RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 18.10.2011 The State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Balwinderjit Singh ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1573 of 2010(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Joga Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1574 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Sukha Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1575 of 2010(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Amrik Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1576 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Paramjit Singh ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1577 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Sukhpal Singh ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 2 RFA No.1578 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Baldev Singh ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1579 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Sumali Chawla ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1580 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Jaspal Kaur ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1581 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Opinder Singh ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1582 of 2010(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Amrik Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1583 of 2010(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Amrik Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 3 RFA No.1584 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt. Prem Kanta and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1585 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Khajan Singh ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1586 of 2010(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Amrik Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1587 of 2010(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Amrik Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1588 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Balwant Singh and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1589 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 4 Sain Dass and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1590 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Karamjit Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1591 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Mohtam Singh ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1592 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt. Pritam Kaur and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1593 of 2010(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Amrik Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1594 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt.Prem Kanta and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1595 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 5 Darshan Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1596 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Gurcharan Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1597 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Gurcharan Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1598 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Sukhchain Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1599 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Puran Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1600 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Gurcharan Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1601 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 6 Swaran Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1602 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt. Tej Kaur and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1603 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt. Tej Kaur and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1604 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Gurcharan Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1605 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Gurcharan Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1606 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Darshan Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1607 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Ajit Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 7 RFA No.1608 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Gian Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1609 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Swaran Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1610 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Swaran Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1611 of 2010(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Suka Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1612 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Amrik Kaur ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1613 of 2010(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt.Dalbir Kaur ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1614 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Raja Chattar ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 8 RFA No.1615 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Hardeep Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1616 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Varinder Kumar and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1617 of 2010(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Charan Kaur and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1618 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Jaswinder Singh ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1619 of 2010(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Pyara Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1620 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Gram Panchayat and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1621 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Amrik Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 9 RFA No.1622 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Amrik Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1623 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt. Santosh Kaur ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1870 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Puneet Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1871 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Jit Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.1872 of 2010(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Amrik Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.3864 of 2010(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Balbir Singh and anr. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 10 Present: Mr. H.S. Lalli, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.V.K. Jindal, Advocate Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate, Mr. Maninder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate, Ms. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate for the respondent- claimants. Mr. D.V. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate for HUDA. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This judgment shall dispose of 56 Regular First Appeals filed on behalf of the State of Haryana as common question of law and facts is involved in all these appeals which have arisen out of same acquisition proceedings culminating into one common award of the Reference Court dated 11.8.2009 which is under challenge on the ground that the market value of the acquired land in question has been assessed at a higher rate. Pursuant to the Haryana Govt. Notification No. LAC(P) NTLA/2002/31 dated 2.1.2002 published in Haryana Govt. (Extra Ordinary) Gazette dated 2.1.2002 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and by subsequent Notification NO.LAC (P)-NTLA-2002/11550 dated 24.12.2002 published in Haryana Govt. (Extra-ordinary) Gazette of the same date under section 6 of the Act, the Haryana Govt. decided to acquire the land measuring 344.31 acres in village Budha Khera, Hadbast No.1, Tehsil and District Karnal for public purposes i.e. for development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area for sector 9 Part 32 and 33 part in Urban Estate, Karnal. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award No.22 for the year RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 11 2004-2005 assessed compensation @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre for all kinds of land along with statutory benefits. Feeling aggrieved from the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondent/landowners filed Reference Application under Section 18 of the Act which were referred to the Reference Court. The Reference Court on the basis of evidence on record found that the acquired land had high potential for development and taking into consideration the acquisition made in the previous years and a judgment of this Court Ex.P25, which pertains to the land acquired for Sector-9, Karnal, wherein market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 22.6.1982 was assessed at ` 51 per sq.yard and further finding that there was a rising trend in the prices of plots sold in the vicinity, assessed the market value of the land in question at ` 439/- per sq.yrd on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 2.1.2002 by giving yearly increase at the rate of 12% per annum and passed the impugned award. It is relevant to mention that the judgment of this Court dated 5.10.2007 (Ex.P25) passed in RFA No.1933 of 1988 has become final and the compensation in the instant case has been assessed taking the market value as determined by this judgment at ` 51 per sq.yrd as basic value of the acquired land on the date of notification i.e. 22.6.1982 in the said case. The learned State counsel could not dispute the applicability of judgment dated 5.10.2007 (Ex.P25) passed in RFA No.1933 of 1988 for the acquired land in the instant case. Learned counsel for the appellant could also not dispute the findings of the Reference Court to the effect that the acquired land has great potentiality for development and there was a rising trend of the prices in the vicinity of the acquired land. It is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 12 Court in the case of Udho Dass versus State of Haryana 2010 (94) AIC 58, wherein it has been held as under: “It is common knowledge, that even these payments do not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum increase which Courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matter hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case. Be that as it may, we must assume that the landowners were entitled to the compensation fixed by the High Court on the date of the award of the Collector and had this amount been made available to the landowners on that date, it would have been possible for them to rehabilitate their holdings in some other place. This exercise has been defeated for the simple reason that the payment of compensation has been spread over almost two decades. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a landowner is entitled to say that if the compensation proceedings continued over a period of almost 20 years as in the present case, the potential of RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 13 the land acquired from him must also be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years if the evidence so permits and cannot be limited to the near future alone. We, therefore, feel that in the circumstances, the appellants herein were fully entitled to say that the potential of the acquired land had not been fully recognized by the High Court or by the Reference Court. We must add a word of caution here and emphasize that this broad principle would be applicable where the possession of the land has been taken pursuant to proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to those cases where land is already in possession of the Government and is subsequently acquired.” Further reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in The General, Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, 2009 (1) PLR 494 wherein it has been held as under : “Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors – situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban and semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 14 high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalation in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.” Keeping in view the aforesaid findings and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, no fault can be found in the order of the Reference Court RFA No.1572 of 2010(O&M) 15 granting 12% yearly increase to the claimants from the date of notification i.e 22.6.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in RFA No.1933 of 1988 and up to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in the instant case i.e. 2.1.2002. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in these appeals. Dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected appeals. October 18, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE