Madan Lal v. State of Haryana

Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. S. K. Jain, Mr. Akshay Jain, Mr. P. S. Jammu, Mr. Satbir Gill, and Ms. Divya Godara, Advocates, for the landowners. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order shall dispose of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 5357 to 5362, 5444, 5446 to 5448, 5455, 5456, 5698, 5699 of 2008, RFA Nos. 61, 112, 2938 to 2942, 4436 to 4441, 4511, 5076 to 5079, 5580 of 2009, RFA Nos. 1048, 1049, 1083 to 1089 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. The land owners have filed the appeals against the impugned award seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals the State of Haryana is seeking reduction thereof. The facts of the case are that vide notification dated 7.6.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), State of Haryana acquired land situated within the revenue estate of village Mallekan, Tehsil and District Sirsa, for consruction of Kasba Sub Minor. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') vide his award dated 2.3.2005 assessed the market value of the acquired land at different rates. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the landowners filed objections which were referred to the learned Court below. The learned Reference Court assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ ` 5,00,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the award of the learned court below, both the parties are in appeal before this court. RFA No. 5357 of 2008 ( 2) Learned Counsel for the land owners submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence led by the land owners on record while determining the fair value of the acquired land. It was submitted that the court below has not granted compensation to the landowners as per policy Ex. P-5, dated 6.4.2007. He further submitted that learned Court below has erred in law while not granting any compensation to the land owners for bifurcation/severance of their land due to the construction of Kasba Sub Minor as value of the remaining land has been decreased due to the bifurcation. Due to construction of minor, the land was divided into two parts and it has become difficult for them to cultivate the same. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State submitted that learned Court below has awarded just and fair compensation as per the policy, Ex. P-6, dated

28.4.2005. The policy, Ex. P-5, dated 6.4.2007 is applicable only where the awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007. It was further submitted that due to construction of drain/minor/ canal, the value of the land in the area always increases and not decreases as has been argued by the learned counsel for the landowners. In view of the evidence led by the landowners, no case for any further increase is made out. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. As far as value of the acquired land is concerned, the same has been assessed by the learned court below while relying upon the policy dated 28.4.2005, Ex. P-6. As far as policy, Ex. P-5, dated 6.4.2007 is concerned, the same was made applicable only for those acquisitions where the awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007. The relevant extract of policy, Ex. P-5, 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 RFA No. 5357 of 2008 ( 3) 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." The land in the present case was acquired on 7.6.2004 and the award by the Collector was announced on 2.3.2005. The State Government according to the policy, Ex. P-6, dated 28.4.2005, had fixed minimum rates of the land for the area in question @ ` 5,00,000/-, which were granted by the learned court below. Since the court below has determined the market value of the acquired land as per the policy of the State Government, no case for interference in the valuation of market price of the acquired land is made out as there is no other independent evidence to justify any further increase. Accordingly, the award of the learned court below to that extent is upheld. In so far as grant of severance to the landowners is concerned, I find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the landowners. It cannot be doubted that due to construction of canal/minor, it becomes difficult for the landowners to irrigate their field and cultivate other portion of land. In my opinion, considering the difficulties being faced by the landowners for the acquisition of this type, damages to the tune of 20% of the value of the acquired land would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the landowners are held entitled to damages on account of severance @ 20% on the value of the acquired land. They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

10.11.2010 vs. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge