R.F.A. No. 1692 of 2001 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1692 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision: September 20, 2010 Moti Lal and another .. Appellants v. State of Haryana and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: S/ Shri Harsh Kinra, S.P. Khatri, Rahul Vats, G. S. Dhaliwal for M. L. Sharma, Mahipal Singh for Ashish Kapoor, Rishab Mahajan for Harkesh Manuja, and Ms. Sarpreet Kaur for S. S. Narula, Advocates for the land owners. Shri Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Shri J. C. Malik, Advocate for K. L. Suneja, Advocate for Haryana Urban Development Authority. Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 360, 403, 404, 617, 619, 690, 783 to 785, 947, 963, 1692 to 1695, 1992, 2000, 2023, 2164, 2715, 3387, 3471, 3829, 3953, 3968, 4418, 4706 and 5167 of 2001; R.F.A. Nos. 3556 and 4202 of 2002 and R.F.A. No. 1404 of 2005 as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land. 3. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1692 of 2001. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 6.5.1992, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), land measuring 84.20 acres, situated in village Patti Musalman, Hadbast No. 174, Tehsil and District Sonepat was acquired for development as residential and commercial area at Sonepat. The same was followed vide notification dated 5.5.1993, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for R.F.A. No. 1692 of 2001 [2] short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 17.11.1994, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 3,75,000/- per acre for Chahi and Gair Mumkin kind of 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 @ ` 125/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that value of the acquired land, as assessed by the learned court below, is not just and fair considering the evidence produced on record by the land owners. In fact, vide separate notification of the same date adjoining land falling within the revenue estate of village Jamalpur Kalan was acquired for which even the Collector assessed the value @ ` 250/- per square yard. The aforesaid award was ultimately upheld. The reasoning adopted by the leaned court below to discard the award of the Collector himself by stating that the land in question is located in three different pockets, in fact has no legs to stand as the situation in three different pockets would certainly mean that these were small portions of land. Further it was a fact that the area in the vicinity had already been developed. In fact, the acquired land is in the surrounding of Sector 15, which had already been developed by Haryana Urban Development Authority. 6. Further reliance was placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3677 of 2010 --Udho Dass v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 21.4.2010. In the aforesaid case, a bunch of appeals arising out of the judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1718 of 2001 –Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 24.9.2007 pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 17.5.1990 of village Patti Musalman and were decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the compensation was assessed @ ` 225/- per square yard. The acquisition in the present case was carried out two years later. The land owners should be awarded increase at least @ 15% per annum thereon, considering the appreciation of prices in the area which was developing at a very fast pace being part of the National Capital Region. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the award pertaining to other acquisition should not be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land, when there is other independent evidence available on record. In the present case, the land owners produced sale deed (Ex. P6) on record, which is pertaining to two biswas, vide which land was sold at an average price of ` 220/- per square yard. The aforesaid sale deed dated 15.1.1986 was registered on 21.2.1986. Even if increase @ 12% per annum is R.F.A. No. 1692 of 2001 [3] awarded thereon till the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the amount shall come out to ` 378/- per square yard and after applying a reasonable cut thereon, considering the fact that it was for a very small portion of land and appreciation of prices in the area during that period was not that fast as was in the recent years, the award of the learned court below does not call for any interference. 8. He further submitted that location of the land pertaining to village Jamalpur Kalan, for which the Collector assessed the compensation @ ` 250/- per square yard is better, as the same is adjoining the road and surrounded by already developed Sector 15. 9. On behalf of Haryana Urban Development Authority, even the counsel was not available. A proxy counsel merely handed over a slip for getting the presence of the counsel marked after the arguments were concluded. He may not even have been authorised to address arguments. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. 11. As far as location of the land is concerned, the land pertaining to village Patti Musalman is located adjoining to the land of village Jamalpur Kalan. No doubt, the total land acquired vide notification in question is in three pockets. On a query by the court at the time of arguments, it was pointed out that the area around that had already been acquired and developed as Sector 15 by Haryana Urban Development Authority. It is also a fact that some part of the land of village Patti Mussalman was acquired by the State vide notification dated 17.5.1990 for development as Sector 12. The issue regarding valuation of land pertaining to the aforesaid acquisition was subject matter of appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Udho Dass's case (supra), wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court referring to the acquisition of land pertaining to village Jamalpur Kalan vide notification dated 6.5.1992, where the award of the Collector himself was ` 250/- per square yard, assessed the value of the acquired land @ ` 225/- per square yard considering the fact that acquisition in that case was two years prior thereto. 12. Once it is a fact established on record that for the land pertaining to village Patti Musalman acquired vide notification dated 17.5.1990, Hon'ble the Supreme Court assessed the value @ ` 225/- per square yard and also for the land of adjoining village, namely, Jamalpur Kalan, acquired vide notification of the even date, as in the present case, the award of the Collector himself was ` 250/- per square yard and further the fact that land close to the acquired land was already developed, I do not find any good reason to deny the land owners herein R.F.A. No. 1692 of 2001 [4] compensation at the same rate, as was awarded for the land acquired vide notification dated 6.5.1992 for the land of village Jamalpur Kalan. 13. Accordingly, the impugned award of the learned court below is modified to the extent that the value of the acquired land is assessed @ ` 250/- per square yard. The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act. 14. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 – Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue the same directions in the present set of appeals as well. The same are as under: “With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it appropriate to issue following further directions: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, who shall get in touch with all the land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. (ii) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.” 15. The appeals are disposed of to the extent mentioned above. 16. Before parting with the judgment, this court is constrained to again notice the conduct of the Haryana Urban Development Authority in prosecuting and defending their cases. The case in hand was not different than the other cases, which came up for hearing before this Court, where Haryana Urban Development Authority even though a party before the learned reference court did not lead any evidence. Even before this court, a counsel who appears for Haryana Urban Development Authority does not address any argument and it is only the State R.F.A. No. 1692 of 2001 [5] counsel who addresses the arguments and the counsel for Haryana Urban Development Authority gets his presence marked, possibly only to justify his fee bill. 17. The allottees of the plots, who have to bear the burden not only of the enhanced compensation but also the litigation expenses, should not be dealt with by Haryana Urban Development Authority in the manner, it is being done. Under the garb of taking care of interest of the allottees, lot of hue and cry is raised, but in fact it is merely an eye-wash. Earlier also, this Court came across similar situation in R.F.A. No. 3008 of 2008—Smt. Poonam v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 25.2.2009 and observed as under: “This court is constrained to comment upon the conduct of the State as well as HUDA for the reason that even though they had notice of the fact that the land owners had produced on record various sale deeds showing the consideration paid therein ranging from Rs. 12,00,000/- to Rs. 80,00,000/- per acre, no documentary evidence was led by the State or HUDA to rebut this evidence. In many cases, earlier HUDA had been raising hue and cry that while determining the compensation payable for the land acquired for their use and benefit, for which though they have to bear the burden of enhanced compensation, no opportunity of hearing is afforded to them. What is generally seen is that practically no evidence is led by HUDA in any of the cases before the Reference Court and similar is the position with regard to addressing arguments before the higher courts, where they follow the State. It is probably for the reason that burden of enhanced compensation is permitted to be passed on to the allottees of the plots carved out in the area acquired. The fact cannot be disputed that even though the State is the custodian of the records of registration of sale deeds. All the sale deeds, which are registered in any area acquired subsequently are available with the Registrar. In spite of the State, being in custody of the record, it is generally seen that no effort is made by the State to produce on record the best evidence before the Court. Many a times, it is seen that the officials of various departments appear as witnesses for the land owners deposing in their favour even in oral evidence”. 18. In R.F.A. No. 69 of 2000 –Ram Kumar (Advocate) v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 22.9.2008, though it was a large acquisition made for use by Haryana Urban Development Authority, but at the time of arguments, R.F.A. No. 1692 of 2001 [6] counsel for Haryana Urban Development Authority did not think it appropriate to put his appearance, what to talk of arguments. 19. Recently in R.F.A. No. 2130 of 2010 – State of Haryana and another v. Hari Om and others, decided on 24.8.2010, where the appeal had been filed by the State impugning the award of the learned reference court after a delay of 230 days. Haryana Urban Development Authority was impleaded as proforma respondent. It is claimed by Haryana Urban Development Authority that it takes care of the interest of the allottees while prosecuting and defending the litigation. Meaning thereby that even Haryana Urban Development Development Authority found the award of the learned reference court to be reasonable, as no appeal was filed by it. In fact, no exception could be made to the award in that case for the reason that the learned court below in that case had assessed the compensation for small left over portion of the land acquired subsequently on the basis of value of big chunk of land acquired in the area after awarding increase @ 12% per annum thereon. Haryana Urban Development Authority thought it appropriate to put in appearance even in the appeal filed by the State where it was impleaded as proforma respondent and also file reply to the application for condonation of delay filed by the State. Another important fact is that at the time of hearing, no one had appeared for Haryana Urban Development Authority. 20. Another glaring example is engagement of private counsels by the State at the cost of Haryana Urban Development Authority to prosecute the appeal for the reason that cases are not dealt with by the Advocate General's office properly. However, even though it was well within the knowledge of the authorities that compensation for the land pertaining to that acquisition had already been reduced by this court, but still no steps were taken to re-file the appeals for a period of 8 years and 251 days, resulting into huge loss for which apparently Haryana Urban Development Authority is least bothered, as they exercise their right to shift the burden of enhanced compensation as well as litigation expenses on the allottees of the land. It is high time that some one at the helm of affairs takes notice of all these lapses and consequently corrective steps. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 20, 2010 mk (Refer to Reporter) R.F.A. No. 1692 of 2001 [7]