.1996, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector assessed compensation @ ` 1,10,000/- per acre for chahi land; ` 94,000/- per acre for barani land; ` 1,43,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land; ` 1,54,000/- per acre upto the depth of two acres on both sides of the road and ` 6,00,000/- per acre upto the depth of two acres on both sides of National Highway No. 8. 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 @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre for the land falling upto the depth of 500 meters on National Highway No. 8 and 71 and ` 4,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land. Acquisition regarding village Suthani 7. Vide same notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 104 kanals and 4 marlas in village Suthani, Tehsil Bawal, District R.F.A. No. 3541 of 2006, [3] Rewari was acquired for the same purpose. The same was followed by notification dated 24.1.1996, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector assessed compensation @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi land; ` 94,000/- per acre for Barani land; ` 1,50,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land and ` 1,54,000/- per acre upto the depth of two acres near the road. 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 @ ` 3,50,000/- per acre. Acquisition regarding villages Asalwas and Suthana 8. Vide same notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land in villages Aswalwas and Suthana, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari was acquired for the same purpose. The same was followed by notification dated 24.1.1996, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land in the aforesaid villages as under: “Village Amount awarded per acre in ` ................................................................................................................................. Asalwas 1,25,000/- per acre for chahi land; 6,00,000/- per acre upto the depth of two acres on both sides of National Highway No. 8. Suthana 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi land; 72,000/- per acre for Banjar land; 1,54,000/- per acre upto the depth of two acres of the road; 6,00,000/- per acre upto the depth of two acres on the Highway. 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 @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre upto the depth of 500 yards on both sides of National Highway No. 8 and State Highway No. 71 (Rewari Bawal road) and ` 4,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land. Acquisition regarding village Jalalpur 9. Vide same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 116 kanals and 14 marlas in village Jalalpur, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari was acquired for the same purpose. The same was followed by notification dated 24.1.1996, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector assessed compensation @ ` 1,10,000/- per acre for chahi land and ` 1,43,000/- per acre for R.F.A. No. 3541 of 2006, [4] Gair Mumkin 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 @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre. 10. The land owners as well as the Corporation preferred appeals against the award of the learned court below. This Court vide detailed judgment in R.F.A. No. 703 of 2003 –Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation and others v. Mehar Chand and others, decided on 6.9.2006 remanded the matters back with a direction to the learned court below for fresh determination of market value of the acquired land on the basis of evidence already led by the parties. On remand, the learned court below, vide different awards, assessed the market value of the acquired land for different villages at different rates, the details of which are as under: ................................................................................................................................... Name of the village Amount awarded per acre in ` .............................................................................................................................. Chirhara 8,00,000/- per acre upto 500 yards on National Highway No. 8 and Rewari- Bawal road. 4,00,000/- per acre for remaining land. Suthani 4,00,000/- per acre for all types of land. Jaliawas 8,00,000/- per acre upto 500 yards on National Highway No. 8 and Rewari- Bawal road. Suthana and Asalwals 8,00,000/- per acre upto 500 yards on National Highway No. 8 and Rewari- Bawal road. 6,00,000/- per acre Jalalpur 4,00,000/- per acre for all types of land.” Arguments 11. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that acquisition of large chunk of land was carried out pertaining to six villages. Prior to this, vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 10/12.9.1992 (hereinafter referred to as ` the 1992 acquisition') land pertaining to nine villages was acquired, which included present six villages as well. He submitted that the sale deeds, which were produced by the land owners in evidence, were pertaining to small pieces of land. Even if those were to be relied upon considering the fact that the land pertaining thereto formed part of the acquired land, a reasonable cut was required to be applied. In the alternative, it was submitted that this court vide R.F.A. No. 3541 of 2006, [5] judgment dated 23.8.2010 in R.F.A. No. 3323 of 2005 –Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation and another v. Gindori and others, has already assessed the value of the acquired land pertaining to the 1992 acquisition. As there was a time gap of three years and three months, the land owners, at the best, should be granted increase @ 12% per annum thereon. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that sale deeds (Ex. P3 to Ex. P5) pertained to the acquired land. In terms of settled position of law, the same are best pieces of evidence. No cut was required to be applied, as is sought to be argued by learned counsel for the Corporation for the reason that more than 3 years prior to the acquisition in the present case, large chunk of area was acquired for development as industrial estate and with development activities, when infrastructural facilities were being provided, the prices of land in the area shoot up. Even otherwise, the acquisition in the present case was pertaining to small pockets of land which were left out of the earlier acquisition. These pockets are located at different places and some of them are even located within the outer boundary of the land acquired in the year 1992. In fact, considering the acquisition of large chunk of land in the area and also the fact that small portions within the outer boundary of the acquired land were left out at that time for the reasons best known to the State, the buying and selling activity in the area was restricted and the transactions were in the kind of distress sale. It was also for the reason that some of the persons, whose land had been acquired, filed C.W.P. No. 6211 of 1994—Bhoop Singh v. The State of Haryana and others in this court challenging the acquisition in the area inter alia on the ground of discrimination. On account of that fact, the land owners, whose land had not been acquired in the first round, had their fingers crossed as the status of their land was not very clear. In fact, real value of the land in the area is evident from the fact that the Collector himself for the land abutting National Highway No. 8 had enhanced the compensation thereof from ` 2,00,000/- to ` 6,00,000/- per acre. In fact, this was the kind of appreciation of prices in the area. The land owners should be granted compensation for the entire chunk of land, irrespective of its quality by granting increase in the same proportion, even if the judgment of this Court in Gindori's case (supra) is considered. 13. The aforesaid argument was sought to be buttressed while referring to subsequent acquisition of small portion of 16 kanals and 12 marlas of land pertaining to village Jaliawas, which was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 24.5.1996, where the Collector himself awarded compensation for the land abutting National Highway No. 8 at ` 9,00,000/- per R.F.A. No. 3541 of 2006, [6] acre and for chahi kind of land @ ` 3,00,000/- per acre. It was increase of 50% for chahi kind of land from the acquisition in question, where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued merely six months prior thereto on 11.12.1995. As far as land on National Highway No. 8 is concerned, the increase was to the tune of 173%. The aforesaid facts show the fast pace at which the value of the land in the area was increasing considering its potentiality. 14. In view of the contentions of learned counsel for the landowners, learned counsel for the Corporation was asked to explain as to on what basis the award of the Collector was announced for the acquisition in question, where there was increase in the value of land abutting National Highway No. 8 to the tune of 200% and for the land located on Rewari-Bawal road, it ranged from 2.67% to 32%. There was large variation even in the increase pertaining to other qualities of land of different villages. Further, the award pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 24.5.1996 pertaining to the land of village Jaliawas was also confronted, where the increase within the period of six months, as compared to the acquisition in question, was 50% as far as land on National Highway No. 8 is concerned and for chahi kind of land, the same was 173%. Mr. Hooda, learned senior counsel, while categorically stating that he does have any justification for the award of the Collector as far as the land pertaining to the acquisition in question is concerned. However, the submission was that the value of land is required to be determined on the basis of evidence led by the parties. The award of the Collector should not be considered as such. As regards acquisition vide notification dated 24.5.1996 is concerned, the submission was that the award pertaining thereto is not part of the record, however, the correctness thereof was not doubted, where substantial increase was granted in the value of land within a period of six months. 15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. Discussions 16. The undisputed facts on record are that a large chunk of land measuring 8,789 kanals and 11 marlas pertaining to nine villages was acquired by the State vide notification dated 10/12.9.1992. A perusal of the site plan produced by learned counsel for the Corporation in court at the time of hearing shows that small pockets of land evidently ranging even from a few marlas and going upto a few acres was acquired subsequently vide notification dated 11.12.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Act. Otherwise, the acquisition of land was carried out in September, 1992. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid portion of land was either R.F.A. No. 3541 of 2006, [7] not acquired earlier or released from acquisition for the reasons best known to the authorities. Some of the land owners challenged the acquisition inter-alia on the ground of discrimination. However, this Court in C.W.P. No. 6211 of 1994 – Bhoop Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 29.5.1995, while not finding merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the land owners for quashing the notification of acquisition carried out in the year 1992, directed that left over or released land be acquired immediately. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is extracted below: “In view of the above, we do not find any substance in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed subject to the direction that the respondents should immediately initiate action for acquisition/re-acquisition of the lands exempted from acquisition/ released from acquisition by taking proceedings under the Act. The appropriate steps should be taken by the respondents within five months and a report should be submitted to this court by December 12, 1995 on which date the case shall be listed before this Court.” 17. It was only thereafter that pockets of land left out in the earlier acquisition, for which apparently there is no explanation available, was notified for acquisition. 18. In the scheme of the Act, the Collector has been assigned very important role in the process of acquisition of land. Beginning from Section 4 of the Act, where the preliminary notification is issued regarding acquisition of land. After the same is published in the official gazette, the Collector has been assigned the duty to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. Under Section 5A of the Act, any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4 of the Act, has been given right to file objections to the acquisition. These objections are to be made to the Collector in writing and the Collector is required to afford personal hearing to the person who has filed objections or his pleader. After hearing such objections, the Collector is required to make such further enquiry, if necessary, and make a report regarding the same to the appropriate government containing his recommendations on the objections for decision. After consideration of the report, a notification under Section 6 of the Act is issued and the Collector is again required to perform the duty assigned to him regarding publication of its notice in the area where the land is situated. Section 7 of the Act provides that whenever any land has been declared to be needed for a public purpose, the appropriate government or such other authorised officer shall direct the Collector to take order R.F.A. No. 3541 of 2006, [8] for acquisition of the land. Section 8 of the Act assigns the duty on the Collector to mark the acquired land, get the same measured and a site plan prepared. 19. Under Section 9 of the Act, another important function assigned to the Collector is that a public notice is required to be given at convenient places stating that the government intends to take possession of the land and the land owners are asked to submit their claims for compensation for the interests in land. The persons interested in the land are required to appear personally or through an agent before the Collector for the purpose. The Collector is also required to serve notice on the occupiers of the land. 20. As far as valuation of the land is concerned, Section 11 of the Act is most important. It provides that the Collector is required to consider objections regarding the measurement and value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. After considering the respective claims of the parties, he is required to make an award regarding --- (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land and (iii) the apportionment of said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 provides that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate government or such other officer authorised in this behalf. 21. Under Section 12 of the Act, the award of the Collector is considered to be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, regarding true area, value of the land and apportionment of compensation among the persons interested. Notice of the award is required to be given to the persons interested, who were not present before the Collector in person or through attorney. Section 15 of the Act provides that in the matter of determination of compensation, the Collector is to be guided by the provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. The appropriate government has the right to call for the record of the Collector to satisfy itself as regards its legality or propriety before announcement of award by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. 22. Where a person interested in the acquired land has not accepted the award, he may by written application to the Collector require that the matter may be referred by the Collector for determination of fair value of the land to the court. While making reference to the Court, the Collector is required to provide certain specific information in writing in terms of Section 19 of the Act. Sections 23 and R.F.A. No. 3541 of 2006, [9] 24 of the Act provide for certain para-meters/factors to be considered and neglected for the purpose of determination of fair value of the land, may be by the Collector or the Court. It would be appropriate to extract the same as under: “Matters to be considered in determining compensation.- (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the court shall take into consideration - first, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1); secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, moveable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly, If, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. (1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation.-- In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the R.F.A. No. 3541 of 2006, [10] acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded. (2) In addition to the market-value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. 24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation.-- But the Court shall not take into consideration -- first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition; secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired; thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit; fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put; fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired; sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put; seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of the land acquired, commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the