Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Smt. Maya And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

Punjab & Haryana High Court

May 4, 2012

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Rajesh Bindal, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a bunch of appeals arising from acquisition of land (notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) for Sector 18, Kaithal (notification dated 19.7.2002) and Sector 19-20 (notification dated 11.11.2002). The matters were earlier considered by this Court in a judgment dated 27.3.2009 in R.F.A. No. 5466 of 2008 — Kirpal Singh v. State of Haryana — and remanded to the learned Reference Court for fresh decision. After remand the Reference Court assessed market value and passed awards. On 23.1.2012 this Court decided a number of appeals against those awards (and appeals relating to the 11.11.2002 notification).

At the hearing it emerged that although the State had impugned many awards, appeals had not been filed in all cases arising from the same acquisition; the Court required the State to clarify why appeals were not filed for all references and directed the Registry to report whether instructions existed for deciding land references arising from the same acquisition together. The State filed an affidavit (4.4.2012) from the Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula, and later furnished a chart summarizing the status of many references and appeals. The chart and affidavit showed that a significant number of appeals were either not filed or had been returned for re-filing because of registry objections (e.g., incomplete addresses, missing copies of notifications, non-filing of affidavits for condonation of delay).

The Court considered the registry objections that had prevented re-filing (including errors in short orders, incomplete respondent addresses, absence of Section 4 notification copies, missing affidavits for condonation, non-typed short orders, and non-mention of the revenue estate). The Court noted systemic problems (incomplete addresses commonly given as “X son of Y, resident of Kaithal” or “c/o counsel”) and emphasized the resulting delays in service and proceedings. The Court summoned and reviewed prior instructions and precedents and proceeded to issue a set of directions aimed at streamlining filing, clubbing of references, record-keeping and ensuring expeditious disposal of land acquisition matters.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the State has been selective in filing appeals against awards arising from the same acquisition and, if so, to require clarification and explanation for non-filing of appeals in all cases.
Whether land references arising out of the same acquisition are being decided piecemeal by the learned Reference Court and whether such references should be clubbed and decided together.
What procedural deficiencies in filing (for example: incomplete addresses, non-attachment of Section 4 notifications, missing affidavits for condonation of delay) are causing returns of appeals and delaying adjudication, and how they should be remedied.
What administrative and judicial directions should be issued to ensure timely, collective and proper disposal of land acquisition references and appeals (including duties of Collector, Registry and State authorities).
Whether the State must be held responsible and disciplinary/recovery action taken if the State fails to file appeals in all cases and the higher court later reduces compensation.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kirpal Singh v. State of Haryana (R.F.A. No. 5466 of 2008) — judgment dated 27.3.2009	Remand of a bunch of appeals relating to the acquisition to the Reference Court for fresh decision.	The Court referred to this earlier judgment as the origin of remand; it provided context that after remand the Reference Court passed awards that gave rise to subsequent appeals decided on 23.1.2012.
Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana (R.F.A. No. 5203 of 2010) — decided 10.8.2011	Reference to provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and High Court Rules and issuance of directions regarding completeness of party particulars; circulation of directions by letter dated 1.4.2011.	The Court relied on its consideration in Parveen Kumar to emphasize the requirement that litigants furnish complete addresses and particulars, and noted prior circulation of directions to courts.
Mahadev v. The Assistant Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer (Supreme Court) (1994-2004) Vol. II — cited in Baldev Singh	Principles applied by Supreme Court instructing consequences where State fails to file appeals in all cases (as cited in Baldev Singh).	The Court noted that in Baldev Singh this Supreme Court authority was relied upon to dismiss appeals filed by the State on account of non-filing in all cases; the Mahadev principle was thus treated as instructive about consequences of selective filing.
Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005) — decided 28.10.2010	Dismissal of appeals filed by the State on account of non-filing of appeals in all related cases; reliance on Mahadev.	The Court cited Baldev Singh as an example where appeals were dismissed due to the State's selective/non-complete filing, illustrating the need for comprehensive filing and monitoring by the State.
State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan (R.F.A. No. 1316 of 2009) — decided 7.9.2010	Refusal to condone delay (8 years and 251 days) in re-filing a bunch of appeals where there was no explanation for delay; demonstrates poor monitoring of appeals by the State.	The Court relied on this decision to show past instances of the Court refusing condonation for long, unexplained delays in re-filing appeals, reinforcing the need for timely action.
Peeyushi Jain v. The State of Punjab (CWP No. 6024 of 1997)	Administrative instructions for streamlining handling of land acquisition cases in terms of Supreme Court directions (Mangat Ram Tanwar).	The file of this writ petition was summoned and the Court relied on attached instructions (letter dated 10.3.1997) which implemented Mangat Ram Tanwar directions; used to justify issuing similar directions in the present matter.
Mangat Ram Tanwar v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1080 (Supreme Court)	Directions to streamline and expedite disposal of land acquisition references, including clubbing references arising out of a common notification and treating Section 18 references as a priority class.	The Court expressly adopted and reiterated directions in Mangat Ram Tanwar (including clubbing, priority treatment, time frames) and issued administrative directions in that spirit to the Collector, Registry and subordinate courts.
Lokeshwar Dutt v. The State of Haryana (R.F.A. No. 686 of 1991) — decided 16.8.2010	Need for site plans, sale instances, and specific documentary evidence to determine fair value; problems caused by lack of coherent site plans and evidence.	The Court quoted and relied on Lokeshwar Dutt to require production of site plans and other materials (notification under Section 4, award, scale plan showing boundaries and status as on Section 4 date) to enable fair valuation and avoid delay.
State of Haryana v. Sh. Tek Chand (R.F.A. No. 4742 of 2010) — decided 11.10.2010	Requirement that appeals should state whether Reference Court relied upon any earlier award and the status of such appeals; information to be furnished in the appeal to avoid adjournments.	The Court adopted the directions given in Tek Chand and ordered that similar information be furnished in appeals (e.g., whether earlier awards were relied upon and the status of related appeals), and that the Registry ensure compliance.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by first identifying procedural shortcomings and systemic causes of delay: selective filing of appeals by the State in references arising out of the same acquisition; piece-meal decisions by the Reference Court; and repeated registry objections causing returned appeals and re-filing delays. The Court analyzed the matter in the following incremental steps (as recorded in the opinion):

The Court observed that multiple awards arising from the same acquisition had been decided on different dates by the learned Reference Court (a list of 15 decision dates was recorded), leading to fragmented litigation rather than consolidated adjudication.
On discovering that the State had not filed appeals in all related cases, the Court required the State to explain the number and status of references and appeals (para. 26 et seq.) and to furnish comprehensive information (affidavit and chart).
After scrutinizing the affidavit and charts, the Court found that many appeals (108 cases) were with the litigating department or Advocate General's office for re-filing after removing registry objections, and 38 cases where appeals had not been filed at all (para. 6–7, 15–17).
The Court identified the principal registry objections preventing re-filing: errors in short orders, incomplete respondent addresses, missing copies of Section 4 notifications, non-filing of affidavits for condonation of delay, non-typed short orders, and non-mentioning of the revenue estate (para. 17–23). It emphasized that the most frequent problems were incomplete addresses and missing affidavits and Section 4 notifications (para. 24).
The Court explained how incomplete party particulars cause delays in service and proceedings and criticized the practice of giving imprecise addresses or “c/o counsel” addresses; it held litigants must provide full particulars and the Registry must be vigilant (para. 8–11).
The Court reviewed prior decisions and existing administrative instructions (Mangat Ram Tanwar and subsequent instructions issued by this High Court) to support its approach: that references covered by a common notification should be clubbed, be given priority, and be disposed of promptly; that site plans and documentary records are necessary for valuation; and that collectors and courts should certify and ensure all objections are before the court (para. 31–43).
On this basis, the Court issued a set of concrete directions (numbered (1) to (13)) addressed to Collectors, learned Reference Courts, the Registry and the State, prescribing steps for immediate compliance — for example: requiring complete addresses, restricting adjournments for address-furnishing, three-month referral timeline from Collector to court, clubbing of references arising from the same acquisition, filing of site plans, certificates from Collectors confirming all objections are sent, and the Collector’s affidavit confirming appeals against all awards have been filed (paras. 33–45).
The Court further directed that if the State fails to file appeals in all cases and the higher court reduces compensation, the State must fix responsibility and recover loss from the officer(s) concerned (para. 50).
Finally, the Court ordered that these directions be circulated to the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana, Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration and all District & Sessions Judges in Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory Chandigarh for information and compliance (para. 16) and concluded with the operative direction: “Order accordingly.”

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Court issued a set of mandatory directions and administrative orders aimed at ensuring that land acquisition references are properly filed, promptly adjudicated and, where arising from the same notification, clubbed together. The Court required the State and its officers (including Collectors and the litigating department) to take specific procedural and administrative steps and ordered circulation of these directions to appropriate executive and judicial authorities.

Implications (Direct Effects)

The State must clarify and remedy the incomplete filing of appeals: re-file appeals returned by the Registry after removing specified objections and file appeals where none exist.
Collectors are required to ensure that objectors furnish complete addresses at the time of objections and must certify that all objections up to a date have been sent to the court; if late objections arrive they must be referred immediately so they can be clubbed.
Learned Reference Courts must ensure that all references arising out of the same acquisition are clubbed and heard together (unless a reference was received late), and must obtain relevant certificates from the District Attorney/Collector when references are taken up.
Registry must be vigilant at the time of filing to prevent defects (especially incomplete addresses and missing affidavits/notifications) that cause returns and delay; only one adjournment is to be granted to supply missing addresses.
The State is to fix responsibility and recover any loss from the officer(s) concerned where it fails to file appeals in all cases and the higher court reduces compensation as a result.
Parties and the State must produce relevant documentary material (Section 4 notification, award, scale site plan showing the position as on the date of Section 4, sale instances pointed on site plan) to enable determination of fair value without delay.
Copies of the order were to be sent to various administrative and judicial offices for compliance, indicating an expectation of administrative implementation.

The opinion does not explicitly state that it creates a new legal precedent; rather, it applies and reiterates directives from prior Supreme Court and High Court authorities (for example Mangat Ram Tanwar and Lokeshwar Dutt) and translates those into specific operational directions for the parties, collectors and courts in this jurisdiction.

Show all summary ...

Rajesh Bindal, J.:— Bunch of appeals pertaining to the acquisition of land, where notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued on 19.7.2002 pertaining to the land of village Patti Gaddar, District Kaithal were decided by this court vide judgment dated 27.3.2009 passed in R.F.A No. 5466 of 2008 — Kirpal Singh v. State of Haryana, and the cases were remanded back to the learned Reference Court for fresh decision. After remand, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land vide different awards. Vide judgment dated 23.1.2012, this court decided the appeals against the awards passed by the learned Reference Court in the aforesaid case as well as appeals pertaining to notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 11.11.2002

2. At the time of hearing of bunch of appeals, it came on record that though the State had impugned the award of the learned Reference Court, but the appeals had not been filed in all the cases. As the State cannot be selective in filing appeals, the position was sought to be clarified. It also came on record that though all the references before the court below were arising out of the same acquisition, but still those were decided by the court below in piece-meal on different dates and were not bunched together. In judgment dated 23.1.2012, this court required the State to clarify the position and the Registry was also directed to put up a note as to whether there are any instructions already issued to the learned courts below for deciding all the references arising out of the same acquisition together. It was observed as under:

“26. Considering the facts, which have come on record in the present set of appeals where the State did not file appeal in all the land references, decided by the learned court below, pertaining to the acquisition in question, learned counsel for the State to clarify the position about the number of land references decided by the court below pertaining to the notifications under Section 4 of the Act issued on 19.7.2002 and 11.11.2002 and the appeals filed in this court. In case the awards passed the Reference Court have not been challenged in all the cases, the reasons therefor may also be explained.

“27. A photo copy of the order be given to learned counsel for the State by the Bench Secretary under his signatures.

“28. A perusal of the office note of the Grouping Section shows that the learned court below decided the cases pertaining to the acquisition in question in piece meal. These were decided in small-small groups on different dates, i.e, 31.1.2007, 28.7.2007, 1.4.2010, 1.5.2010, 3.5.2010, 1.6.2010, 16.7.2010, 2.8.2010, 3.8.2010, 1.9.2010, 1.10.2010, 2.11.2010, 3.1.2011, 1.3.2011 and 1.4.2011”

3. In response to the aforesaid notice to the State, affidavit dated 4.4.2012 was filed by Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula along with some information regarding the cases filed and in the process of filing and which had been filed earlier but pending with the department for removing the objections raised by the Registry.

4. Considering the fact that the aforesaid affidavit filed by the State was not exhaustive, this court required the State to furnish the detailed information on 4.4.2012 by passing the following order:

“Affidavit dated 4.4.2012 of the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula filed in court is taken on record. Along with the affidavit, information regarding status of appeals arising out of land acquired vide notification dated 19.7.2002 for Sector 18, Kaithal, has also been attached.

It has been stated that the learned court below vide award dated 31.1.2007, decided 95 references, against which 84 appeals filed by the State have been decided by this court on 23.1.2012 and 11 appeals are yet to be re-filed after removing objections raised by the Registry of this court.

As regards the award of the learned court below dated 30.3.2007, is concerned, it is mentioned that 46 references were decided, against which 45 appeals filed by the State have been decided by this court on 23.1.2012 and one appeal is yet to be re-filed after removing objections raised by the Registry of this court.

The appeals filed against all the references of the learned court below decided vide awards dated 28.7.2007 and 3.5.2010 have been decided by this court on 23.1.2012

As per information given along with the affidavit, the present status of cases from Sr. Nos. 5 to 22 has not been mentioned.

The cases at Sr. No. 15and 19 to 22, though were decided by the learned court below on 1.9.2010, 1.10.2010, 3.1.2011, 3.1.201 land 1.3.2011, respectively, but it is stated that these are still in process for filing appeals in this court.

Learned counsel for the State seeks more time to furnish comprehensive information. Adjourned to 17.4.2012”

5. Today, a chart has been furnished in court. The gist of the same is extracted below:

“Notification U/s 4 dated 19.7.2002, U/s 6 dated 17.7.2003 and Award No. 4 dated 16.7.2005 (Sector 18, Kaithal)

Sr. No.LAC No.TitleTotal referen ces files by the land ownersRFA filed by State before remandRemanded by Hon'ble High CourtRFA filed fresh after remandDecided by the Hon'ble High CourtPending for filing1.88/06State v. Ved Parkash DOD (31.1.07)- (1.4.10)95filed (95)95 cases remanded858510 cases Appeal is filed but pending in objection2.34/07State v. Hawa Singh DOD (30.3.07)46Filed (44)Not remanded—43One case pending in Hon'ble High Court and two cases appeal is filed but pending in objection3.57/07State v. Kamla Devi DOD (28.7.07)6Filed (6)Not remanded—64.459/0State v. Sita Ram DOD (1.5.10)10—Not remanded——10 cases appeal is filed but pending in objection5.212/0State v. Parminder Singh DOD (16.5.08)- (1.5.10)32—Remanded——32 cases appeal is filed but pending in objection6.584.C 8State v. Gianeshwa DOD (3.5.10)2Filed (2)Not remanded—2—

7.86/10State v. Jagat Singh DOD (16.7.10)15—Not remanded——15 cases appeal is filed but pending in objection8.42/10State v. Devinder Singh DOD- 16.7.10)12—Not remanded——12 cases appeal is filed but pending in objection9.170/1State v. Khushi Ram DOD (16.7.10)5—Not remanded——5 cases appeal is filed but pending in objection10.147/1State v. Mamo Devi DOD (16.7.10)13—Not remanded——13 cases appeal is filed but pending in objection11.602/0State v. Parveen Kumar DOD (2.8.10)5—Not remanded——5 cases appeal is filed but pending in objection12.142/1State v. Rajmal DOD (3.8.10)5—Not remanded——5 cases appeal is filed but pending in objection13.139/0State v. Surjit Singh DOD (1.9.10)18Not filed————14.466/0State v. Pankaj DOD (1.6.10)2Filed(2)Not remanded—215.299/1State v. Vishal Kumar DOD (1.10.10)9—Not remanded——9 cases appeal is filed but pending in objection16.366/1State v. Rajinder Singh DOD (3.1.11)10Not filed————17.3/2015State v. Mewa Devi DOD (1.3.1)Not filed———————Total290—————

Notification under Section 4 Dated 11.11.2002, Under Section 6 Dated: 7.11.2003 and award No. 8 dated 31.10.2005 (Sector 19-20), Village Patti Kaisth Seth,

Sr. NoLAC No.Title Total references files by the land ownersRFA filed by State before remandRemanded by Hon'ble High CourtRFA filed fresh after remandDecidec by the Hon'bli High CourtPending for filing1.172/06 State v. Subhash Chand DOD (28.2.07)54Filed (44)Not remanded—4410 cases appeal is filed but pending in objection2.167/07 State v. Satpal DOD (29.9.07)3—Not remanded——3 cases appeal is filed but pending in objection3.294/08 State v. Krishan Kanhiya DOD (24.5.08)5Not filed @ T AB9=—Kanhiya———Total62—————

6. A perusal of the aforesaid charts shows that 108 cases were lying either with the litigating department or with the office of the Advocate General, Haryana for re-filing after removing objections, whereas in 38 cases, the appeals had not been filed. The Registry had mainly raised following objections for returning the appeals filed by the State to be refiled after removing the objections:

(i) Some error in short orders;

(ii) incomplete addresses of the respondents;

(iii) copy of the notification under Section 4 of the Act is not annexed;

(iv) non-filing of affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay in filing/re-filing;

(v) non-filing of a typed copy of the short order; and

(vi) non-mentioning of the revenue estate concerned.

7. However, in most of the cases, the objections are incomplete addresses of the respondents or non-filing of affidavits in support of the applications for condonation of delay in filing/re-filing and non-filing of copy of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

8. These are not the cases in isolation, where problem regarding non-furnishing of complete addresses of the parties came across before this court. In many cases, it is generally seen that addresses are furnished like “Ram Singh son of Sham Singh, resident of Kaithal”. In some cases, even father's name is also not mentioned, whereas in some cases addresses are given “c/o the counsel for the party”, who later on states that he does not have the address of the party. This results in delay in service of notices on the respondents-defendants either in proceedings before the court below or before this court.

9. As in the present cases, in many of the appeals filed by State, objections were raised by the Registry to furnish complete addresses of the respondents), the State apparently was unable to furnish the same immediately as even in the reference petitions before the court below, the ad dresses were not complete. Though an effort could have been made to find out the same from the executions filed by the land owners or the banks where the land owners were maintaining their accounts in which the amount of compensation was credited, but apparently no effort was made in this directions. Still this all has to be avoided as any litigant who approaches the court or any authority, is required to furnish his complete particulars, such as father's name and complete address. This court had considered this aspect of the matter while dealing with R.F.A No. 5203 of 2010 Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana, decided on 10.8.2011, wherein while referring to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the High Court Rules and Orders had issued certain directions, which were circulated to all the courts concerned vide letter No. 13191 Gaz. II. 17 dated 1.4.2011

10. As has already been directed above that every litigant is required to furnish complete address of the party approaching the court and also the party against whom the relief is claimed, in case of failure as an extreme step even the case could be dismissed. The Registry has been directed to be vigilant at the time of filing of cases. However, still even if it escapes notice of the Registry and notices are served upon the opposite party, firstly it shall be his duty to furnish his complete address and secondly, in case the address of the party approaching the court is not complete, the opposite party can raise the objection thereto and the case shall proceed only after complete addresses are furnished, but it is to be noticed that not more than one adjournment is to be granted for the purpose. The case should not remain pending for years together merely for furnishing of address(s) of the petitioner/plaintiff/appellant or the opposite party.

11. The land owners should furnish their complete addresses even at the time of filing of objections before the Collector at the time of acquisition of land.

12. The issue regarding non-filing of appeals by the State in all the land references decided by the court below came to the notice of this court on a number of occasions. In RFA No. 2269 of 2005 — Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 28.10.2010, on account of non-filing of appeals by the State in all the cases, referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mahadev v. The Assistant Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer, (1994-2004) (Vol. II) Supreme Court Judgments on Land Acquisition 1658, the appeals filed by the State were dismissed. The appeals filed by the State in this court are not properly monitored is evident from the fact that in RFA No. 1316 of 2009 State of Haryana v. Ram Kishan, decided on 7.9.2010, this court dismissed an application filed by the State seeking condonation of delay of 8 years and 251 days in re-filing a bunch of appeals for which there was no explanation available.

13. These are only few examples, there are many such instances.

14. Second aspect, on which the information was sought from the Registry was as to whether any instructions have been issued for clubbing of all the cases arising out of the acquisition and deciding the same in one bunch. The Registry has pointed out that no instructions for clubbing of the land references pertaining to one acquisition have been issued. It was considering the fact that small-small bunches arising out of the same acquisition were decided by the learned court below on 15 dates of hearing, as per the note put up by the Registry.

15. Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, who is present in court, apprised the court that a PIL was filed in this court bearing CWP No. 6024 of 1997 — Peeyushi Jain v. The State of Punjab, pertaining to the land acquisition cases. Reference was made therein to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mangat Ram Tanwar v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1080. The file of the aforesaid writ petition was summoned. Copy of the instructions issued by this court vide letter No. 6339 Gaz. II (2) dated 10.3.1997 has been attached therewith, which were issued in terms of the directions given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mangat Ram Tanwar's case (supra). To streamline the dealing of cases under the Land Acquisition Act, with a view to ensure their expeditious disposal, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions:

(1) The Land Acquisition Collector shall ensure that all the land owners who file objections furnish their complete addresses.

(2) All the objections received by the Collector in land acquisition cases shall be referred to the court for adjudication maximum within three months after receipt thereof. Along with the objections or bunch of objections, a certificate shall be annexed by the Collector to the effect that all the objections received upto that date for the acquisition in question have been sent to the court.

(3) Whenever a land reference is put up before the learned court below, to which it is entrusted, it shall ensure from the District Attorney/Assistant District Attorney and/or the Collector that all the objections received by the Collector upto date have been sent to the court for adjudication. A certificate to the effect has to be placed on record. In case the land references were received on different dates and were put up on different dates either for first hearing or for hearing after notice, the learned court below shall club all the land references arising out of the same acquisition to be heard on one date of hearing before it proceeds further in the matter. Assistance of the office of District Attorney is most relevant on this aspect.

(4) In case some objections are received late by the Collector for any reason whatsoever, he shall be duty bound to refer the same to the court immediately after its receipt so that the same is clubbed with the cases already pending and are disposed of along with that. Information about the cases already sent to the court shall also be furnished by the Collector.

(5) In case any objection is received after the disposal of the land references by the learned Reference Court, the Collector while sending the same to the court for adjudication shall annex a copy of the award/judgment of the court along with that, pertaining to the acquisition in question.

(6) The decision of the land references arising out of the same acquisition in piece-meal on different dates has to be avoided at all cost unless the reference is received late.

(7) The learned courts below to keep in view the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangat Ram Tanwar's case (supra) pertaining to disposal of land acquisition cases which are extracted below:

“6. We are aware of the problem of back long in most of the Courts. The references under Section 18 should be treated as a class by themselves entitled to priority attention. If care and attention are devoted at the appropriate time, these cases can be easily disposed of by clubbing them groupwise and recording evidence after taking the consent of counsel for the parties. Most of the acquisitions these days relate to large patches of land and ordinarily they are covered under one notification. Cases which are covered by a common notification should be clubbed together for which a statutory foundation is available in the Amending Act of 1984 in extending the benefit of higher compensation to all lands covered by a common notification even if dispute is not raised. If that is done the total number of cases where evidence would be necessary is likely to be reduced and better attention can perhaps be given. The High Courts should take special note of the pendency of land acquisition references and where it is possible a Court may be set apart for those cases.

“7. We expect every referee court to dispose of the references ordinarily within one year of receipt of the reference and the outer limit should be the end of the second year. The High Courts in exercise of their controlling powers should ensure enforcement of this position so that all pending references in the subordinate courts at the original stage may be disposed of within time frame indicated above.”

(8) The cases pertaining to acquisition of land for a canal/drain/road/channel/distributory or of similar nature, where the acquired land passes through different villages in the form of a strip, endeavour should always be made to entrust the cases to one court. Even if the same arise out of different notifications, though issued close in time, the learned courts below should also make efforts to decide these cases collectively after perusing site plan for the entire acquired land. It would be in the interest of all the parties concerned that a site plan showing location of the entire acquired land and also the surrounding area is produced by the State in court. The learned courts below to keep in view the observations made by this court in R.F.A No. 686 of 1991 — Lokeshwar Dutt v. The State of Haryana, decided on 16.8.2010, pertaining to the same issue, which are extracted below:

“However, finding that number of cases are coming before this court, where this type of situation is being repeated on account of which the court finds it difficult to determine the fair value of the acquired land, which may result in injustice to either of the party. Not only that, in number of cases, the applications are filed by the land owners for producing additional evidence, which, in fact, should be part of the evidence to be led by the land owners/State at the very first instance. In many cases, the court, in the interest of justice, had to ask the State or the party to produce on record the site plan showing the exact location of the acquired land, sale deeds etc. to avoid injustice to either of the party. This unnecessarily delays the disposal of cases. The basic things, which should be brought on record to enable the court to determine fair value of the acquired land is the notification under Section 4 of the Act, copy of the award, site plan to the scale, showing the acquired boundary vis-a-vis its location such as its closeness to the city, village, highway, internal road with all its positive and negative factors. Another important fact is that such a plan should have the status as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the date being crucial for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land. It would be appropriate if the sale instances sought to be produced by the land owners or the State are pointed out on the site plan to be produced on record by either of the party. In the absence of which it is difficult to locate the same and consider its true value. The site plan, which should be taken on record, should be on butter paper or cloth, as it is seen in a number of cases that when the appeals are heard after 15-20 years, the site plans, which are quite big and may be on thin tracing paper, are torn out making it difficult for the parties to refer to the same and also for the court to consider.”

(9) At the time of filing of appeals against the awards of the learned Reference Court pertaining to an acquisition, the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer shall file an affidavit that appeals against all the awards of the learned Reference Court pertaining to the particular acquisition, have been filed.

(10) This court in R.F.A No. 4742 of 2010 The State of Haryana v. Sh. Tek Chand, decided on 11.10.2010, wherein the appeal was filed by the State against award of the learned court below despite the fact that the earlier award of the Reference Court, which had been relied upon for the purpose of determination of compensation in that case had already been upheld by this court and there was no merit in the appeal even on the date of filing thereof, had issued following directions:

“To avoid unnecessary adjournments of the cases, I deem it appropriate to direct that in all appeals filed by the land owners or the State following information must be furnished in the appeal itself:

(i) In case the learned Reference Court had relied upon any earlier award pertaining to same or any other acquisition, the fact as to whether any appeal against the same is pending or not, should be mentioned in the grounds of appeal. The number of such appeal and status thereof be also mentioned.

(ii) In case no earlier award is relied upon by the Reference Court, it should be mentioned that the Reference Court has not relied upon any earlier award.

The aforesaid facts should be mentioned in the last para of the grounds of appeal before the prayer clause. The Registry is directed to ensure compliance of the requirement. This may be brought to the notice of the Bar Association for notifying to the learned members of the Bar.”

(11) In case the State fails to file appeals in all the cases decided by the Reference Court and ultimately the amount of compensation is reduced by the higher court, the State shall be duty-bound to fix the responsibility of the person(s) concerned for the lapse and also recover the amount of loss suffered from the guilty officer(s)/official (s).

(12) The learned Reference Court should also ensure from the Collector and/or the District Attorney that no land reference pertaining to the acquisition of land in the area, which is prior in time, is pending for adjudication and in case there was any acquisition of land in the area prior in time, the award passed by the Reference Court or the higher court therein should always be brought to the notice of the court concerned.

(13) It should be ensured by the court that the land references pertaining to acquisition of land, which is prior in time, are decided first before taking up the cases of the acquisition carried out subsequently.

16. A copy of the order be sent to Chief Secretaries Punjab and Haryana; Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh; all the District & Sessions Judges in Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh for information and compliance.

17. Order accordingly.