The High Court
Case Details
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Regular First Appeal No. 4834 of 2009 (O&M) And Other Connected Cases Reserved On: 31.01.2025 Pronounced On: 24.04.2025 Kailash Singh State of Haryana and Others Versus ... Appellant(s) ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal. Present: Mr. Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the appellant(s) (In RFA-4834-2029 to RFA-4838-2009, RFA-4220-2009 and RFA-4348-2011). Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant(s) (In RFA-3983-2009 to RFA-3985-2009 and RFA-4826-2009). Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. Anil Kshetarpal, J. I. 1. Prelude With the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, a batch of 27 connected regular first appeals (the details whereof is given at the foot of the judgment) requiring the Court to assess the market value of the acquired land shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The relevant details of the acquisition are as under:- S.No. 1. Date Particulars 11.10.2002 Notification under Sections 4 of the Land Acquisition DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.04.28 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) Regular First Appeal No. 4834 of 2009 (O&M) And Other Connected Cases 2 S.No. Date Particulars was published proposing to acquire the land for the establishment of Regional Training Complex on the land between Recruits Training Centre and the CRPF for Recruits Training Centre at Bhondsi, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurugram. 2. 05.11.2003 Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued. 3. 24.05.2004 The landowners were offered to pay by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as “the LAC”) in the following manner:- i) ₹5,00,000/- for the Chahi and Gair Mumkin land. ii) ₹3,50,000/- for Magda, Bhood and Banjar land. Iii) ₹50,000/- per acre for Pahad i.e. hill. 4. 06.05.2009 The Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as “the RC”) assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ₹9,31,333/- per acre. II. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Brief Facts The landowners as well as the State of Haryana assail the correctness of the aforesaid award. 4.
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel representing the landowners claim that the RC has erred in assessing the market value as the acquired land is situated near the main Sohna Road and the prime residential projects/colonies known as Malibu Town, Uppals South End, Unitech South City-II, Ashiana Silver Crest Eldeco, Vipuls’s Orchard, Green Unitech’s Uniworld Garden, Omax Floors Vatika City, Parview and Green Villas. Sector 55 and 56 developed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.04.28 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document referred to as “HUDA”) are also located in the vicinity of the acquired land Regular First Appeal No. 4834 of 2009 (O&M) And Other Connected Cases 3 and its market value is not less than ₹6,000/- per square yards. 5. Per contra, the learned State counsel submits that the RC has erred in interfering in the market value assessed by the LAC. 6. In order to prove their case, the landowners have examined the statements of the following witnesses:- Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Witness Number PW.1 PW.2 PW.3 PW.4 PW.5 PW.6 Name of the Witness Kamal Singh Kanshi Ram Dahiya, Draftsman, Court Compound, Gurgaon Braham Jeet Mangat Ram Document Mohinder Kumar, Writer, Tehsil Compound, Sohna, District Gurgaon. Y.D.Adlakha, Chartered Registered Valuer, Gurgaon. MIE, Engineer FIV, and 7. On the other hand, the State has examined Tejbir Singh, ASI, Legal Cell, RTC Bhondsi as RW.1 and Daya Chand, Revenue Patwari, Halqa Bhondsi as RW.2. 8. The RC has relied upon the market value of the land in the same village assessed as on 19.06.1996 in the award (Ex.P6) @ ₹5,30,000/-. The Court, after granting 12% increase for a period of six years three months and 22 days uniformly assessed the market value of the acquired land ₹9,31,333/-. In fact, this increase has been calculated on the base price of ₹5,30,000/- which was determined as on 19.06.1996 for acquiring the land measuring 35 acres 1 kanal and 1 marla land for setting up of the Liquid Petroleum Gas Plant. The RC also excluded the sale instances No. 1341 dated 06.09.2001 (Ex.R1) and No. 2217 dated 18.02.2000 (Ex.R2) from the DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.04.28 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document consideration on the ground that these sale instances reflect the amount Regular First Appeal No. 4834 of 2009 (O&M) And Other Connected Cases 4 lower than as offered by the LAC. 10. At this stage, it is significant to take note of the following details of the acquired land:- Rectangle No. 3 4 Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Khasra No. Land Measuring Type of Land 6/1 10 11 12 13 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24/1 1K-19M 1K-17M 8M-0M 5K-7M 1K-6M 3K-5M 8K-8M 8K-0M 8K-0M 7K-11M 6K-1M 6K-14M 4K-2M Chahi Chahi Chahi Chahi Chahi Chahi Chahi Chahi Chahi Chahi Chahi Chahi Chahi 11. The tabulated compilation of the various sale deeds produced by the parties is drawn as under:- Sr. No. Exhibit No. Sale deed and No. Date 1. Ex.PW.3/1 914/ Sale Consideration (In ₹ ) Per Acre Price (In ₹ ) Area Rectangle No. 4,90,000/- 34,08,695/- 1K-3M 09.07.1997 2. Ex.PW.3/2 965/ 4,80,000/- 34,90,909/- 1K-2M 15.07.1997 3. Ex.PW.3/3 1074/ 4,80,000/- 13,71,429/- 2K-16M 07.08.2001 4. Ex.PW.3/4 1075/ 4,80,000/- 13,47,368/- 2K-17M 07.08.2001 5. Ex.PW.3/5 1513/ 4,80,000/- 13,47,368/- 2K-17M 28.09.2001 6. Ex.PW.3/6 1438/ 95,00,000/- 51,35,135/- 14K-16M 17.09.1997 100 100 100 100 100 35 7. Ex.PW.4/1 2650/ 6,58,000/- 10,75,102/- 4K-18M 3//10/1 19.03.2002 8. Ex.PW.4/2 2651/ 5,64,000/- 10,75,238/- 4K-4M 19.03.2002 9. Ex.PW.4/3 2652/ 14,31,000/- 10,74,930/- 10K-13M 3 3 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.04.28 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19.03.2002 Regular First Appeal No. 4834 of 2009 (O&M) And Other Connected Cases 5 Sr. No. Exhibit No. Sale deed and No. Date 10. Ex.PW.5/1 2201/ Sale Consideration (In ₹ ) Per Acre Price (In ₹ ) Area Rectangle No. 11,45,000/- 21,30,233/- 4K-6M 11.01.2002 11. Ex.PW.5/2 2202/ 13,95,000/- 20,85,981/- 5K-7M 11.01.2002 12. Ex.PW.5/3 2203/ 2,75,100/- 22,00,000/- 1K-0M 11.01.2002 13. Ex.PW.5/4 2204/ 13,95,000/- 20,85,981/- 5K-7M 11.01.2002 14. Ex.PW.5/5 2205/ 17,89,000/- 21,05,294 6K-16M 14 14 14 14 13 15. Ex.R1 11.01.2002 1341/ 06.09.2001 3,60,000/- 3,60,000/- 8K 86//22/2, 23/1, 24/1 & 25. 104//6/1, 7/2, 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13. 105//5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10/1, 11/1/2, 13, 13, 14/1, 18, 19 & 20 16. Ex.R2 2217/ 18.02.2000 1,52,000/- 2,53,333/- 4K-16M 119//3, 4, 10, 1, 2 & 120/8 III. 12. Discussion and Analysis During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel representing the State has produced a copy of the official layout plan of village Bhondsi while marking the location of the acquired land for setting up the LPG Plant and the acquired land for establishing the Regional Training Complex. A bare look at the layout plan proves that the distance between the LPG Plant and the Regional Training Complex is 16 to 17 acres. For LPG Plan, the land was acquired from Rectangle Nos. 37 and 15. The LPG Plant was located on Rathoj Road. Whereas for establishing the Regional Training Complex, the land has been acquired from Rectangle Nos. 3 and 4. The sale instances No. 2650 dated 19.03.2002 (Ex.PW.4/1), No. 2651 dated 19.03.2002 (Ex./PW.4/2) and No. 2652 dated 19.03.2002 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.04.28 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (Ex.PW.4/3) are with respect to the parcels of the land sold out of the Regular First Appeal No. 4834 of 2009 (O&M) And Other Connected Cases 6 Rectangle No. 3. In the sale instances No. 2651 dated 19.03.2002 (Ex./PW.4/2) and No. 2652 dated 19.03.2002 (Ex.PW.4/3), the land comprised in Rectangle No.3 Khasra Nos. 1, 2 and 9 have been sold. Thus, these sale instances are with respect to the parcels of the land which are located very near to the acquired land. The word “Rectangle” denotes 25 acres of land (5x5 acres). As per the established practice, the Rectangle No.1 starts from the North Eastern Corner of the village and subsequent numbers are assigned in the ascending orders while going towards the South East direction. Thereafter, the numbers increase in spiral shape while travelling in a row of 5 acres depth from North-East to South-East and then South-East to North-East and then North-East to South-East. These three sale instances are with respect to the contemporary period i.e. 7 months before the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued. The sale instance (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2) are with respect to more than half acre of land, whereas the sale instance No. 2652 dated 19.032002 (Ex.PW.4/3) is with respect to the land measuring 10 kanals 13 marlas which is more than 1 acre of land. Hence, these sale instances can be relied upon for assessing the market value of the acquired land. The State has not led any evidence to prove that the price reflected in these sale instances was artificially inflated or these were not genuine. The sale instances No. 1341 dated 06.09.2001 (Ex.R1) and No. 2217 dated 18.02.2000 Ex.R2) produced by the CRPF is with respect to the sale of land comprised in Rectangle No. 86, 104, 105, 119 and 120. These parcels are likely to be located farther from the acquired land. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.04.28 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13. It would be noted here that with respect to the acquired land for Regular First Appeal No. 4834 of 2009 (O&M) And Other Connected Cases 7 establishing LPG Plant, the Supreme Court in Hari Ram (Deceased) through his Legal Representatives and Another v. Land Acquisition Collector-cum-District Revenue Officer, Gurgaon and Others (SLP © No. 18054 of 2019, decided on 20.10.2022) assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ₹12,16,800/- per acre. However, it would not be safe to rely upon the same because in the area of Bhondsi which falls in District Gurgaon, there was a lot of commercial and residential activity. With each passing day, the prices of the land escalate because of the all-round development. Moreover, once three sale deeds pertaining to the adjoining land to the acquired land are available, it would not be safe to rely upon the assessment of the market value of the land acquired more than six years prior to the present acquisition. 14. As already noticed, there is a gap of seven months between the sale deeds No. 2650 dated 19.03.2002 (Ex.PW.4/1), No. 2651 dated 19.03.2002 (Ex./PW.4/2) and No. 2652 dated 19.03.2002 (Ex.PW.4/3) and the date of notification under Section 4. The landowners are entitled to increase @ 12% per annum on the base value of ₹10,74,930/-. Hence, the landowners shall be entitled to 7% increase, which would come to ₹11,50,175/- per acre. IV. 15. Relief Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, the landowners are held entitled to ₹11,50,175/- per acre along with all the statutory benefits as per the amended 1894 Act. Consequently, the appeals filed by the landowners are allowed, whereas that of the State are dismissed. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2025.04.28 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Regular First Appeal No. 4834 of 2009 (O&M) And Other Connected Cases 8 16. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in all the
Decision
appeals, shall stand disposed of. (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge April 24, 2025 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Sr. No. Case No. Party’s Name 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. RFA-3982-2009 Rame and others Vs. District Revenue officer and others RFA-3983-2009 Beena Devi Vs. District Revenue officer and others RFA-3984-2009 Shukli and another Vs. District Revenue officer and others RFA-3985-2009 Shehjad Dagar Vs. District Revenue officer and others RFA-4174-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Kamal Singh RFA-4175-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Rame and others RFA-4176-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Prem Rattan Gupta RFA-4177-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Prem Rattan Gupta RFA-4178-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Gram Panchayat Bhondsi 10. RFA-4179-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Shukli and others 11. RFA-4220-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Kailash Singh 12. RFA-4221-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Beena Devi 13. RFA-4224-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Shehjad Dagar 14. RFA-4304-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Narender Diwan 15. RFA-4305-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Divyaroop Bhatnagar 16. RFA-4306-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Beg Raj 17. RFA-4643-2009 State of Haryana Vs. Sushila Devi 18. RFA-4410-2011 State of Haryana Vs. Settihalli Basavaraj and another 19. RFA-4826-2009 Gram Panchayat Bhondsi Vs. State of Haryana and others 20. RFA-4348-2011 Settihalli Basavaraj and another Vs. State of Haryana and another 21. RFA-4835-2009 Narender Diwan Vs. State of Haryana and another 22. RFA-4836-2009 Kamal Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another 23. RFA-4838-2009 Sushila Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others 24. RFA-4837-2009 Beg Raj Vs. State of Haryana and another 25. RFA-5361-2011 Prem Rattan Gupta Vs. District Revenue officer and others 26. RFA-5362-2011 Prem Rattan Gupta and others Vs. District Revenue officer and others (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge April 24, 2025 DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ “DK” 2025.04.28 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document