2016 Supreme(P&H) 2675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik
RFA No.6617 of 2012 (O&M)
Mohammad Yusuf
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 03/06/2016}
For the Appellant(s) (in all cases of land Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Jain,
owners/cross-objectors):Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Beniwal, DAG, Haryana.
Land Acquisition--Development Charges--Where no further development of any kind whatsoever is required than no cut is to be imposed towards development charges.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.23 & S.54--Development Charges--Imposition of particular percentage of cut on every market price disclosed by way of relevant sale deed is concerned, it is not an absolute rule--Neither it is desirable nor possible to lay down a straight-jacket formula, which might be made applicable in every given fact situation--Each case has to be decided as per its own peculiar facts and circumstances. (Para 9)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.23 & S.54--Development Charges--Where no further development of any kind whatsoever is required than no cut is to be imposed towards development charges. (Para 9)
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.23 & S.54--Development Charges--A reasonable cut is required to be imposed on account of smallness of plot relied upon as sale instance is a known acquisition of big chunk of land. (Para 9)
Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.:- This batch of 33 appeals, out of which 21 appeals bearing Regular First Appeal No.3448 to 3468 of 2013, filed by the State of Haryana and remaining appeals bearing Regular First Appeal No.6611 to 6617, 7141, 7142 of 2012, 476, 2155, 5590 of 2013 and cross-objections Nos.50-CI, 51-CI, 52- CI, 53-CI, 58-CI and 59-CI of 2013 filed by the land owners, is being decided vide this common order, as all these appeals as well as cross-objections arise out of the same acquisition and raise identical questions of law and facts. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and for the facility of reference, facts are being extracted from RFA No.6617 of 2012 (Mohammad Yusuf and others Vs. State of Haryana and others).
2. Briefly put, facts necessary for disposal of the present set of appeals are that State of Haryana sought to acquire land measuring 372 kanal, 02 marla, at public expenses for public purpose namely; for Construction of Mini Secretariat at Nuh. The land was acquired out of the revenue estate of village Ferojpur Namak. Notification dated 18.10.2005 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act’ for short), which was followed by notification dated 25.05.2006 under Section 6 of the Act. Land Acquisition Collector (‘LAC’ for short), vide his award No.1 dated 05.11.2007, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs.16 lacs per acre, without resorting to any belting system.
3. Dissatisfied with the market value assessed by LAC, land owners filed objections under Section 18 of the Act and as a consequence thereof, land references were forwarded to the learned reference Court, for its decision. Learned reference Court, vide its impugned award dated 28.08.2012, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.28,80,000/- per acre.
4. Both the parties felt aggrieved against the abovesaid impugned award passed by the learned reference Court. State of Haryana is seeking reduction in the amount of compensation awarded by the learned reference Court, whereas the land owners are seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation for their acquired land. That is how, all these appeals as well as cross-objections are being decided together.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after going through the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeals filed by the State of Haryana are without any merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. However, the appeals as well as cross- objections filed by the land owners deserve to be partly allowed, suitably enhancing the amount of compensation for the acquired land, for the following more than one reasons.
6. So far as the location and potentiality of the acquired land is concerned, learned reference Court in para 24 of the impugned award has discussed this aspect in detail and recorded cogent findings which deserve to be upheld. The relevant part of para 24 of the impugned award in this regard, reads as under: -
“In this regard, first of all, this court would like to refer to Akash Sijra Exhibit P22 of the acquired land, which clearly shows that the acquired land is comprised in rect. Nos.56, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65, 27 and 115. In the western side, it is connected with State Highway Delhi-Alwar road and in the eastern side, it is connected with Nuh-Palwal road. In this regard, it will be worthwhile to refer to the statement of PW2 Dariyao Singh, Clerk, Municipal Committee, Nuh, who produced in the court original Akash Sijra Exhibit P5 showing kilabandi of Nuh Hadbast No.103. As per this witness, the revenue estate of Nuh abuts the revenue estate of village Ferozpur Namak and some portion of village Ferozpur Namak also falls in Municipal Committee, Nuh. In this regard, he has relied upon the Akash Sijra Exhibit P5. From the statement of PW4 Ash