SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(P&H) 988

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Jaipal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
RFA-3149 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 26-04-2022

Advocates:
Mr. Sarvesh Malik, Advocate, Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate, Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate, Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Hooda, Advocate, Mr. Parveen Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Kamal Mor, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate, Mr. Surinder Gaur, Advocate, Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev K. Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ojas Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Tejas Bansal, Advocate, Mr. Anil Dutt, Advocate for Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate, for the landowners; Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana and Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana. Mr. P.S. Saini, Advocate for HSIIDC.

The court applies the principle of assessing the market value of acquired land based on comparable sale instances and considers the location and development potential of the land.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act - Landowners - Section 54, Section 4, Section 6, Section 11 - The court discusses the appeals filed by landowners under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking modification of the award passed by the Reference Court. The court refers to the notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 6, as well as the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court. The court analyzes the market value of the acquired land, considering oral and documentary evidence presented by both parties. The court also examines the arguments made by the counsels for the landowners and the Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC). Ultimately, the court modifies the award, re-assessing the market value of the land located on the National Highway and upholding the award for the remaining land.

Fact of the Case:

The landowners filed appeals seeking modification of the award passed by the Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act. The court considers the notifications, awards, and evidence presented by both parties.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzes the sale exemplars and determines the market value of the acquired land. The court also addresses the arguments made by the counsels for the landowners and the HSIIDC.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court modifies the award, re-assessing the market value of the land located on the National Highway and upholding the award for the remaining land. Final Decision: The judgment of the Reference Court is upheld with modifications.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The landowners, while filing appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') pray for the modification of the award dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Reference Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the RC'). The notification under Section 4, 6 and the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as 'the LAC') as well as by the RC are common. The learned counsels representing the parties are ad-idem that this batch of appeals can be decided by a common judgment.

2. The relevant particulars of the case are as under:-

1.

Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act

11.01.2010

For setting up industrial Model Township, Phase-3, Rohtak, to be planned and developed as integrate complex for industrial, transport, Section 30-C, Sector 30-D, Sector 31-C and other utilities in village Kharawar, Tehsil & District Rohtak.

2.

Declaration under Section 4 of the 1894 Act

10.01.2011.

3.

Award No.19, under Section 11 of the 1894 Act.

04.01.2013

Land measuring 2332 kanals 3 Marlas

4

Assessment of the market value

Rs.36,89,900/- per acre.

5.

Assessment by the RC

12.04.2018

All the references were dismissed.

3. For the purpose of describing the potential and location of the land, the pleadings of the landowners, with respect to acquired land located in villages Kheri Sadh, Balyana and Kharawar, being common, are extracted as under:-

    "The appellants claim that the acquired land is located near National Highway No.10 Rohtak-Delhi Road, Asthal Bohar and various hotels, banquet halls, Tilyar Lake are adjacent to the acquired land. Various educational institutions, namely, Baba Mast Nath College of Engineering, Eye Hospital, Ayurvedic College, College of Pharmacy, College of Physiotherapy, Shri Baba Mast Nath Residential Public School, Indus Public School, DAV Public School, and DAV Centary Public School, Rohtak, are located nearby. The residential colonies, namely, The Government Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Sun City Projects and Omex Project, Parsavnath Builder and Sector 27 are also located close by. The acquired land is surrounded by residential colonies and as such the price of the acquired land is not less than Rs. 5 crore per acre. It is also claimed that in village Balyana previously the land has been acquired for setting up Industrial Model Township Phase- 1 and II, where various big industrial concern like Asian Paints, Maruti Testing and Research Central, National Highway NO.71-A and Foodwear Institute have come up. The acquired land is situated within the National Capital Region and falls within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Rohtak. Maharishi Dayanand University and Pandit B.D.Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak, are at a short distance and religious places like Hanuman Mandir, Sainath Temple, Radha Soami Trust are situated near the acquired land."

    4. On appreciation of the pleadings, the RC culled out the following issues:-

      "(1) What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?OPP

      (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any amount as enhanced compensation as alleged, if so, to what extent?OPP

      (3) Whether the present petitions are not maintainable?OPR

      (4) Whether the petitioners have got no locus standi to file the present petitions?OPR

      (5) Whether the present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and mis-joinder of unnecessary party?OPR

      (6) Whether the petitions are barred by limitation, as per the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963?OPR

      (7) Relief."

      5. ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

      5. ORAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE LANDOWNERS

      PW1

      Neeraj

      PW2

      Jitender Malik

      PW3

      Jai Bhagwan, WBM in the office of sub-Registrar, Sampla,

      PW4

      Yudhvir

      PW5

      Om Parkash

      5.2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE LANDOWNERS (APART FROM THE SALE DEEDS DETAILS WHEREOF ARE GIVEN IN PARA 5.5)

      Ex.

      Award No.23, dated 20.12.2013 with respect to acquisition of 13 acres 7 kanals a

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top