RFA No. 724 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 724 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision 13.12.2010 State of Haryana ...Appellant vs Smt. Chandero and others ...Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. None for the landowners. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order shall dispose of appeal bearing RFA No. 724, 725, 746 and 751 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. State of Haryana has filed the aforesaid appeals against the impugned award seeking reduction of the compensation awarded to the landowners. The bunch of appeals pertain to the valuation of land measuring 18.55 acres acquired for the purpose of excavating Padana Bas Link Drain vide notification dated 26.7.2006 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') by the State of Haryana, pertaining to Village Buwana, Tehsil Julana, District Jind. The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 14.9.2006. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre for all kinds of land vide award dated 30.1.2007. The land owners being dissatisfied with the award of the Collector filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. The learned Reference Court assessed the compensation of the acquired land of the land owners @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre vide award dated 29.9.2008. Aggrieved against the award of the learned court below, the State is in appeal before this court. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that learned Court below has not given any reasoning while determining the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land. He further argued that there is no site plan produced on record by the land owners to show where the land pertaining to sale deeds relied upon by them is located. He further submitted that learned Court below has erred in law while granting ` 8,00,000/- per acre as price of the acquired land on the basis of P-14/A, the policy issued by the State Government on 6.4.2007 because the notification under Section 4 in RFA No. 724 of 2009 (2) the case in hand was issued on 26.7.2006. Therefore, the policy cannot be applied retrospectively, as the same was applicable only for the acquisitions carried out subsequent thereto. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the relevant referred record. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 26.7.2006 and the award was announced by the Collector on 30.1.2007. There is no dispute that Government has issued a policy on 6.4.2007 (Ex. P- 14/A), whereby the minimum rates as were fixed for acquisition of land were further revised. The relevant extract of policy, Ex. P-14/A, dated 6.4.2007, is as under:- "Sub: Fixation of floor rates for the acquisition of land for public purpose in the State of Haryana. Ref: This Department Memo No. 2025-R-5-2005/4299, dated 28.4.2005. Vide this Department Memo. under reference, minimum floor rates for acquiring land for public purposes for various Departments as well as other State Agencies were fixed by the Haryana Government as follows: i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Gurgaon. Rs. 15.00 lacs per acre ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub- Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State. Rs.12.50 lacs per acre. iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State. Rs. 05.00 lacs per acre. (These floor rates did not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894). 2. Now it has been observed that with the passage of time market rates of the land have increased substantially. Therefore, Haryana Government has re-considered this matter and has decided to re-fix these floor rates as follows: i) Minimum floor rate for urbanisable area of Gurgaon. Rs. 20.00 lacs per acre ii) Minimum floor rate for rest of the Haryana Sub-Region of NCR inlcuding Panchkula and area of Chandigarh periphery in the Haryana State. Rs.16.00 lacs per acre. iii) Minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State. Rs. 08.00 lacs per acre. 3. These floor rates do not include the solatium and interest payable under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 4. These revised rates will be applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894." RFA No. 724 of 2009 (3) In my opinion, the aforesaid letter can be considered as a piece of evidence because as per the policy letter the minimum floor rate for the rest of the Haryana State was fixed @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre and the rates are applicable on all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007 irrespective of date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the award was announced by the Collector on 30.1.2007 whereas the policy Ex. P-14/A comes into force with effect on 22.3.2007 just about 2 months later. In my opinion, the policy, Ex. P-14/A can very well be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of compensation for the acquired land for the reason that the process to frame or revise a policy starts in advance, finalisation thereof takes time. Two months difference is not much. Even otherwise, the acquisition in the present case was for the purpose of excavating Padana Bas Link Drain. The landowners have not been awarded any amount on account of severance though their land has been divided into two parts. Further this court while considering the question of determination of market value of land of village Buradehar acquired vide notification of the same date for the same very purpose has upheld the award of the court below granting compensation @ ` 8,00,000/- per acre vide judgment dated 15.10.2010, passed in RFA No. 337 of 2009 – Maha Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others. Considering the aforesaid factors, in my opinion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 13.12.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge