RFA No. 276 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 276 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 3.2.2011 Mohinder Singh and others .....Appellants vs State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. J. S. Thind, Mr. Ashok Verma, Mr. P. S. Jammu, Mr. B. S. Mittal, Mr. P. K. Ganga, Advocates, and Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the land owners. Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the following appeals bearing RFA Nos. 276, 834 to 838, 938, 1323 to 1326, 1540 to 1547, 2981, 2982, 3003 to 3012, 3149, 3204, 3205, 3569, 4840 to 4842, 5048, 5049 of 2009, filed by the landowners and RFA Nos. 1001 to 1005 of 2010 filed by the State, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The landowners have filed the aforesaid appeals seeking compensation for severance of the land and damages for the standing crop which was allegedly destroyed on account of acquisition of land. Whereas by filing appeals the State is seeking reduction in the amount of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 25.2.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'), sought to acquire land situated in villages Madhosinghana and Shekhukhera, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa. The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 13.6.2005 for village Shekhukhera and on 3.2.2006 for village Madhosinghana. RFA No. 276 of 2009 -2- The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre for both the villages vide awards dated 22.3.2006 and 2.5.2006 for villages Shekhukhera and Madhosinghana, respectively. Dissatisfied with the awards of the Collector, the landowners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide awards dated 23.10.2008 and 14.1.2009 for villages Shekhukhera and Madhosinghana, respectively, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 8 lacs per acre. Now both the parties are in appeal before this court. Learned counsel for the landowners submitted that the only claim made by the landowners in the appeals filed by them is pertaining to damages on account of severance of the land and for the standing crop which was destroyed on account of acquisition of land. However, they were not able to refer to any evidence produced on record by the landowners to justify their claim regarding severance of land and also regarding damages to the standing crop. On the other hand, learned State counsel in the appeals filed by the State submitted that notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of land of aforesaid both villages was issued on 25.2.2005. The award for the land of village Shekhukhera was announced on 22.3.2006 and of village Madhosinghana on 2.5.2006. He submitted that inspite of there being no evidence on record, the learned court below has increased the compensation from ` 5 lacs to ` 8 lacs per acre. For the purpose of determination of market value of the land the reliance was placed upon the policy of the State Government dated 6.4.2007. It was applicable where the award was announced by the Collector on or after 22.3.2007. Compensation in those cases was to be assessed @ ` 8 lacs per acre. In the present case, the award was announced on 22.3.2006 for the land of village Shekhukhera and on 2.5.2006 for the land of village Madhosinghana. The reliance on the aforesaid policy was totally misplaced. As regards the claim made by the landowners regarding award of compensation for severance and damages to the standing crop is concerned, learned counsel for the State submitted that there being no evidence produced on record by the landowners no amount on that account should be awarded. RFA No. 276 of 2009 -3- A perusal of the cases decided by learned court below shows that 34 land references pertaining to village Madhosinghana and 27 land references of village Shekhukhera, were decided by the learned court below. However, a perusal of the cause list shows that the State is in appeal only in 5 cases. On checking of records entered in computer, it is found that there are 8 other appeals filed by the State bearing RFA Nos. 4743 to 4750 of 2010, which are fixed for hearing on 16.3.2011. Besides that, learned counsel for the State does not have any information about any other appeal filed, impugning the awards of the learned court below which are dated 23.10.2008 and 14.1.2009. Meaning thereby that the State has challenged the award of the learned court below only in 13 cases as against 61 land references decided by it. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the landowners seeking compensation on account of severance or on account of damages to the crop standing as for the same no evidence has been referred to at the time of hearing to justify the claim pertaining thereto. Even otherwise the amount of compensation awarded by the learned court below is a bit on higher side if considered on the basis of evidence produced on record. As far as the claim made in the appeals filed by the State seeking reduction in amount of compensation is concerned, this court is unable to accept the plea considering the fact that the State has chosen to challenge the award of the learned court below only in 13 cases out of total 61 land references decided by the court below. The State cannot be permitted to discriminate in payment of compensation or be selective in challenging the award of the learned court below seeking reduction in the compensation. This issue has already been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mahadev vs The Asstt. Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer, (1994-2004) (Vol. II) Supreme Court Judgments on Land Acquisition 1658. It was opined therein that in case the State accepts the award of the Reference Court or any other court in one of the cases, there was no reason to reduce the amount of compensation in case of other land owners in the appeals filed by the State in those cases. Similar view was expressed by this court in RFA No. 4263 of 1998 –Makhan Singh and others vs Collector Land Acquisition, Industries Department and RFA No. 276 of 2009 -4- others, decided on 26.7.2010 and RFA No. 2269 of 2005- Baldev Singh vs State of Punjab decided on 28.10.2010. The appeals filed by the State are dismissed solely on this account. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeals are dismissed. 3.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge