RFA No. 2130 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RFA No. 2130 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.8.2010 State of Haryana and another ..... Appellants vs Hari Om and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. None for respondents no. 1 to 7. None for respondent no. 8- HUDA/performa respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. The State of Haryana has filed the present appeal before this court against the award of the learned court below passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') seeking reduction of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana vide notification dated 12.8.2003 issued under Section 4 of the Act, acquired 0.89 acres of land situated in revenue estate of Village Jharsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, for development and utilisation thereof as residential, commercial and institutional area of Sectors 40, 45 and 46, Gurgaon. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award no. 2 dated 7.6.2004, assessed the market value of land @ ` 12 lacs per acre. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below determined the market value @ ` 551/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. A perusal of the paper-book shows that the court below had determined the market value of the acquired land in the present case while relying upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhim Singh and others vs State of Haryana and another, Ex. R-1, vide which the market value of the land acquired vide notification dated 20.4.1990 was determined. The land in the present case was acquired vide notification dated 12.8.2003. Considering the time gap between two notifications, the court below granted increase @ 12% per annum. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the State that the land in the present case is the small left out portion otherwise big chunk of land was acquired earlier and had even been developed by HUDA. Keeping in view these facts, it cannot be said that the value assessed by the learned court below is on higher side. RFA No. 2130 of 2010 (2) Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently the applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling of appeal are also dismissed. Before parting with the order this court would like to comment on the conduct of respondent no. 8/ HUDA. A perusal of the memo of parties shows that HUDA was impleaded as one of the respondents in the appeal specifically mentioning therein that it is performa respondent. Meaning thereby that no relief is claimed against HUDA, which otherwise also could not be claimed therein in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellants as well as respondent no. 8 were co- respondent before the learned court below in the reference petition. Inspite of the fact that HUDA was not contesting respondent, the HUDA authorities thought to appear by filing reply to the application for condonation of delay praying therein that it does not have any objection to the condonation of delay. As for what purpose the HUDA had put in appearance in the appeal is best known to the officers who thought it appropriate to defend the present appeal by putting in appearance in court. Still the fact remains that it was only the reply which was filed in the registry and at the time of hearing no one had appeared for the HUDA. It is also experienced many a times that in the cases either before the court below or before this court where some action in true sense is required, either there is no representation or even if there is representation, the same is just formal. In the court below either no evidence is led or before this court no arguments are addressed. In fact which is experienced is that time and money is wasted in frivolous litigation instead of utilising the same in cases where it is required to be used. It is high time that HUDA, which is a public authority should have some introspection in the manner they are conducting cases. In fact HUDA seems to be least bothered for the reason that they have the right to pass on the burden of enhanced compensation as well as the litigation expenses to the plot holders. Earlier also this court in RFA No. 3008 of 2008 -Smt. Poonam vs State of Haryana and another, decided on 25.2.2009, while seeing the conduct of HUDA had made certain observations which are extracted below:- “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 RFA No. 2130 of 2010 (3) 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.” It is not only that the manner in which the HUDA is conducting its litigation is commented upon by this court, even the manner of development activities carried out by HUDA was also commented upon by this court earlier in The Ambala Urban Estate Welfare Society, Ambala City vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and another 1994 (3) PLR 630. The relevant extract of the same are as under:- “In the present case, the respondents had promised the prospective buyers that modern amenities “amenity” inter alia includes “roads, drainage, sewerage, open spaces, parks, land-scaping and play-fields”. There was thus an obligation to provide all these amenities. Still further, under Section 15, the authority is competent to dispose of the land without carrying out any development or after such development as it thinks fit. The Statute defines “development” to include “Engineering Operations”. This expression has been defined in Section 2 (j) to include “laying out of means of access to a road or the laying out of RFA No. 2130 of 2010 (4) means of water supply, drainage, sewerage or ...” In the present case, though the plots were transferred in the year 1973, the respondents did not hand over possession for about seven or more years thereafter. Apparently, this time was spent in the development of the area. It is also clear that before fixing the price of the lots, the cost of carrying out all kinds of development works had been worked out and taken into account. The allottees of the plots have paid more than the assessed price and yet they have not been provided most of the amenities which were not only promised but are basic in any civilised society which guarantees right to life as a fundamental right.” In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Administration, Haryana Development Authority, Panchkula, . 24.8.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge