R.F.A. No. 1664 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: July 20,2010 1 ) RFA No. 1664 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Gaje Singh and others .....Respondents 2 ) RFA No. 1665 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Smt. Devi and others .....Respondents 3 ) RFA No. 1666 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Balbir and others .....Respondents 4 ) RFA No. 1667 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Pehlad Singh and others .....Respondents 5 ) RFA No. 1668 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Prem Nath and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 1664 of 2009 [2] 6 ) RFA No. 1669 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Mahavir Singh and others .....Respondents 7 ) RFA No. 1670 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Balbir and others .....Respondents 8 ) RFA No. 1671 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Prem Singh .....Respondent 9 ) RFA No. 1672 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Daya Ram and another .....Respondents 10 ) RFA No. 1673 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Mool Chand and another .....Respondents 11 ) RFA No. 1674 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Smt. Shanti Devi and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 1664 of 2009 [3] 12 ) RFA No. 1700 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Ravi Chand Garg and another .....Respondents 13 ) RFA No. 1701 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Naunad Ram and others .....Respondents 14) RFA No. 1702 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Mahavir and others .....Respondents 15 ) RFA No. 1703 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Mahavir and others .....Respondents 16 ) RFA No. 1704 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Sukhbir and others .....Respondents 17 ) RFA No. 2254 of 2009 (O&M) Mahavir Singh and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents R.F.A. No. 1664 of 2009 [4] 18 ) RFA No. 2255 of 2009 (O&M) Balbir and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 19 ) RFA No. 2256 of 2009 (O&M) Balbir and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 20) RFA No. 2257 of 2009 (O&M) Smt. Shanti Devi and another .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 21 ) RFA No. 3364 of 2009 (O&M) Ajit .....Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents 22 ) RFA No. 3623 of 2009 (O&M) The State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Amit Kumar and others .....Respondents R.F.A. No. 1664 of 2009 [5] 23 ) RFA No. 4633 of 2009 (O&M) Amit Kumar and another .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the land owners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned 23 appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. In the appeals, filed by the State, prayer is for reduction in the amount of compensation for the acquired land. In the appeals, filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1664 of 2009. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 16.3.1998, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 46.04 acres of land, situated in village Unchagaon, Hadbast No. 76, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad for institutional, residential and commercial purposes for Sector 62, Faridabad. The same was followed by notification dated 26.2.1999, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') awarded compensation @ ` 7,82,070/- per acre for the acquired 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 @ ` 600/- per square yard. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that value of the land, as assessed by the learned court below, deserves to be increased further considering the evidence produced on record by the landowners, which has not been given due weightage. The court has merely relied upon the value as R.F.A. No. 1664 of 2009 [6] determined in the earlier judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 2501 of 2001—Ved Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 3.5.2006, whereby the value of land acquired vide different notification in the vicinity in May, 1995 was determined and thereon increase @ 12% per annum was granted considering the fact that the notification under Section 4 of the Act, in the present case was on 16.3.1998. To substantiate the plea seeking enhancement of compensation, it was submitted that award of increase @ 12% per annum is not sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was submitted that first acquisition pertaining to land of village Unchagaon was carried out vide notification dated 23.11.1992. The value of land for this acquisition was assessed at ` 291/- per square yard vide judgment dated 26.8.1999 in R.F.A. No. 3502 of 1998—Ved Parkash and others v. State of Haryana and another. Subsequent thereto, another acquisition was made in the same village vide notification issued in May, 1995. The value of land acquired vide this notification was assessed at ` 450/- per square yard in Ved Pal's case (supra). The value of land determined in the aforesaid two acquisitions, where the gap was about 2-1/2 years, shows increase of 150/- per square yard, i.e., ` 63.60 per square yard per year. The acquisition in the present case being about three years after May, 1995 acquisition, the land owners are entitled to increase at the same rate which will come out to ` 190/- per square yard and adding that amount in ` 450/- per square yard, i.e., the value determined for acquisition carried out vide notification issued in May, 1995, the same will come out to ` 640/- per square yard. It was further mentioned that judgment of this Court in Ved Pal's case (supra) was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6343 of 2008 –State of Haryana and others v. Ved Pal and others, was dismissed on 13.2.2009. In the alternative, it was submitted that keeping in view the strategic location, future potential and the fact that the area in the vicinity was being developed after acquisition starting from the year 1992, the land owners should not be granted increase for the intervening period merely @ 12% per annum, rather, it should be atleast 15% per annum. Reliance was placed upon Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun v. Bipin Kumar and another etc., 2004(1) SCC 283. Last but not the least, while summing up his contentions, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below even though calculated the amount of compensation while granting increase @12% per annum at ` 603/- per square yard, but rounded off the same to ` 600/- per square yard, R.F.A. No. 1664 of 2009 [7] which should have been on the higher side and not the lower. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the basis on which enhancement has been granted by the learned court below considering the time gap in the notifications is the judgment of this Court in Ved Pal's case (supra). The same having been upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the State cannot possibly dispute the basis for assessment of compensation. The only dispute is as to at what rate the enhancement thereon should be granted by this court, whether it has to be @ 12% per annum or @ 15% per annum or the difference in rates in terms of the value as assessed for acquisition carried out vide notification dated 23.11.1992 and May, 1995. According to the learned counsel, increase should not be more than ` 5/- per square yard per year. Any amount granted more than that deserves to be declared illegal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The undisputed facts on record are that the learned court below had relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ved Pal's case (supra) while determining the compensation for the land in question. The judgment relied upon has been upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The basis for assessment of compensation is not disputed by the State. There is a time gap of about 2 years and 10 months in the two notifications. The learned court below has granted increase on the value as assessed in Ved Pal's case (supra) @ 12% per annum, which is the normal increase granted for any time gap in two acquisitions in case the value is assessed on the basis of the value of the land determined for any earlier acquisition. No fault as such can be found with the principle so applied by the learned court below. The method by which the land owners are seeking enhancement of compensation will not be safe to be relied upon as no sale transaction as such has been referred to by the land owners to justify their claim. The sale deeds, which have been produced on record by the land owners, pertain to small plots, which may be located either on road or in abadi, whereas the acquisition is for a big chunk of land measuring 46.04 acres. To justify increase at an abnormal rate, the land owners were required to produce cogent evidence of the actual sale transactions in the area regarding comparative land, which has not been done in the present case. As far as contention of learned counsel for the land owners regarding rounding off the amount of compensation on the lower side is concerned, the difference being quite meager and the learned court below having exercised its discretion in that regard, in my opinion, the same also does not call for any interference by this court at this stage. R.F.A. No. 1664 of 2009 [8] For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeals are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge July 20,2010 mk