Hardev Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Mr. P. S. Jammu for Mr. P. K. Ganga, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 3831, 3832, 3856 to 3865, 3880 to 3886, 3960, 4134, 4135, 4136, 4153, 4154, 4467 to 4469, 4495, 4523, 4524 of 2007; R.F.A. Nos. 660 to 664, 716, 1810, 2002 to 2008, 2877, 3225, 3226, 4880, 4881, 5382 of 2008; and R.F.A. Nos. 793, 2085 to 2088, 2662 to 2664, 2679, 2901, 3406 to 3409 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated

23.7.2002, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 71.84 acres of land, falling in the revenue estates of villages Ottu, Chak Sahiba, Moujdin, Madho Singhana and Mallekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa, for construction of Kasawa Minor from RD 0 to 40200. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') assessed the market value @ ` 1,35,000/- per acre for nehri land of village Chak Sahiba and ` 1,30,000/- per acre for villages Moujdin, Madhosinghana, Mallekan and Ottu; ` R.F.A. No. 3831 of 2007 [2] 1,10,000/- per acre for chahi land and ` 70,000/- per acre for barani land of village Mallekan; ` 1,25,000/- per acre for chahi land and ` 50,000/- per acre for sailabi land of village Ottu. 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 as under: ........................................................................................................................................ Sr. No. Name of village Nehri per acre Barani Chahi per acre per acre per acre Sailabi ..............................................................................................................

5. Chak Sahiba Moujdin 2,00,000/- 2,00,000/- Madho Singhana 2,00,000/- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mallekan Ottu 2,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 1,00,000/- 2,00,000/- 1,90,000/- -- 75,000/-” ................................................................................................................................... Learned counsel for the land owners raised a solitary argument that notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 23.7.2002, whereby land pertaining to five villages was acquired. Prior thereto, vide notification dated 9.5.2000, acquisition was carried out for construction of Darba Ghaggar Drain, for which besides number of other villages, land pertaining to villages Ottu and Madho Singhana was also acquired. The same was subject- matter of appeal before this Court in R.F.A. No. 3733 of 2007-- Subhash Chand alias Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 14.1.2010, whereby award of the learned court below granting compensation of ` 4,00,000/- and ` 3,10,000/- per acre for villages Ottu and Madho Singhana respectively was upheld. It was further submitted that even subsequent thereto vide notification dated 24.3.2003, land of the aforesaid two villages was acquired. The compensation awarded therein by granting increase @ 12% per annum for the time gap, was also upheld in the aforesaid judgment by this court. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, it was submitted that the compensation payable for the land acquired in villages Ottu and Madho Singhana be fixed in terms thereof. No claim was made on account of damages for severance. As far as other villages, namely, Chak Sahiba, Moujdin and Mallekan are concerned, no argument was raised. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is nothing on record to show from where the aforesaid two drains were passing in R.F.A. No. 3831 of 2007 [3] the villages to compare the award of compensation to the land owners pertaining to two different acquisitions, as the value of land in one village at two locations/ places can be different. He further submitted that in the set of present appeals, even the land owners had demanded merely ` 3,50,000/- per acre as compensation, whereas for village Ottu, this court had awarded ` 4,00,000/- per acre for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 9.5.2000 and ` 3,10,000/- per acre for village Madho Singhana. Once the land owners had themselves claimed merely ` 3,50,000/- per acre, there is no question to award compensation more than that. On a query by the court, as to whether judgment of this Court in Subhash Chand alias Subhash Chander's case (supra) has been accepted by the State or the appeal has been preferred against the same, the submission was that as on date, there is no proposal for filing the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. As far as valuation of land for villages Ottu and Madho Singhana is concerned, in my opinion, the earlier judgment of this court in Subhash Chand alias Subhash Chander's case (supra) pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 9.5.2000 can very well be relied upon as a binding judicial precedent. The acquisition of land in both the cases was for construction of drain and minor, which pass through the interior of the villages. The land would be comparable as far as its value is concerned. Considering the fact that there is gap of two years in the acquisition in the case of Subhash Chand alias Subhash Chander's case (supra) and the present case, the land owners herein would be entitled to increase @ 12% per annum. After addition, the amount of compensation would come out to ` 3,84,400/- per acre for village Madhosinghana and ` 4,96,000/- per acre for village Ottu. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. As far as contention raised by learned counsel for the State that one of the land owners had claimed lesser amount, I do not find any merit therein, as the court on the basis of the evidence produced on record found that the land owners are entitled to more amount of compensation. Mere statement of one of the rustic villager would not deprive the court from assessing fair value of the acquired land. As far as valuation of land pertaining to other three villages, namely, Chak Sahiba, Moujdin and Mallekan is concerned, there being no evidence on record to justify any increase in the amount of compensation, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the learned court below. R.F.A. No. 3831 of 2007 [4] The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. September 14,2010 (Rajesh Bindal) Judge