R.F.A. No. 3323 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 3323 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: August 23, 2010 Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation and another ... Appellants vs. Gindori and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. H. S. Hooda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for HSIDC. S/Shri Arun Yadav, P.R. Yadav, B. K. Bagri, M.K.Mittal, Sanjay Vashisht, Sudhir Aggarwal, Lokesh Sinhal, Alok Jain, Jaivir Yadav, Shalendra Jain, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order will dispose of the following appeals and the cross- objections: R.F.A. Nos. 3323 of 2005; R.F.A. Nos. 2826 to 2830, 3467 to 3473, 3536 to 3538 of 2006, 1561 to 1605, 1607 to 1636, 1670 to 1689, 1746 to 1765, 1826 to 1848, 2251 to 2277, 2308 to 2326, 2328, 2351, 2666, 2910, 2911, 2916 to 2928, 2961 to 2999, 3015, 3016, 3152 to 3197, 3272 to 3274, 3276, 3345 to 3349, 3352 to 3379, 3671 to 3692, 3693 to 3706, 3739 to 3752, 3834 to 3844, 3900 to 3921, 3923, 3961, 4008, 4009, 4663 to 4675, 4679 to 4686, 4799, 4936 to 4938, 4940, 4941, 4957 to 4973, 5010, 5011, 5034 to 5039, 5041 to 5057, 5059, 5072 to 5095, 5102, 5105, 5106, 5108, 5145 to 5153, 5182, 5183, 5208 to 5210, 5271, 5304 to 5309, 5314, 5321 to 5323, 5576 to 5586, 5594 to 5597, 5599, 5627 to 5630, 5642, 5644, 5692, 5696, 5712, 5720, 5731 to 5739, 5751 to 5757, 5780, 5781, 5811, 5812, 5830 to 5844, 5849, 5850 of 2008; R.F.A. Nos. 98 to 103, 150, 218 to 238, 261, 278 to 281, 284 to 293, 297 to 302, 307, 308, 314, 442 to 445, 583 to 586, 620, 621, 684 to 692, 790, 1253, 1378, 1379, 1495, 1535, 1622, 1698, 1782, 1941 to 1943, 2035, 2298, 2652, R.F.A. No. 3323 of 2005 [2] 2677, 2739 to 2742, 2950, 2951, 3021 to 3024, 3104, 3105, 3152, 3571 to 3575, 4585, 4774, 4832, 4994, 5557 to 5559 of 2009; R.F.A. No. 261 of 2010 and Cross Objections Nos. 76-CI, 77-CI, 79- CI, 80-CI, 82-CI, 89-CI, 90-CI, 123-CI, 124-CI and 125-CI of 2008, 52-CI and 82- CI of 2009 and 2-CI, 4-CI, 5-CI, 6-CI and 66-CI of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. In the bunch, there are some appeals, which arise out of the award of the learned court below, which was subject-matter of appeals in first round of litigation, when the cases were remanded back by this court vide 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. 5. The acquisition of compact block of land in the present set of appeals is pertaining to nine villages, situated in the vicinity, the same being Chirhara, Jaliawas, Suthani, Rudh, Asalwas, Pathuhera, Suthana, Banipur and Jalalpur. Acquisition regarding village Chirhara 6. Vide notification dated 10/12.9.1992, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 8,789 kanals and 11 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 3.9.1993, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide two separate awards dated 12.8.1995 and 25.8.1995, assessed compensation @ ` 1,10,000/- per acre for Chahi and Gair Mumkin kind of land; ` 85,000/- per acre for Barani land; ` 1,25,000/- per acre for land near road on National Highway No. 71 (Rewari-Bawal road) and ` 2,00,000/- per acre upto 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 @ ` 4,80,000/- per acre for the land falling upto the depth of 500 meters on National Highway No. 8 and 71 and ` 3,20,000/- per acre for the land beyond 500 meters on both sides of National Highway No.8 as well as State Highway (Rewari-Bawal road) for all types of land. R.F.A. No. 3323 of 2005 [3] Acquisition regarding village Jaliawas 7. Vide same notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land in village Jaliawas, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari was acquired for the same purpose. The same was followed by notification dated 3.9.1993, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide his award dated 16.6.1994, assessed compensation @ ` 80,000/- per acre for Chahi kind of land; ` 60,000/- per acre for Barani land; ` 40,000/- per acre for banjar kind of land; ` 1,10,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land; ` 2,00,000/- per acre for land on National Highway No. 8 and ` 1,50,000/- per acre on Rewari-Bawal 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 @ ` 3,30,000/- per acre for the land falling upto the depth of 500 meters on National Highway No. 8 and 71 and ` 2,00,000/- per acre for the land beyond 500 meters on both sides of National Highway No.8 as well as State Highway (Rewari-Bawal road) for all types of land. Acquisition regarding village Suthani 8. Vide same notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land in village Suthani, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari was acquired for the same purpose. The same was followed by notification dated 3.9.1993, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide his award dated 9.6.1994, assessed compensation @ ` 80,000/- per acre for Chahi kind of land; ` 60,000/- per acre for Barani land; ` 40,000/- per acre for banjar kind of land; ` 1,10,000/- per acre for 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 @ ` 2,00,000/- per acre for all types of land. Acquisition regarding village Rudh 9. Vide same notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land in village Rudh, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari was acquired for the same purpose. The same was followed by notification dated 3.9.1993, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide his award dated 25.8.1995, assessed compensation @ ` 90,000/- per acre for chahi land; ` 1,40,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land and ` 2,00,000/- per acre for the land falling upto 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 @ ` 4,00,000/- per acre upto 500 meters on both R.F.A. No. 3323 of 2005 [4] sides of National Highway No. 8 and ` 3,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land. Acquisition regarding village Asalwas, Pathuhera and Suthana 10. Vide same notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land in villages Aswalwas, Pathuhera and Suthana, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari was acquired for the same purpose. The same was followed by notification dated 3.9.1993, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide different awards, assessed the market value of the acquired land in the aforesaid villages as under: “Village Amount awarded per acre in ` ................................................................................................................................. Asalwas 90,000/- per acre for chahi land; 85,000/- per acre for barani land 55,000/- per acre for Bhud land 1,35,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land 2,00,000/- per acre for land on National Highway No. 8 upto two acres. Pathuhera 80,000/- per acre for chahi land 70,000/- per acre for barani land 2,00,000/- per acre for land on National Highway No. 8 upto two acres. Suthana 80,000/- per acre for chahi land; 60,000/- per acre for barani land 40,000/- per acre for banjar land 1,10,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land 2,00,000/- per acre for land on National Highway No. 8 upto two acres 1,25,000/- per acre for the land on Rewari-Bawal road. 11. 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 for the land upto the depth of 500 meters on both sides of National Highway No. 8 and State Highway No. 71 and ` 2,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land. Acquisition regarding village Banipur 12. Vide same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land in village Banipur, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari was acquired for the same purpose. The same was followed by notification dated 3.9.1993, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide his award dated 5.6.1994, assessed compensation @ ` 1,00,000/- per acre for chahi land; ` 85,000/-for Bhood land and 90,000/- per acre for Barani 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/- R.F.A. No. 3323 of 2005 [5] per acre for all types of land. Acquisition regarding village Jalalpur 13. Vide same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the land in village Jalalpur, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari was acquired for the same purpose. The same was followed by notification dated 3.9.1993, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide his award dated 25.8.1995, assessed compensation @ ` 80,000/- per acre for chahi land and ` 1,10,000/- per acre for the land falling on both sides of road upto two acres. 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 @ ` 2,20,000/- per acre for land upto the depth of 500 meters on both sides of the road and ` 1,60,000/- per acre for remaining land. 14. The land owners as well as the Corporation preferred appeals against the award of the learned court below. This Court vide detailed judgment in Mehar Chand's case (supra) remanded the appeals 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 5,20,000/- per acre upto 500 meters on National Highway No. 8 and Rewari-Bawal road. 3,20,000/- per acre beyond 500 meters. Jaliawas 3,30,000/- per acre upto 500 meters on both sides of National Highway No. 8 and Rewari-Bawal road. 2,00,000/- beyond 500 meters on both sides of National Highway No. 8 and Rewari- Bawal road. Suthani 2,00,000/- per acre Rudh 4,00,000/- per acre upto 500 meters on both sides of National Highway No. 8. 3,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land. Asalwas, Patuhera and Suthana 3,30,000/- per acre upto 500 meters on both sides of National Highway No. 8 and Rewari-Bawal road. 2,00,000/- per acre for the land beyond 500 meters on both sides of National Highway No. 8 and Rewari-Bawal road. R.F.A. No. 3323 of 2005 [6] Banipur 3,00,000/- for all types of land. Jalalpur 2,00,000/- for land upto depth of two acres on both sides of road. 1,60,000/- per acre for remaining land. Arguments 15. Shri H. S. Hooda, Senior Advocate appearing for the Corporation submitted that the sale deeds, which were produced by the land owners, were pertaining to small pieces of land. Considering the fact that acquisition in the present case was for a large chunk 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 fact, no cut was applied and the value, as has been determined by the leaned court below, is same as is the consideration paid in the sale instances pertaining to small portions of land. In fact, the land at the time of acquisition was being put to agricultural use only. There was no development activity as such in the area. The sale instances produced by the State on record were ignored though the same justified the award of the Collector. It was admitted by the land owners themselves at the time of their cross- examination that at the time of acquisition, the land was being put to agricultural use. Mere location of isolated industries in the area on the main road or electricity sub-station or a petrol pump or railway line in the close vicinity, will not make the land in question as industrial. 16. Additional argument raised by the learned counsel with reference to the land of village Jaliawas is that the learned court below had considered the sale deeds (Ex. P3 to Ex. P9). However, as is evident from the impugned award, no cut was applied considering the fact that the same pertained to small pieces of land. Sale deed (Ex. P3) otherwise was also not required to be considered for the reason that it was registered just close to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It may have been got registered just with a view to claim more compensation. As far as sale deeds (Ex. P4 to Ex. P9) are considered, those were rightly considered by the learned court below. In case sale deed (Ex. P3) is taken out of consideration and the consideration paid in sale deeds (Ex. P4 to Ex. P9) is averaged, the same would come out to ` 2,00,000/- per acre. 17. On the other hand, learned counsels for the land owners, while defending the appeals filed by the Corporation and also seeking further enhancement in the appeals and cross-objections filed by them, submitted that the land is strategically located on National Highway No. 8 leading from Delhi to R.F.A. No. 3323 of 2005 [7] Jaipur and also on National Highway No. 71. In fact, these roads crossed through the acquired land. It is 70 kilometers from Delhi and merely 5 kilometers from Rewari. Number of large industrial units were already operational in the area, namely, M/s Renuka Bhageria Cement Ltd., M/s Gurud Cement Ltd., M/s Mahavir Food Ltd., M/s Haryana Suraj Malt Ltd., M/s Asian Can Ltd. and M/s Haryana Pashupati Woolen Ltd. Bawal town is located quite near to the acquired land, which had already been developed with basic amenities. Infrastructure facilities, like Railway Station, petrol pump and electricity sub-station were already existing. They further submitted that number of sale deeds produced by them on record were pertaining to the land, which was forming part of the acquired land, namely, Ex. P2 to Ex. P8. The learned court below has committed patent error while not considering the aforesaid sale deeds. The value shown therein was ranging from ` 3,20,000/- per acre to ` 5,33,278/- per acre. The genuineness of the aforesaid sale deeds was not doubted by the State. The same having been registered well before the acquisition of land. Rather, the sale deeds (Ex. P2, Ex. P4, Ex. P5 and Ex. P7) having been registered one year or more prior to the date of acquisition, the land owners were entitled to increase in the value shown therein at least @ 12% per annum. 18. Further reliance was placed upon Ex. P22, a brochure issued by the Corporation regarding sale of plots carved out of the acquired land, where the same were sought to be sold @ ` 450/- per square meter, i.e., ` 21,78,000/- per acre. Referring to the aforesaid documents, it was submitted that even if it is considered that the aforesaid plots were sold after some development in the area, a small cut could be applied, but it cannot be to the extent that the value of the land was merely ` 5,20,000/- per acre. It was further submitted that the reason for application of a small cut is that the acquired land was developed into plots of very big size, as some of them were of many acres. In the process, very small portion of land is required for infrastructural purposes, like roads etc. When the area is developed for industrial purposes, there is no need to provide land for schools, community centre etc. The submission was that the land, which was chosen for acquisition by the State was, in fact, the prime land in the area. A perusal of the award of the Collector itself shows that majority of the land abutted the National Highway. It is evident from the site plan on record that the land on both sides of the National Highway was acquired. 19. It was further submitted that the purpose of acquisition was for development thereof as industrial township, for which the basic requirement would be roads, power or railways. All these facilities existed at the spot. In fact, it has R.F.A. No. 3323 of 2005 [8] come in the evidence that number of industrial units were already there. The area was fast developing. This fact was even admitted by the witnesses produced by the State. The plots carved out of the acquired land and sold by the Corporation were ranging from 500 square meters to many acres each. In fact, the sale instances, which have been relied upon by the land owners, were pertaining to the portions of land, which had all the basic amenities. Considering that fact, no cut is required to be applied on the value shown therein. Even otherwise, the submission was that the land owners owned small portions of land, which are to be sold by them or purchased by the subsequent buyer as such. It has to be valued considering that fact. Merely because the State acquired a big chunk of land owned by hundreds of farmers, it cannot be said that the sale instance of a land, which may be equal to the holding of many of the land owners, should not be considered. 20. It was further submitted that even the principle of belting applied by the learned court below for the purpose of assessment of compensation for the acquired land is also required to be done away with, considering the locational advantages, future potential and the existing infrastructural facilities available in the area. The entire chunk of land, which is surrounded by roads and the railway line should be valued at one rate. The depth of the land either from the railway line or from the highway was not that much, which could reduce the value thereof to the extent, as has been done by the learned court below. 21. Learned counsel for the land owners further submitted that as far as location and potential of land pertaining to other villages is concerned, the same is identical with the land of village Chirhara. In fact, a compact block consisting of land of nine villages was acquired vide same notification. The entire land is abutting National Highway No. 8 (Delhi-Jaipur) and Rewari-Bawal road, which was later on converted into a National Highway. The sale deeds, as were produced by the land owners in the cases pertaining to village Chirhara should be considered relevant, for the purpose of determination of value of the entire acquired land. It was further submitted that sale deed (Ex. P3) cannot possibly be ignored for the reason that genuineness thereof was proved on record beyond doubt. The State neither led any evidence nor put a dent in the evidence led by the land owners proving the genuineness of the aforesaid sale deed. Another factor, which is relevant is that it is part of the acquired land. Once there is latest sale deed available on record, which is quite close to the acquisition, the same should be considered relevant and the sale deeds registered prior in time can very well be ignored and should be ignored. R.F.A. No. 3323 of 2005 [9] 22. The fact that there were number of industrial units already established in the area and even the State thought of acquiring the land for the purpose of setting up of industrial estate shows its future potential. The same should be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. In fact, there is no sale deed on record showing the value of the acquired land on the National Highway for which we have to place reliance on the sale deeds pertaining to village Chirhara. He further submitted that once a compact block of land pertaining to different villages is acquired, the value thereof should be assessed at the same rate and not village-wise, as they are contiguous to each other and the area acquired is also not that it goes into a lot of depth from the road, as in the present case, substantial portion of the land is abutting the National Highway and the depth is also not much. It is surrounded by village abadi as well. Number of factories were also existing before the acquisition was carried out. The mere fact that for the acquisition carried out in the year 1995 in the same area, i.e., 3 years after the present acquisition, the Collector himself had determined the value thereof 3-4 times than the value determined earlier itself shows the future potential in the area. At that time, no development as such had taken place as for the first time, the plots were offered for sale in the year 1997-98. Reliance was placed upon Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1992 SC 2298; M/s Printers House Pvt. Ltd. v. Mst. Saiyadan (deceased) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 1994 SC 1160; Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and others, (2005) 12 SCC 564 and Sangunthala (Dead) through LRS v. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and others, (2010) 3 SCC 661. 23. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsels for the land owners regarding reliance on Ex. P22, the brochure issued by the Corporation for sale of plots, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the same cannot be relied upon as such for the reason that it was for sale of plots after development of the area with all basic amenities and infrastructural facilities. The fact cannot be denied that for that purpose, a large chunk of land has to be left and the plotable area is quite small. Further, substantial amount is required to be spent for providing roads, electricity, sewerage, water supply etc. Not only this, the land in question was acquired way back in the year 1992, whereas the plots were offered for sale for the first time in the year 1997-98 and for the intervening period, the Corporation had to bear the burden of interest as well. Considering the aforesaid facts, the price at which the developed plots were sold, cannot possibly be the parameter for assessment of value of the land, which was being put to R.F.A. No. 3323 of 2005 [10] agricultural use at the time of acquisition. 24. No other argument was raised. 25. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused