RFA No.6362 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.6362 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 18.10.2011 State of Haryana and others ......Appellant(s) Versus Surjit Singh and others ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6363 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Vidya Devi and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6364 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Phool Singh and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6365 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Surjit Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6366 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Surjit Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6367 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Ram Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6362 of 2011 2 RFA No.6368 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Jeet Ram @ Ranjit Singh ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6369 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Harinder ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6370 of 2011(O&M) Haryana State and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Attar Singh and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6371 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Sada Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6372 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt.Ratni Devi and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6373 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Ishwar Singh and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6362 of 2011 3 RFA No.6374 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Parveen Singh ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6375 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Sewa Ram and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6376 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Surjit Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6377 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Yatinder Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6378 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Jasmer Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6379 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt. Parmeshwari Devi and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6362 of 2011 4 RFA No.6380 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Dilbagh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6381 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt. Rajwati and anr.. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6382 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Dev Parkash and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6383 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Surjit Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6384 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt. Sinder Kaur @ Sikander Kaur ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6385 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Prithvi Singh and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6362 of 2011 5 RFA No.6386 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt. Braham Wati and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6387 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Vidhya Devi and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6388 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt. Shakuntala and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6389 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Mahinder Singh and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6390 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Jai Dev and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6391 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Ishwar Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6362 of 2011 6 RFA No.6392 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Baldev Singh ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6393 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Baljeet Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6394 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Karta Ram and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6395 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Raghbir Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6396 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Multan Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6397 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Narain Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6398 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Narain Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6362 of 2011 7 RFA No.6399 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Raghbir Singh and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6400 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Surjit Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6401 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Karam Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6402 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Om Parkash and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6403 of 2011(O&M) The State of Haryana and ors. ......Appellant(s) Versus Bharto Devi ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6404 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and ors. ......Appellant(s) Versus Fakir Chand and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6405 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Atam Parkash ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6362 of 2011 8 RFA No.6406 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Surjit Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6407 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Surjit Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6487 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Kamla Devi and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6488 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Faqir Chand and anr. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6489 of 2011(O&M) The Land Acquisition Collector, Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Rajbir and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6490 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Hawa Singh ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6491 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Lakhvinder Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6362 of 2011 9 RFA No.6492 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana ......Appellant(s) Versus Shamsher Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) RFA No.6493 of 2011(O&M) State of Haryana and anr. ......Appellant(s) Versus Raghbir Singh and ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. H.S. Lalli, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This judgment shall dispose of 53 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 24.7.2009 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 155.17 acres in Karnal Hadbast No.1, Tehsil and District Karnal for public purposes i.e. for development and utilization RFA No.6362 of 2011 10 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.24 for the year 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.R-1), 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 useful to refer to para No.9 of the grounds of appeal of the appellant-State which reads thus: “That in this case the market value of the acquired land has been assessed by the learned Reference Court by relying upon the earlier judgment dated 5.10.2007 Ex.R-1 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.1933 of 1988. Against the above mentioned judgment dated 5.10.2007, no SLP has been filed by the State of Haryana.” Thus, the judgment of this Court dated 5.10.2007 (Ex.R-1) passed in RFA No.1933 of 1988 has become final and the compensation RFA No.6362 of 2011 11 in the instant case has been assessed taking the market value as determined by this judgment at ` 51/- per sq.yrd as base 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.R-1) 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 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 RFA No.6362 of 2011 12 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 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 RFA No.6362 of 2011 13 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 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 RFA No.6362 of 2011 14 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 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 this appeal. Dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. October 18, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE