State Of Haryana & Anr. v. Pala Ram & Ors., Punjab & Haryana High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court in this Opinion
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) By LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat [2005(3) Land L.R. 1 (SC)]	Principles under Section 23: market value to be determined as at date of notification; use of comparable sales; consideration of positive and negative factors and appropriate adjustments.	The court reproduced and applied these broad Section 23 principles (identifying positive/negative factors and need for adjustments) in assessing compensation across numerous contiguous small acquisitions for the channel.
Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh [2011(2) Land L.R. 737 (SC)]	Whether acquired lands should be valued uniformly or at different rates depending on distance, location, access roads and other circumstances; use of "belting" where appropriate.	The court used the belting/variable-rate approach and considered distance from towns and roads to justify assessing different rates for different villages along the channel.
Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [2010(2) Land L.R. 243 (SC)]	Sections 23 and 24: factors to consider/neglect; emphasize bona fide sale transactions and the judge "in the armchair of a willing buyer" approach to arrive at reasonable market value.	The court emphasized bona fide contemporaneous sales and the need to eschew mechanical assessment; applied the "willing buyer" evaluative approach in its village-by-village determinations.
Mahadev v. The Asstt. Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer (Supreme Court Land Acquisition compilation)	Doctrine cited regarding the State's inability to discriminate in seeking reductions in some cases and not others (non-discrimination principle).	The court relied on Mahadev (and Baldev Singh) to hold that the State cannot seek reduction in some cases while not in others; applied this to uphold awards in certain villages (e.g., Tatiana).
Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (R.F.A. No.2269 of 2005, decided 28.10.2010)	Support for the principle preventing the State from discriminatory reduction in some cases.	Applied along with Mahadev to refuse selective reduction by the State and to uphold certain Reference Court awards.
Smt. Paramjeet Kaur & others (R.F.A. No.2565 of 2009)	Instance where this court increased compensation for village Azimgarh from Rs.9,00,000 to Rs.9,50,000 per acre.	The enhancement in Paramjeet Kaur’s case was noted by parties; the court considered whether that enhancement applied to neighbouring villages and explained where it was relevant (Azimgarh’s special circumstances made it inapplicable in many adjoining village determinations).
State of Haryana and others v. Neeru Gupta (R.F.A. No.5606 of 2010)	Outcome: appeals by State dismissed (cited by landowners to support parity arguments).	Cited by parties; the court recorded the dismissal but assessed each village on its own facts rather than mechanically importing outcomes.
State of Haryana and others v. Ruldu (R.F.A. No.2575 of 2010, decided 5.5.2011)	Outcome: appeals dismissed; cited by State in submissions.	The court recorded that the State's appeals in that case were dismissed but maintained that despite such precedents, enhancement must be based on evidence specific to each village.
Gurmail Singh alias Gola v. State of Haryana and others (R.F.A. No.483 of 2011, decided 16.5.2011)	Cited in relation to upholding of Collector’s award for a nearby village (Dandota) at Rs.5,00,000 per acre.	The court relied on that upholding as a comparative point in considering awards for neighbouring villages.
State of Haryana & another v. Mithu Singh and others (R.F.A. No.1867 of 2007, decided 27.4.2009)	Precedent on grant of severance compensation.	The landowners invoked the decision for severance claims; the court referred to it when addressing severance issues and applications for additional evidence on severance.
Chand Khan & others v. State of Haryana (R.F.A. No.3512 of 1992, decided 31.3.2008)	Cited by landowners on appropriate percentage cut to be applied to sale deeds of small plots.	Cited by parties; the court considered the question of the quantum of cut for small-plot sales but applied village-specific reasoning rather than a fixed rule.
Prem Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (R.F.A. No.2536 of 2009, decided 17.2.2012)	Addressed the jurisdiction of the Reference Court to grant annuity and scope of reference proceedings.	The court referred to Prem Singh to note that a Reference Court has limited jurisdiction (annuity is not strictly within its powers), but declined to disturb annuity directions because the State is liable for annuity under policy and the court did not interfere with such directions in this batch.
State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh and another [AIR 2011 (SC) 982; 2011(1) Land L.R. 563 (SC)]	Statutory benefits relating to awards (cited for guidance on benefits).	The court directed that statutory benefits on severance should be considered in light of Amarjit Singh; directed the Reference Court to apply Supreme Court guidance when determining statutory benefits consequences.
State of Haryana & another v. Kabal Singh and others (R.F.A. No.314 of 2011, decided 28.3.2011)	Cited regarding upholding of compensation rates for village Bakal.	The court recorded that Bakal’s rate had been upheld in that matter and used it as a comparative datum point in its assessment.
State of Haryana and others v. Man Singh and others (R.F.A. No.3741 of 2009, decided 23.3.2011)	Used as comparative authority for rate fixed in Nouch and proximity-based reasoning.	Cited as precedent for assessing compensation at specified distances from Kaithal; assisted the court's comparison among Kaithal-area villages.

Sr. No.	Name of Village	Amount Assessed by this Court (per acre)
1	Mahmudpur	Rs. 8,10,000/-
2	Malikpur	Rs. 8,00,000/-
3	Chaba	Rs. 8,00,000/-
4	Daba	Rs. 7,50,000/-
5	Sarwala	Rs. 7,00,000/- and Rs. 8,50,000/- (for awards dated 9.1.2006 and 29.6.2007 respectively)
6	Khambahera	Rs. 7,00,000/-, Rs. 8,00,000/- and Rs. 8,72,000/- (for awards dated 10.1.2006, 28.6.2007 and 12.12.2007 respectively)
7	Tatiana	Rs. 8,25,000/-
8	Kharal	Rs. 7,00,000/-
9	Badsui	Rs. 7,00,000/-
10	Harigarh Kingon	Rs. 7,50,000/-
11	Bhagal	Rs. 7,50,000/-
12	Balbehra	Rs. 7,50,000/-
13	Jaswanti	Rs. 7,00,000/-
14	Balwanti	Rs. 7,00,000/-
15	Deora	Rs. 7,00,000/-
16	Keorak	Rs. 8,50,000/-
17	Geong	Rs. 8,50,000/-
18	Naina	Rs. 7,50,000/-
19	Mundri	Rs. 9,00,000/-
20	Fatehpur	Rs. 11,40,000/-
21	Pundri	Rs. 11,40,000/-
22	Kakout	Rs. 9,00,000/-
23	Jatheri	Rs. 9,00,000/-
24	Pai	Rs. 9,00,000/-
25	Theh Badella	Rs. 9,00,000/-
26	Karora	Rs. 8,00,000/-
27	Ramana Ramani	Rs. 8,00,000/-
28	Bakal	Rs. 7,00,000/-
29	Ramgarh Rohar	Rs. 6,50,000/-
30	Rattangarh Kakrali	Rs. 6,50,000/-

Mr. Rajesh Bindal, J.: -

This judgment will dispose of bunch of appeals bearing RFA Nos. 1714 to 1732, 2242, 2243, 2746 to 2754, 2973 to 2980, 3202, 3773 to 3786, 3953, 3954, 4839, 5959 to 5961 of 2009;

R.F.A. Nos. 19 to 41, 556, 625, 1053 to 1082, 1132 to 1152, 1235, 1831, 2183 to 2185, 3831, 3832, 4083 to 4085, 4473, 4474, 4647, 4977, 5026 to 5032, 5132 to 5134, 5230 to 5260, 5311, 5312, 5464, 5620 to 5625, 5694 to 5719, 5723 to 5725, 5727 to 5753, 5755 to 5777, 5779 to 5790 of 2010;

R.F.A. Nos. 5 to 29, 31 to 51, 63 to 81, 83 to 108, 138, 172, 269 to 275, 357 to 388, 439 to 457, 482, 628, 632 to 634, 668, 670, 686, 689, 690, 982 to 1010, 1059, 1060, 1073 to 1075, 1084 to 1087, 1090 to 1092, 1094, 1097, 1204 to 1212, 1232 to 1234, 1247 to 1250, 1256 to 1266, 1275, 1295 to 1299, 1344 to 1363, 1365, 1387, 1406 to 1414, 1515 to 1532, 1610, 1638 to 1641, 1646 to 1656, 1663, 1664, 1673, 1677 to 1683, 1694 to 1703, 1710, 1718 to 1725, 1750 to 1757, 1780, 1898 to 1914, 1938, 2039 to 2046, 2069 to 2074, 2080 to 2084, 2106 to 2109, 2235 to 2237, 2240, 2252, 2253, 2306 to 2311, 2314, 2326, 2327, 2333, 2345, 2346, 2681 to 2689, 2837 to 2840, 2879, 2884, 2903, 2963, 2966, 3362, 3368, 3384, 3401, 3446, 3467, 3478, 3479, 3480, 3493, 3515, 3791, 3938 to 3949, 3970, 4129, 4346, 4494, 4528, 4537, 4806, 4807, 6044, 6045, 6130, 6148, 6806, 6807, 7126, 7136, 7541 to 7543, 7585, 7586, 7597 to 7599, 7605 to 7611, 7644 7888, 7890 of 2011; and R.F.A. Nos. 227, 265, 286 and 532 of 2012.

2. By filing appeals, State of Haryana is seeking reduction of compensation awarded to the landowners for the acquired land whereas by filing appeals, the landowners are seeking further enhancement thereof.

3. The appeals arise out of acquisition carried out by the State of Haryana for construction of BML Hansi Butana Multipurpose Link Channel. The acquired land pertains to 52 villages of four districts. The total length of the channel is 108 kilometers. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued on different dates and same is the position with regard to the award of the Collector and disposal of references by the learned Court below. The details thereof are extracted below in the following tables:-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sr. Name of Date of Acquired Date of The amount Date of The amount

No. of village notifica- land/actual award of awarded award by awarded by

tion under measure- the by the the Refer- the Refere-

Section 4 ment of Collector Collector in ence nce Count in

of the Act land in Rs. court Rs.

acres

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

District Kaithal

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Azimgarh 18.8.2005 40.41 27.12.2005 7.50 lacs 2.1.2009 9 lacs

for nehri/

chahi 15 lacs

for gair mumkin

2 Mahmudpur 18.8.2005 22.675 23.12.2005 5 lacs 2.8.2010 8.10 lacs

3 Malikpur 18.8.2005 26.03 27.12.2005 5 lacs 5.8.2010 8 lacs

4 Chaba 18.8.2005 35.425 6.1.2006 5 lacs 1.9.2010 8 lacs

5 Daba 18.8.2005 22.15 5.1.2006 5 lacs 4.8.2010 7.50 lacs

6 Sarwala 18.8.2005/ 12.06/ 9.1.2006/ 5 lacs/ 5.8.2010 7 lacs /

20.4.2007 05.44 29.6.2007 8.00 lacs 8.50 lacs

7 Khambahera 18.8.2005/ 39.93/ 10.1.2006/ 5 lacs/ 24.7.2010/ 6 lacs/

20.4.2007 22.48 28.6.2007/ 8 lacs/ 1.12.2010/ 8.00 lacs/

12.12.2007 8 lacs 3.9.2010/

2.12.2010

8 Tatiana 18.8.2005 35.781 20.1.2006 5 lacs 17.8.2010/ 8.25 lacs

1.12.2010

9 Kharal 18.8.2005 21.47 25.1.2006 5 lacs 4.1.2010 6 lacs

10 Badsui 18.8.2005 1.65 24.2.2006 5 lacs 9.9.2011/ 6 lacs

9.2.2011

11 Dandota 18.8.2005 20.51 24.2.2006 5 lacs 2.8.2010 5 lacs

12 Sinh 18.8.2005 11.19 28.2.2006 5 lacs 3.11.2009 7 lacs

13 Harigarh 18.8.2005 27.53 28.2.2006 6.5 lacs 1.10.2009 7.5 lacs

Kingon

14 Bhagal 18.8.2005 17.33 19.1.2006 6.5 lacs 2.8.2010 7.50 lacs

15 Balbehra 18.8.2005 8.8125 19.1.2006 5 lacs 6.9.2010 7.50 lacs

16 Theh 18.8.2005/ 20.543/ 11.5.2006/ 5 lacs 2.1.2009/ 6.00 lacs

Banhera 23.8.2005 12.49/ 11.9.2006/ 7.8.2010/

3.05/ 17.8.2006/ 11.8.2010

2.70 7.7.2006

17 Bichhian 23.8.2005 23.64 27.1.2006 5.00 lacs 1.9.2009 6.00 lacs

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

District Kurukshetra

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

18 Ramgarh 23.8.2005 23.54 30.8.2006/ 5.00 lacs/ 24.12.200 8 5.00lacs

Rohar 44.42 13.8.2007 5.00 lacs 28.2.2009

19 Rattangarh 25.4.2006/ 5.99 10.8.2007 5.00 lacs 31.3.2009 5.00 lacs

Kakrali 23.8.2005 0.99375 10.8.2007

2.24 3.3.2006

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

District Kaithal

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20 Nouch 23.8.2005 64.49 23.8.2006 5.00 lacs 3.6.2009 6.00 lacs

21 Jaswanti 23.8.2005 39.70 12.1.2006 5.00 lacs 2.11.2010 7.00 lacs

22 Balwanti 23.8.2005 0.40 12.1.2006 5.00 lacs 3.12.2010 6.00 lacs

23 Deora 23.8.2005 16.21 8.2.2006 5.00 lacs 1.12.2010 6.00 lacs

24 Keorak 23.8.2005 25.58 29.12.2005 5.00 lacs 1.10.2010 8.50 lacs

25 Geong 23.8.2005 50.60 23.1.2006 5.00 lacs 1.9.2010 8.50 lacs

26 Kathwar 23.8.2005 30.63 13.1.2006 5.00 lacs 1.10.2010/ 6.50 lacs

1.12.2010

27 Sampan 23.8.2005 3.36 17.1.2006 5.00 lacs 3.12.2010 6.00 lacs

Kheri

28 Naina 23.8.2005 19.85 16.1.2006 5.00 lacs 3.8.2010 7.50 lacs

29 Mundri 23.8.2005 35.44 31.1.2006 5.00 lacs 1.9.2010 8.00 lacs

30 Fatehpur 23.8.2005 9.40 18.1.2006 5.00 lacs 2.12.2010 11.40 lacs

31 Pundri 23.8.2005 24.11 14.1.2006/ 5.00 lacs 1.10.2010 11.40 lacs

29.1.2007

32 Kakout 23.8.2005 11.60 28.1.2006 5.00 lacs 8.1.2011/ 7.00 lacs

1.2.2011

33 Jatheri 23.8.2005 5.08 14.1.2006 5.00 lacs 17.7.2010 9.00 lacs

34 Pai 23.8.2005 49.76 24.1.2006/ 5.00 lacs 1.12.2009 9.00 lacs

25.9.2006/

29.1.2007

35 Theh 23.8.2005 44.86 16.1.2006 5.00 lacs 17.7.2010 9.00 lacs

Badella

36 Karora 23.8.2005 48.125 30.1.2006/ 5.00 lacs 1.11.2010 8.00 lacs

26.9.2006

37 Ramana 23.8.2005 6.375 28.1.2006 5.00 lacs 8.1.2011 7.00 lacs

Ramani

38 Bakal 23.8.2005 14.45 19.5.2006/ 5.00 lacs 1.11.2010/ 6.50 lacs

23.41 13.8.2007 3.11.2010

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

District Karnal

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39 Rahra 23.8.2005 8.07 18.5.2006 5.00 lacs 18.1.2011 8.00 lacs

13.8.2007 nehri/chahi nehri/chahi

7 lacs gair 9 lacs gair

mumkin mumkin

40 Panghala 9.8.2005 28.68 8.12.2005 6.00 lacs 21.4.2009 8.00 lacs

nehri/chahi nehri/chahi

7 lacs gair 9 lacs gair

mumkin mumkin

41 Rattak 9.8.2005 20.50 20.12.2005 6.00 lacs 17.11.2008 8.00 lacs

nehri/chahi nehri/chahi

7 lacs gair 9 lacs gair

mumkin mumkin

42 Jai Singh 9.8.2005 7.09 15.12.2005 6.00 lacs 12.12.2008 8.00 lacs

Pura nehri/chahi nehri/chahi

7 lacs gair 9 lacs gair

mumkin mumkin

43 Uplana 9.8.2005 45.54 28.12.2005 6.00 lacs for 3.12.2009 8.00 lacs

Nehri/Chahi for

7.00 lacs for Nehri/

Gair Mumkin Chahi

9.00 lacs

for Gair

Mumkin

44 Jabhala 9.8.2005 36.14 2.1.2006 6.00 lacs for 13.1.2010 9.00 lacs

Nehri/Chahi for Nehri/

7.00 lacs for Chahi

Gair Mumkin 10.00 lacs

for Gair

Mumkin

45 Phaprana 9.8.2005 38.37 18.1.2006 6.00 lacs for 24.4.2008 8.00 lacs

Nehri/Chahi for Nehri/

7.00 lacs for Chahi

Gair Mumkin 9.00 lacs

for Gair

Mumkin

46 Salwan 9.8.2005 55.70 16.2.2006 6.00 lacs for 11.11.2009 8.00 lacs

Nehri/Chahi for

7.00 lacs for chahi/nehri

Gair Mumkin 9.00 lacs

for gair

mumkin

47 Risalwa 9.8.2005 10.24 26.4.2006 6.00 lacs for

Nehri/Chahi

7.00 lacs for

Gair Mumkin

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

District Jind

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48 Didwara 25.8.2005 10.27 30.11.2005 5.00 lacs 23.2.2008 7.00 lacs

49 Nimnabad 25.8.2005 18.07 6.1.2006 5.00 lacs 20.11.2006 7.00 lacs

50 Sahanpur 25.8.2005 8.79 30.11.2005 5.00 lacs 23.2.2008 7.00 lacs

51 Todikheri 25.8.2005 3.21 30.11.2005 5.00 lacs

52 Anta 25.8.2005 6.88 6.1.2006 5.00 lacs 23.2.2008 7.00 lacs

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The details of the land references decided by the learned court below and status of appeals before this court is given in the table below:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sr. Name of Number of Appeals Appeals Result of Result of appeals

No. village references filed by filed by State appeals filed by the land

filed by the the State the land owners

land owners owners

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Azimgarh 21 21 20 All dismissed Allowed.

Compensation

enhanced to

Rs.9.50 lacs

2 Mahmudpur 6 6 4 Pending Pending

3 Malikpur 14 14 13 All dismissed pending

4 Chaba 16 16 11 Pending Pending

5 Daba 10 10 7 Pending Pending

6 Sarwala 6 6 3 Pending Pending

7 Khambahera 31 17 21 Dismissed Pending

8 Tatiana 29 25 27 Pending Pending

9 Kharal 12 12 6 All dismissed Pending

10 Badsui 2 1 Pending

11 Dandota 8 5 3 dismissed,

2 pending

12 Sinh 6 6 6 All dismissed All dismissed

13 Harigarh 25 25 13 Pending Pending

Kingon

14 Bhagal 15 15 1 Pending Pending

15 Balbehra 11 11 10 Pending Pending

16 Theh 32 31 - All dismissed Some decided

Banhera and five appeals

of land owners

pending

17 Bichhian 10 10 - All dismissed Some decided

but one appeal

of land owner

pending

18 Nouch 32 32 - All dismissed Disposed of.

19 Jaswanti 20 20 16 Pending Pending

20 Balwanti 5 5 1 Dismissed Pending

21 Deora 11 11 4 10 dismissed, Pending

1 pending

22 Keorak 30 30 21 Pending Pending

23 Geong 48 48 39 Pending Pending

24 Kathwar 36 36 10 16 dismissed, 2 dismissed in

20 pending default and 8

pending

25 Sampan 4 4 Dismissed

Kheri

26 Naina 17 17 7 Pending Pending

27 Mundri 49 49 20 Pending Pending

28 Fatehpur 3 3 1 Pending Pending

29 Pundri 16 16 12 Pending Pending

30 Kakout 5 5 1 Pending Pending

31 Jatheri 7 7 6 Pending Pending

32 Pai 52 52 41 Pending Pending

33 Theh 31 31 13 Pending Pending

Badella

34 Karora 34 34 29 Pending Pending

35 Ramana 4 4 4 Pending Pending

Ramani

36 Bakal 28 28 22 All dismissed Pending

37 Rahra 4 - - - -

38 Panghala 16 16 12 All dismissed All dismissed

39 Rattak 10 10 9 All dismissed All dismissed

40 Jai Singh 1 1 1 Dismissed Dismissed

Pura

41 Uplana 27 27 19 All dismissed All dismissed

42 Jabhala 29 29 25 All dismissed All dismissed

43 Phaphrana 27 27 26 All dismissed All dismissed

44 Salwan 35 35 21 All dismissed Disposed of

45 Risalwa - - - - -

46 Didwara 16 16 12 Dismissed Dismissed

47 Nimnabad 34 34 1 Dismissed Dismissed

48 Sahanpur 15 15 1 Dismissed Dismissed

49 Todikheri 3 3 3 Dismissed Dismissed

50 Anta 13 13 12 Pending Dismissed

51 Ramgarh 33 33 28 Pending Pending

Rohar

52 Rattangarh 3 - 3 Pending

Kakrali

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguments

Village Mahmudpur (District Kaithal)

5. The learned court below in the present case had relied upon the award pertaining to acquisition of land for the same purpose of village Azimgarh and applied a cut of 10% considering its location. The contention of learned counsel for the land owners is that in RFA No. 2565 of 2009 –State of Haryana and another v. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur and others, decided on 23.3.2011, the amount of compensation payable for the land pertaining to village Azimgarh has been increased from Rs.9,00,000/- per acre to Rs.9,50,000/- per acre. The land owners in the present case be also granted increase correspondingly. It was further submitted that the land in question is located quite close to Punjab boundary. Village Azimgarh is also situated at the boundary of Punjab and Industrial town Samana, which is already a developed area. There was lot of pressure in this area as well for setting up of rice shellers etc.

6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that location of land pertaining to village Azimgarh is better as compared to the land of village Mahmudpur. There was evidence led by the land owners in that case which was in the form of sale deeds pertaining to land of the same village, which is not there in the present case, as no documentary evidence in the form of sale deeds has been produced on record by the land owners of the village in question. In fact, the State had produced sale deed (Ex. R1) pertaining to land measuring 37 kanals and 16 marlas, which was registered on 1.6.2005 at an average price of Rs.2,85,714/- per acre. Considering the aforesaid fact, the award of the learned court below deserves to be set aside and that of the Collector to be upheld.

Village Malikpur (District Kaithal)

7. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that two sale deeds (Ex. P8 and Ex. P9) produced on record by them, which were registered on 8.6.2005 and 7.6.2005 respectively for 16 marlas and 2 marlas of land respectively at an average price of Rs.12,00,000/- per acre have not been given due weightage. The land in question is adjoining to the land of villages Azimgarh and Mahmudpur. For the purpose of assessment of compensation, the learned court below had placed reliance on the award pertaining to village Azimgarh. There is increase awarded by this court for the land pertaining to village Azimgarh in the case of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur’s case (supra), the land owners in the present case be also granted corresponding increase. It was further submitted that the appeals filed by the State impugning the award pertaining to this village have been dismissed vide judgment dated 31.10.2011 passed in [2011(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3565] : R.F.A. No. 5606 of 2010 --State of Haryana and others v. Neeru Gupta.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that no doubt, the appeals filed by the State have been dismissed by this court, but still the land owners cannot possibly make out a case for enhancement of compensation. Reliance on the award pertaining to the land of villages Azimgarh and Mahmudpur is not relevant as village Azimgarh is located at a far off distance. As far as reliance on sale deeds produced by the land owners is concerned, those are pertaining to small plots of 2 marlas and 16 marlas. In case, the amount already awarded to the land owners is considered, the same comes out merely on an application of cut of 1/3rd, which is quite on lower side. In any eventuality, no case for enhancement of compensation can possibly be made out.

Villages Chaba and Daba (District Kaithal)

9. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that while assessing compensation for the land in question, the learned court below had relied upon the award pertaining to villages Azimgarh and Mahmudpur. The land in question is adjoining to the land of villages Azimgarh and Mahmudpur. There is increase awarded by this court for the land pertaining to village Azimgarh in the case of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur’s case (supra), the land owners in the present case be also granted corresponding increase. However, he was candid in stating that there is no sale deed produced on record by the land owners, which is pertaining to the land of the village in question. These are of neighbouring villages.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that reliance on the value of land pertaining to villages Azimgarh and Mahmudpur is totally irrelevant. In the absence of any evidence in the form of sale deeds pertaining to the land of the village in question, the land owners cannot possibly seek enhancement of compensation, rather, it is a case in which the amount of compensation deserves to be reduced. The principle that if assessment of compensation for the land pertaining to one village is assessed at a particular rate, the valuation of land for villages subsequent thereto in line should be by reducing certain amount will not be fair as there has to be independent evidence for assessment of compensation. Sale deed (Ex. R1) produced on record by the State showing average sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- has been ignored by the learned court below.

Village Sarwala (District Kaithal)

11. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that location of the land pertaining to village Sarwala is quite strategic. It is located on the outer-skirts of Cheeka town and close its extended municipal limits. However, it is not disputed that no sale deed has been produced on record pertaining to the land of the village in question. The sale deeds produced in evidence pertain to the land of neighbouring villages.

12. Learned counsel for the State submitted that it is wrong to state that village Sarwala is located close to the extended municipal limits of Cheeka town, rather, it is at a far off place and beyond river Ghaggar. For the land pertaining to this village, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued twice, i.e., on 18.8.2005 and 20.4.2007. Consequently, two different awards were announced by the Collector and even the reference court assessed the compensation at different rates. Though the land owners have come in appeal pertaining to first acquisition, no appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquisition carried out second time. He further submitted that in the absence of any sale deed pertaining to the land of the village in question, there was no material before the court below to enhance the compensation, what to talk of increase before this court. He further submitted that the State had produced sale deed (Ex. R1) pertaining to 4 kanals of land, which was registered on 9.6.2006 at an average sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.

Village Khembera (Khambahera) (District Kaithal)

13. Learned counsel for the land owners, while adopting the contentions raised by them pertaining to land of village Sarwala, submitted that a big marble market had come up in the area of this village. It was catering to many neighbouring districts. Villages Sarwala and Khambahera are adjoining. Whatever amount is awarded for the land pertaining to village Sarwala, the same should be awarded for the land in question. However, no sale deed pertaining to the land of the village in question was referred to at the time of hearing.

14. Learned counsel for the State submitted that reliance on the award of neighbouring village is not relevant. The land owners were required to produce sale deeds pertaining to the land of the village in question. They having failed to do so do not deserve any increase. He was fair enough to submit that the award pertaining to first acquisition where notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 18.8.2005 has been upheld by this court vide judgment dated 17.11.2010, passed in R.F.A. No. 572 of 2010 –State of Haryana and another v. Smt. Murti Devi and others in the appeals filed by the State. He further submitted that for the bunch of references decided by the court below for the second acquisition pertaining to the same village, no appeal has been filed by the State.

Village Tatiana (District Kaithal)

15. Learned counsel for the State submitted that assessment of compensation by the learned court below in the case in hand is quite anomalous. The acquisition in the present case is for the purpose of construction of BML Hansi Branch-Butana Branch Multi purpose link channel, where the land pertaining to different villages in contiguity was acquired. For villages Khambahera and Kharal, which are located on both sides of the channel in question, the Reference Court had assessed the compensation @ Rs.6,00,000/- per acre, whereas for the village in question, it was assessed @ Rs.8,25,000/- per acre which cannot be justified in the absence of any evidence on record. In fact, the same is merely by applying a thumb rule while referring to the policy of the State for awarding minimum amount of compensation, which in fact is not relevant for the case in hand for the reason that the policy providing for minimum rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre was applicable for the awards which were announced by the Collector on or after 22.3.2007. He further submitted that sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2), which were registered on 1.7.2005 and 3.5.2005, respectively showing average sale consideration of Rs.2,79,000/- and Rs.2,60,000/- per acre have not been considered at all. The compensation on account of severance has been awarded to all the land owners irrespective of the fact whether their land was bifurcated or not.

16. No one appeared for the land owners.

17. In the list of cases, decided by the learned Reference Court and the number of appeals filed in this court, it is mentioned that total references decided were 29, whereas the State has filed appeals only in 25 cases. Learned counsel for the State submitted that four appeals are in pipe line for filing.

Village Kharal (District Kaithal)

18. No one appeared for the land owners.

19. Learned counsel for the State was fair enough to state that the appeals filed by the State against the award of the learned court below pertaining to the acquisition in question have been dismissed by this court in R.F.A. No. 2575 of 2010—State of Haryana and others v. Ruldu, decided on 5.5.2011. However, considering the evidence on record, no case for enhancement is made out.

Village Badsui (District Kaithal)

20. No one appeared for the land owners.

21. No appeal has been filed by the State against the award passed by the learned court below.

Village Harigarh Kingon (District Kaithal)

22. No one appeared for the land owners.

23. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in the absence of any evidence produced on record by the land owners in the form of sale deeds pertaining to the land of the village in question, the land owners could not seek any enhancement. They, in fact, had produced sale deeds pertaining to other villages. Two sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) produced on record by the State clearly justified the award of the Collector. In fact, it was on account of policy of the State Government that amount of compensation was being granted to the land owners which is much more if compared with the prevailing market price. He further submitted that for the land pertaining to village Dandota, which is located close to village Harigarh Kingon, award of compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre has been upheld by this court in R.F.A. No. 483 of 2011—Gurmail Singh alias Gola v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 16.5.2011.

Village Bhagal (District Kaithal)

24. No one appeared for the land owners.

25. Learned counsel for the State submitted that sale deed (Ex. R1) showing average sale consideration of Rs.2,85,000/- per acre has not been considered at all, rather, the court below had granted same amount of compensation, as has been awarded for the land pertaining to village Harigarh Kingon. The land owners did not produce any sale deed pertaining to the land of the village in question. For the neighbouring villages, the compensation at a lower rate has already been upheld by this court, i.e., for villages Dandota, Theh Banhera.

Village Balbehra (District Kaithal)

26. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that for assessing compensation for the land of the village in question, the learned court below had relied upon the award pertaining to the land of village Harigarh Kingon. As appeals impugning the award of Harigarh Kingon are pending in this court, same amount of compensation be awarded to the land owners in the present case also. He further submitted that as the land has been bifurcated, the land owners be awarded severance @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre.

27. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that reliance on award of a neighbouring village is not relevant. Two sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2), which were registered on 16.5.2005 and 5.11.2004, respectively showing average sale consideration of Rs.2,30,000/- per acre have been totally ignored by the learned court below.

Villages Ramgarh Rohar and Rattangarh Kakrali (District Kurukshetra)

28. Notification under Section 4 of the Act pertaining to village Ramgarh Rohar was issued on 23.8.2005, whereas for the land pertaining to village Rattangarh Kakrali, the same were issued on 23.8.2005 and 25.4.2006. However, the Collector announced the awards on 30.8.2006 and 13.8.2007 pertaining to village Ramgarh Rohar and on 10.8.2007 for the land of village Rattangarh Kakrali. The delay occurred on account of the fact that the land owners filed C.W.P. No. 13202 of 2006-Banta Ram and others v. State of Haryana and [2005(3) Land L.R. 106 (P&H)] :[2005(3) Law Herald (P&H) 630] :C.W.P. No. 16212 of 2005—Satish Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, which were dismissed by this court on 23.7.2007.

29. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that though the awards by the Collector in the present case were announced on 30.8.2006 and 13.8.2007, however, still even as per the policy of the State Government, the amount of compensation has not been paid. In terms of the evidence produced on record by them, they are entitled to at least Rs.22,00,000/- per acre. Sale deed (Ex. P1) registered on 14.6.2006 for a big chunk of land measuring 81 kanals and 8 marlas sold at an average price of about Rs.10,00,000/- per acre has not been considered at all. However, he did not dispute the fact that there is no site plan to show the location thereof.

30. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the learned court below had awarded compensation on account of severance even to those land owners whose big chunk of land was left on either side of the channel, which should have been limited to the land owners who owned one or two acres of land. It was further submitted that benefit of the policy framed by the State in 2007 cannot be given to the land owners on account of award announced after the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the land owners. The delay in announcement of the award was only on account of stay granted by this court. The land owners cannot take advantage of their own action. In all other cases, the award was announced in 2006. In terms thereof, the land owners have already been awarded compensation. It was further argued that the learned court below had exceeded its jurisdiction while granting annuity to the land owners, though in terms of the policy of the State. The issue regarding grant of annuity cannot be subject-matter of land references as the only issue under consideration before the Reference Court was determination of fair amount of compensation for the acquired land.

31. Only the land owners have filed appeals against the award of the learned court below pertaining to the acquisition of land in village Rattangarh Kakrali.

Village Jaswanti (District Kaithal)

32. Learned counsel for the land owners referred to sale deed (Ex. PW7/A), registered on 21.12.2005, whereby 31 kanals and 16 marlas of land was sold at an average price of Rs.7,10,000/- per acre. Reference was also made to an agreement to sell dated 5.7.2005 (Ex. PW5/A), where the land was agreed to be sold at an average price of Rs.7,35,000/- per acre. It was submitted that the learned court below while placing reliance on the award pertaining to the land of village Keorak had reduced the compensation as compared to that without any basis. The land owners, in fact, deserve to be granted same amount of compensation. It was not pointed out as to whether any sale deed was registered in terms of the agreement to sell (Ex. PW5/A).

33. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) produced by the State showing average sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.3,20,000/- per acre, respectively have been totally ignored. He further submitted that even if there is some portion of land located on the road, the land owners can be awarded higher amount of compensation but value of the entire land cannot be assessed at the same rate. Reliance on award pertaining to other village is totally irrelevant.

Village Balwanti (District Kaithal)

34. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners was that for the land pertaining to adjoining village Nouch, this court has already awarded compensation to the land owners @ Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. The same amount of compensation should be awarded to the land owners in the present case. He further submitted that the appeals filed by the State pertaining to acquisition in question have already been dismissed vide order dated 20.4.2011, passed in [2010(4) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 3297] :R.F.A. No. 1893 of 2011—State of Haryana and another v. Rameshwar and others.

35. Learned counsel for the State submitted that without there being any independent material on record, the land owners in the present case cannot be awarded compensation higher than that what had already been awarded to them by the learned court below.

Village Deora (District Kaithal)

36. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land in question is quite strategically located. It is in close proximity of Kaithal. Village Keorak is also located at the same distance. The only difference is that it is located on Ambala-Kaithal National Highway No. 65. The award pertaining to village Keorak can very well be relied upon for the purpose of assessment of compensation for the land of the village in question.

37. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there being qualitative difference in the location of the land pertaining to two villages, it will not be appropriate to place reliance on the award pertaining thereto as the same can only be in cases where both are qualitatively same.

Village Keorak (District Kaithal)

38. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land in question is located on National Highway No. 65. It is the first village after Kaithal towards Ambala. The land is located six kilometers from Kaithal. Kaithal city is expanding towards the acquired land. The acquired land has great potentiality. Village Keorak has population of about 20,000. Learned counsel placed reliance on sale deed (Ex. P1), registered on 2.8.2006, whereby 14 kanals and 15 marlas of land was sold at an average price of Rs.19,00,000/- per acre. Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 23.8.2005. Even if the sale deed is later in point of time, 20% cut can be applied thereon. However, no site plan was referred to show the location of the land dealt with in the sale deed. The Collector’s rates were also referred to, which was Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for the land located on the main road, whereas for rest of the land it was Rs.7,50,000/- per acre.

39. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2), registered on 19.1.2004 and 5.5.2005 respectively, showing average sale consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- have not been considered by the learned court below. Higher rate can be award for the land located on National Highway upto a particular depth, but as the acquisition is in the form of a small strip, the entire land cannot be assessed at the same rate.

Village Geong (District Kaithal)

40. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the acquired land has great future potentiality. It is located on Kaithal-Karnal State Highway just two kilometers from the municipal limits. Kaithal City is at a a distance of 5-6 kilometers. Railway Station and newly developed Sectors 19 and 20, Kaithal are about two kilometers away from the acquired land. Expansion of city is towards the acquired land as rice shellers and colleges are constructed on this side. Seven tubewells were existing on the acquired land, but the learned court below has awarded merely Rs.13,000/-, which is quite meager, as submersible pumps were there on which lacs of rupees had been spent by the land owners. There were six kothas on the acquired land but appropriate amount of compensation has not been awarded. For village Pai, which is located at a distance of about 20 kilometers from the acquired land, the learned Reference Court had awarded Rs.9,00,000/- per acre. The land owners in the present case deserve to be granted more than that amount.

41. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that no sale deed pertaining to the land of the village in question was produced by the land owners. The sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) showing average sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre have not been considered at all. Regarding existence of tubewells and kothas, no evidence was led by the land owners. If we move from Kaithal city, in between there is a Railway line and then comes village Geong.

Village Naina (District Kaithal)

42. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land is sandwiched between Kaithal-Karnal and Kaithal-Kurukshetra State Highways. Lot of development activity was there in the area. It is merely 10 kilometers away from Kaithal. Though there is no sale deed produced on record, but still considering the fact that acquisition was for the purpose of construction of a canal passing through many villages, award pertaining to land of neighbouring similarly situated village can very well be relied upon.

43. Learned counsel for the State submitted that three sale deeds (Ex. R1 to Ex. R3) showing sale consideration ranging from Rs.1,75,000/- to Rs.3,81,000/- per acre have been ignored by the learned court below. The Reference court while assessing compensation for the acquired land had applied a thumb rule. No sale deed was produced by the land owners pertaining to the land of the village in question. No special advantage is attached to the land in question.

Village Mundri (District Kaithal)

44. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that sale deed (Ex. P4), registered on 1.2.2006, whereby six marlas of land was sold for Rs.36,000/-, at an average price of Rs.9,60,000/- per acre, has been ignored by the learned court below. The acquired land is 13 kilometers from Kaithal and five kilometers from Pundri. It is close to Kaithal-Karnal State Highway. Sugar Mill is located nearby.

45. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that sale deed (Ex. P4), relied upon by the land owners, is not relevant as the same was registered on 1.2.2006, whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 23.8.2005. Sale deeds (Ex. R1 to Ex. R3) showing average sale consideration of Rs.1,87,000/- to Rs.1,95,000/- per acre have not been considered by the learned court below. Award of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre to the land owners by the learned court below is on the higher side. As the award was announced on 31.1.2006, it could be as per the policy of the State Government.

Village Fatehpur (District Kaithal)

46. No one appeared for the land owners.

47. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the sale deeds produced on record by the land owners pertain to the period after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The policy of the State Government providing for minimum rates for acquisition of land announced in the year 2007 was referred to, which has no relevance as the award in the present case was announced by the Collector on 18.1.2006. In the absence of any evidence produced by the land owners, no case for enhancement can possibly be made out. Reliance on the award of neighbouring village Pundri is totally misconceived considering the fact that the land pertaining to both the villages had different potentiality. The land in question is located on Kaithal-Karnal road. If some portion of the land is abutting the road, only that portion can be assessed at the higher rate and not the entire land.

Village Pundri (District Kaithal)

48. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that number of sale deeds have been produced on record showing that value of the land in the area was ranging from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.22,00,000/- per acre. Some of the sale deeds may be for smaller plots, however, sale deed (Ex. P19) is for land measuring 1 kanal and 10 marlas. It is forming part of Rect. No. 29. The acquired land pertains to Rect. Nos. 37, 38 and 73, which is quite close thereto, though he admitted that there is no site plan on record to show the location of the land pertaining to the sale deed vis-avis the acquired land. He further submitted that cut of 40% on the value shown in the sale deeds is on the higher side. It could be at the most @ 20%. In support, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 3512 of 1992 –Chand Khan and others v. The State of Haryana, decided on 31.3.2008. He further submitted that Pundri is a big town where number of commercial establishments were already there. It had all basic infrastructural facilities being close to Kaithal. It was developing at a very fast pace.

49. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P19) is located close to Rajondh-Dand road, whereas the distance of the canal therefrom is about 1-1/2 kilometers. All the sale deeds produced by the land owners pertain to small plots located in the abadi area. There is no site plan produced on record to show the exact location thereof. The sale deeds of small plots can be considered in a given situation by application of an appropriate cut in the value shown therein only when these are comparable in location vis-a-vis the acquired land. If there is no relevance, then there is no question of its consideration what to talk of application of cut. It being a case of no evidence, the award of the Collector deserves to be upheld. The land was purely agricultural when it was acquired and same was the purpose of acquisition. In fact, the sale deeds produced on record by the State clearly justified the award of the Collector, which was much more than the value of the land in the area as in terms of the policy of the State Government, minimum amount of compensation was awarded for acquisition of land.

Village Kakout (District Kaithal)

50. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that though there is no evidence produced on record by the land owners in the form of sale deeds pertaining to the land of the village in question, however, still as the learned court below has also done, the awards pertaining to neighbouring villages, i.e., Pundri and Mundri were relied upon as both the villages had similar location and potentially. As even the land pertaining to village Pundri is also similar in kind, the land owners in the present case should be awarded compensation similar to that of village Pundri.

51. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in the absence of any evidence produced on record by the land owners in the form of sale deeds pertaining to the land of the revenue estate concerned, no case for enhancement of compensation can possibly be made out. Reliance on the award of the neighbouring villages is totally misconceived as there is always a difference in quality and potentiality. The sale deeds produced on record by the State clearly justified the award of the Collector.

Village Jatheri (District Kaithal)

52. In the present case, no evidence was led by the parties. The learned court below had merely relied upon the award pertaining to village Pai.

Village Pai (District Kaithal)

53. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that village Pai is a town. It will be a misnomer to call it a village. It is an assembly constituency. A big Anaj Mandi is already there. Otherwise also, it has all the infrastrucutral facilities. Sale deed (Ex. PW4/B) was produced on record, which was registered on 10.7.2007 for land measuring 31 kanals and 13 marlas at an average price of Rs.15,57,750/- per acre. A cut @ 12% per annum can be applied for a period of two years for the purpose of assessment of value of the acquired land. After application of cut, the value shall come out to Rs.11,40,000/- per acre. However, no site plan was referred to show the location of the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deed. It was further submitted that the learned court below had gone wrong while applying cut twice, i.e., firstly @ 12% per annum and thereafter further 30% was reduced. The potentiality of the land has been totally ignored.

54. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that sale deeds (Ex. R1 and Ex. R2) produced by the State clearly established that the award of the Collector was fully justified. In fact, higher amount of compensation was paid to the land owners in view of the policy of the State, where minimum rates were provided for acquisition of land. The sale deed produced by the land owners has no relevance as it was registered two years after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It otherwise also cannot be compared for the reason that there is no site plan produced on record to show the location thereof. Though the land owners sought to rely upon the award pertaining to village Azimgarh, the same has no relevance at all as the location thereof is at a far off place from the land in question. With the acquisition and construction of canal, in fact, the land owners have been benefitted as they got assured irrigation facility. The value of the remaining land had also increased.

Village Theh Badella (District Kaithal)

55. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that there is no population in village Theh Badella. In fact, it is not a separate village but merely a separate revenue estate, which is part of village Pai. The learned court below has awarded compensation to the land owners, which is similar to what has been granted to the land pertaining to village Pai. Same amount should be awarded by this court as well, as the appeals pertaining to village Pai are also pending.

56. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there may not be any habitation in village Theh Badella, but still it is a separate revenue estate. For the purpose of assessment of compensation for the land pertaining to a different revenue estate, sale deed pertaining thereto is the appropriate basis of evidence. It will not be safe to place reliance on the value of land assessed for a neighbouring village.

Village Karora (District Kaithal)

57. No one appeared for the land owners.

58. Learned counsel for the State submitted that sale deed (Ex. R1) dated 14.10.2005 produced on record by the State clearly justified the award of the Collector. No relevant evidence has been produced on record by the land owners, as all the sale deeds are post-acquisition. The learned court below has merely applied a thumb rule and assessment of compensation is without any basis, which deserves to be set aside.

Village Ramana Ramani (District Kaithal)

59. Learned counsel for the land owners fairly submitted that no evidence had been led by the land owners in the present case. Reliance was placed upon the awards pertaining to neighbouring villages, i.e., Pai and Karora, as both are similarly located. Even before this court, the contention is same.

60. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in the absence of any direct evidence produced on record by the land owners pertaining to land of the same village, the learned court below has committed grave illegality in enhancing the compensation.

Village Bakal (District Kaithal)

61. Learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence produced on record by the land owners. Sale deed (Ex. P2) was registered on 30.5.2000 for a plot measuring 2 marlas with an average price of Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. The time gap in the acquisition thereafter can very well be set off against the smallness of the plot dealt with in the sale deed. He further referred to sale deed (Ex. P3) dated 1.8.2007, whereby a plot measuring 9 marlas was sold at an average price of Rs.18,40,000/- per acre. It is located quite close to the acquired land. However, no site plan was referred to show the exact location of both the plots. While referring to sale deed (Ex. P3), the submission was that even if it is post-acquisition, a reasonable cut can be applied. It was further submitted that the canal is located merely at a distance of 4-5 acres away from the village abadi. Though land of all the land owners had been divided into two parts, the compensation on account of severance has been given only to three land owners. The other land owners have filed application before this court seeking permission to produce additional evidence showing that their land has also been divided into two parts. For award of compensation on account of severance, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this court in [2009(2) Land L.R. 634 (P&H)] : [2009(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1342] : R.F.A. No. 1867 of 2007--State of Haryana and another v. Mithu Singh and others, decided on 27.4.2009. He further submitted that for village Salwan, the land which was acquired for the same purpose and located close to the village in question, the award of the learned court below assessing compensation @ Rs.8,00,000/- per acre has been upheld by this court.

62. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the village in question, the land of which has been acquired, is located 30 kilometers from Kaithal and 12 kilometers from Pundri. The land was purely agricultural. There was no activity as such in the area. It had no potentiality as such. With the acquisition and construction of channel, in fact, the land owners have been benefitted as they got assured irrigation facility. The value of the remaining land had also increased. The sale deeds produced on record by the State clearly justified the award of the Collector.

DISCUSSION

63. The bunch of cases pertain to acquisition of land for BML Hansi Butana Channel. It is off taking from Bhakhra Main Line (‘BML’). The total length of the canal for which the acquisition pertaining to land of 52 villages was carried out by different notifications, is 108 kilometers. Beginning from the revenue estate of village Azimgarh, which is located at the boundaries of the State of Punjab, within the State of Haryana, in District Kaithal, the canal passes through the revenue estates of various villages in District Kaithal, Kurukshetra, Karnal and Jind and is connected with Hansi Branch. The order in which the villages fall on the way of canal has already been given in paragraph No. 3 while narrating the facts pertaining to issuance of notifications under Section 4 of the Act and award of the Collector etc.

64. Though no composite site plan was produced on record by either of the parties before the court below showing location of the entire acquired land and the route of the canal, however, before this court, a site plan has been produced by learned counsel for the State, titled as “Index Plan of BML Hansi Butana Canal on Road Map”. The same is taken on record as mark “A” on 26.3.2012. As is evident on a perusal of the site plan, on the way firstly is Cheeka town, then comes Kaithal and Pundri. The rates, at which the Collector had assessed compensation for the land pertaining to different villages and also the amount assessed by the learned court below, has already been given in the table in paragraph No. 3 of the judgment. All the cases pertaining to the revenue estates of villages falling in District Karnal and Jind (except appeals filed by the State pertaining to land of village Anta, District Jind) have already been decided by this court, whereas the cases pertaining to some of the villages of District Kaithal have also been decided. The details thereof are extracted below:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sr. Name of Name of Amount assessed by Amount assessed

No. village the District the learned court by this court

below in Rs. per acre in Rs. per acre

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Azimgarh Kaithal 9.00 lacs 9.50 lacs

2 Dandota Kaithal 5.00 lacs upheld

3 Sinh Kaithal 7.00 lacs Upheld

4 Theh Kaithal 6.00 lacs 6.50 lacs

Banhera

5 Bichhian Kaithal 6.00 lacs 6.50 lacs

6 Nouch Kaithal 6.00 lacs 6.50 lacs

7 Kathwar Kaithal 6.50 lacs Upheld

8 Sampan Kaithal 6.00 lacs Upheld

Kheri

9 Panghala Karnal 8.00 lacs, 9.00 lacs Upheld

for gair mumkin

10 Rattak Karnal 8.00 lacs 9.00 lacs Upheld

for gair mumkin

11 Jai Singh Karnal 8.00 lacs 9.00 lacs Upheld

Pura for gair mumkin

12 Uplana Karnal 8.00 lacs 9.00 lacs Upheld

for gair mumkin

13 Jabhala Karnal 9.00 lacs 10.00 lacs Upheld

for gair mumkin

14 Phaphrana Karnal 8.00 lacs 9.00 lacs Upheld

for gair mumkin

15 Salwan Karnal 8.00 lacs 9.00 lacs Upheld

for gair mumkin

16 Didwara Jind 7.00 lacs Upheld

17 Nimnabad Jind 7.00 lacs Upheld

18 Sahanpur Jind 7.00 lacs Upheld

19 Todikheri Jind 7.00 lacs Upheld

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

65. Though four land references were decided by the learned court below pertaining to land of village Rahra, District Karnal but learned counsel for the State did not point out filing of any appeal by the State for the same.

66. Regarding acquisition of land in village Tatiana, out of 29 land references decided by the court below, the State filed appeals only in 25 cases.

67. If we peruse index plan of the entire area, produced in court and marked as “A” showing total length of the channel beginning from village Azimgarh, which is located on the boundary of the State of Punjab, all the villages, the land of which has been acquired, are linked with a network of roads. On the way, first main town is Cheeka. Villages Harigarh Kingon and Bhagal are located on Cheeka-Pehowa road. Next town on the way is Kaithal. Village Keorak is located along with Kaithal- Ambala National Highway No. 65. Villages Geong and Kathwar are located close to Kaithal-Kurukshetra road. Villages Mundri, Pundri and Fatehpur are located on State Highway No. 8, Kaithal-Karnal road. Villages Pai and Jatheri are located close to MDR No. 118. Villages Khambahera and Tatiana are located on State Highway No. 11- Kaithal- Patiala road.

68. In case titled as Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) By LRs. Vs. State of Gujarat, [2005(3) Land L.R. 1 (SC)] : 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 492, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down certain broad principles for determination of compensation for the acquired land. Relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:-

17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 4.

18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.

19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.

20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative facts are as under :-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Positive facts Negative factors

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area

(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a

distance from the road

(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with

very small frontage compared

to depth

(iv) nearness to developed (iv) lower level requiring area

the depressed portion to be

filled up

(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from

developed locality

(vi) level vis-a-vis land under (vi) some special acquisition

disadvantageous factors

which would deter a purchaser

(vii) special value for an owner

of an adjoining property to

whom it may have some very

special advantage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price.”

69. In case titled as Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar Versus Raghubir Singh etc., [2011(2) Land L.R. 737 (SC)] : [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1195] : 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 301, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined as under:-

“6. The question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances. We may illustrate:

(A) When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a single uniform rate.

(B) If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate.

(C) Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end being two to three kilometers away, obviously, the rake that is adopted for the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is farther away from the town. In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will be given the highest price, the remotest belt with be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing rates from the highest to the lowest.

(D) Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometres is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate. The fact that the distance between one point to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometres may not make any difference.”

70. In case titled as Thakur Kuldeep Singh (D) Thr. L.R. & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors., [2010(2) Land L.R. 243 (SC)] : [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 952] : 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 372, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined as under:-

“6. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act speak about the matters to be considered and to be neglected in determining compensation. Let us consider whether the appellants are entitled to higher compensation than that of the one fixed by the High Court or Union of India is justified in seeking reduction of the market value/compensation for the acquired land. While fixing compensation, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court to take into consideration the nature of the land, its suitability, nature of the use to which the lands are sought to be acquired on the date of notification, income derived or derivable from or any other special distinctive feature which the land is possessed of, the sale transactions in respect of land covered by the same notification are all relevant factors to be taken into consideration in determining the market value. It is equally to consider the suitability of neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any special characteristics available. The Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Court should always keep in their mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at a reasonable and adequate market value of the land. While doing so, imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of evidence should be avoided. More attention should be on the bona fide and genuine sale transactions as guiding star in evaluating the evidence. The relevant factor would be that of the hypothetical willing vendor would offer for the land and what a willing purchaser of normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In other words, the Judge who sits in the armchair of the willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and reasonable.”

71. In the case in hand, the aforesaid principles can very well be applied considering the fact that it is the acquisition of land pertaining to 52 villages for the purpose of construction of BML Hansi Butana Branch Multipurpose Link Channel having a total length of 108 kilometers, where small-small portions of land of different villages in contiguity had been acquired.

72. As per the details furnished by learned counsel for the State, the entire acquired land falls in six blocks, i.e., Cheeka, Pehowa, Kaithal, Pundri, Assandh and Safidon. The distance of the villages from the main town, as have been mentioned above in each block, has been furnished by the State in the site plan produced in court. There is no dispute that valuation of land in acquisition cases cannot be with mathematical precision. Many times thumb rule has to be applied, especially in the cases where the acquisition is for the purpose of construction of a channel or road and not in the form of a big block of land at one place. In the case of acquisition for channel, small strip of land passes through number of villages. The principles of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court have been kept in mind while assessing the compensation in the case in hand.

73. Statement showing the distance of various villages from nearest block/town whose land was acquired is extracted below:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sr. Name of Name of the Name Distance Amount Amount

No. village District of Block/ in kilo- assessed assessed

village town meters from by the by this court in

nearest learned Rs. per acre

block/town court below

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Azimgarh Kaithal Cheeka 25 9.00 lacs 9.50 lacs

2 Mahmoodpur Kaithal Cheeka 20 8.10 lacs

3 Malikpur Kaithal Cheeka 18 8.00 lacs

4 Chaba Kaithal Cheeka 14 8.00 lacs

5 Daba Kaithal Cheeka 12 7.50 lacs

6 Sarwala Kaithal Cheeka 10 7.00 lacs/ 8.50 lacs

7 Khembera @ Kaithal Cheeka 10 6.00 lacs/ 8.00 lacs

Khambahera

8 Tatiana Kaithal Cheeka 8 8.25 lacs

9 Kharal Kaithal Cheeka 9 6.00 lacs

10 Badsui Kaithal Cheeka 7 6.00 lacs

11 Dandota Kaithal Cheeka 10 5.00 lacs upheld

12 Sinh Kaithal Cheeka 10 7.00 lacs Upheld

13 Harigarh Kaithal Cheeka 6 7.50 lacs

Kingon

14 Bhagal Kaithal Cheeka 10 7.50 lacs

15 Balbehra Kaithal Cheeka 12 7.50 lacs

16 Theh Kaithal Cheeka 10 6.00 lacs 6.50 lacs

Banhera

17 Bichhian Kaithal Cheeka 16 6.00 lacs 6.50 lacs

18 Ramgarh Kurukshetra Pehowa 18 5.00 lacs

Rohar

19 Rattangarh Kakrali Kurukshetra

Pehowa 18 5.00 lacs

20 Nouch Kaithal Kaithal 16 6.00 lacs 6.50 lacs

21 Jaswanti Kaithal Kaithal 13 7.00 lacs

22 Balwanit Kaithal Kaithal 13 6.00 lacs

23 Deora Kaithal Kaithal 12 6.00 lacs

24 Keorak Kaithal Kaithal 10 8.50 lacs

25 Geong Kaithal Kaithal 7 8.50 lacs

26 Kathwar Kaithal Kaithal 8 6.50 lacs Upheld

27 Sampan Kheri Kaithal Kaithal 10 6.00 lacs

28 Naina Kaithal Pundri 7 7.50 lacs

29 Mundri Kaithal Pundri 6 8.00 lacs

30 Fatehpur Kaithal Pundri 2 11.40 lacs

31 Pundri Kaithal Pundri 2 11.40 lacs

32 Kakout Kaithal Pundri 6 7.00 lacs

33 Jatheri Kaithal Pundri 2 9.00 lacs

34 Pai Kaithal Pundri 8 9.00 lacs

35 Theh Kaithal Pundri 8 9.00 lacs

Badella

36 Karora Kaithal Pundri 14 8.00 lacs

37 Ramana- Kaithal Pundri 14 7.00 lacs

Ramani

38 Bakal Karnal Pundri 18 6.50 lacs

39 Rahra Karnal Assandh 12 8.00 lacs nehri/

chahi/9.00 gair

mumkin

40 Panghala Karnal Assandh 10 8.00 lacs Upheld

nehri/chahi/

9.00 gair

mumkin

41 Rattak Karnal Assandh 8 8.00 lacs nehri/ Upheld

chahi/9.00 gair

mumkin

42 Jai Singh Karnal Assandh 8 8.00 lacs nehri/ Upheld

Pura chahi/9.00 gair

mumkin

43 Uplana Karnal Assandh 14 8.00 lacs nehri/ Upheld

chahi/ 9.00 gair

mumkin

44 Jabhala Karnal Assandh 8 9.00 lacs nehri/ Upheld

chahi/10.00 gair

mumkin

45 Phaphrana Karnal Assandh 9 8.00 lacs nehri/ Upheld

chahi/ 9.00 gair

mumkin

46 Salwan Karnal Assandh 10 8.00 lacs nehri/ Upheld

chahi/ 9.00 gair

mumkin

47 Risalwa Karnal Assandh 11 --

48 Didwara Jind Safidon 10 7.00 lacs Upheld

49 Nimnabad Jind Safidon 8 7.00 lacs Upheld

50 Sahanpur Jind Safidon 5 7.00 lacs Upheld

51 Todikheri Jind Safidon 6 7.00 lacs Upheld

52 Anta Jind Safidon 6 7.00 lacs Upheld

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

74. Firstly taking up the villages, which are located in Cheeka block.

75. A perusal of the aforesaid table shows that distance of Cheeka town of different villages ranges from 6 kilometers to 25 kilometers. The value of land pertaining to villages Azimgarh, Dandota, Sinh, Theh Banhera and Bichhian, falling in this block, has already been determined by this court, as has been mentioned in table in paragraph No. 4.

76. For village Azimgarh, which is located near the boundaries of State of Punjab, considering the evidence produced on record by the land owners in Smt. Paramjeet Kaur’s case (supra), this court had assessed the compensation @ Rs.9,50,000/- per acre. If we consider its distance from Cheeka, the same is at the farthest distance.

77. As far as villages Harigarh Kingon and Bhagal are concerned, both are located on Cheeka-Pehowa road. The award of the Collector was announced in January/February, 2006. As per policy of the government, the minimum amount of compensation, which was fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for awards announced on or after 5.3.2005 was increased to Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for the awards announced on or after 22.3.2007. Considering the fact that the award in the present case was announced in between and giving the benefit of the location of the villages on road, in my opinion, no interference is called for by this court in the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned court below.

78. As far as village Tatiana is concerned, the Reference Court had decided 29 land references. The State is in appeal only in 25 cases. In four land references, no appeal has been filed. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mahadev v. The Asstt. Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer, (1994-2004) (Vol. II) Supreme Court Judgments on Land Acquisition 1658 and R.F.A. No. 2269 of 2005 –Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 28.10.2010, the State cannot seek reduction of compensation in some of the cases as it cannot discriminate. Accordingly, the award pertaining to village Tatiana is also upheld.

79. The distance of village Balbehra from Cheeka town is stated to be 12 kilometers, whereas village Sinh is located at a distance of 10 kilometers from Cheeka. It is in the form of a triangle. For village Sinh, this court had upheld the assessment of compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. The land owners for village Balbehra deserve to be granted the same amount of compensation, as considering the distance of both the villages from Cheeka town and on a perusal of the site plan, there being no special advantage evident, same amount of compensation deserve to be paid to the land owners in the present case. The learned court had assessed the compensation @ Rs.7,50,000/- per acre pertaining to the land of village Balbehra. As there is small difference, this court would not like to interfere and the award of the learned court below is upheld.

80. As far as villages Badsui and Kharal are concerned, the same are located at a distance of 7 and 9 kilometers respectively from Cheeka town. For village Sinh, this court had upheld the assessment of compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, which is at a distance of 10 kilometers from Cheeka town. The land owners for villages Badsui and Kharal deserve to be granted the same amount of compensation considering the distance of both the villages from Cheeka town.

81. For village Sarwala, the acquisition was carried out vide notifications dated 18.8.2005 and 20.4.2007. For the acquisition carried out on 18.8.2005, the Collector assessed the compensation @ Rs.5,00,000/- per acre vide award dated 9.1.2006, whereas for the acquisition carried out on 20.4.2007, the Collector assessed the compensation @ Rs.8,00,000/- per acre vide award dated 29.6.2007. The reference court assessed the compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.8,50,000/- per acre respectively for both the acquisitions. Village Sarwala is located 10 kilometers from Cheeka. For the land acquired in villages Sinh, Badsui and Kharal, this court has assessed the compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, which are located almost at the same distance from Cheeka town. As per policy of the government, the minimum amount of compensation, which was fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for awards announced on or after 5.3.2005 was increased to Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for the awards announced on or after 22.3.2007. Considering the fact that the awards in the present case were announced on 9.1.2006 and 29.6.2007, no interference is called for by this court in the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned court below.

82. As far as land pertaining to village Khambahera is concerned, the first award of the Collector, announced by the Collector on 10.1.2006. The distance of the village in question is 10 kilometers from Cheeka, which is same as is village Sarwala. For village Sarwala, compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre assessed by the learned court below for the acquisition carried out at the same time has been upheld by this court in the preceding paragraph. Accordingly, for the land acquired vide notification dated 18.8.2005, the award of which was announced by the Collector on 10.1.2006, the land owners are held entitled to compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre.

Subsequent thereto, another notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act on 20.4.2007, in which two different awards were announced by the Collector on 28.6.2007 and 12.12.2007. The Collector assessed the compensation for the aforesaid acquisitions @ Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. As far as the land, the award of which was announced by the Collector on 28.6.2007 @ Rs.8,00,000/- per acre is concerned, the same is upheld as it is according to the policy of the State Government issued on 6.4.2007, whereby minimum floor rate was fixed @ Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. The rates are applicable to all those acquisitions where awards have been announced on or after 22.3.2007, irrespective of the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The second award was announced on 12.12.2007. There is a difference of nine months from the cut-off date of the policy and the second award. For the said time gap, if increase @ 9% is given, the amount of compensation comes out to Rs.8,72,000/- per acre, which the land owners deserve to be granted. Ordered accordingly.

83. As far as villages Daba, Chaba, Malikpur and Mahmudpur are concerned, the Collector had awarded Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for the acquired land. The learned Reference Court had assessed the compensation @ Rs.7,50,000/- per acre for village Daba, 8,10,000/- per acre for village Mahmudpur, whereas for the remaining villages, the same has been assessed @ Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. The villages are located at a distance of 12, 14, 18 and 20 kilometers respectively from Cheeka. For the land acquired in villages Balbehra, Sinh, Badsui and Kharal, this court has assessed the compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre, which are located at a distance of about 10-12 kilometers from Cheeka town. The channel is located at a distance of half kilometer going parallel along with the link road from the villages. The judgment of this court in Smt. Paramjeet Kaur’s case (supra), where this court had assessed the compensation @ Rs.9,50,000/- per acre for the land acquired in village Azimgarh, is not relevant for the reason that it is a town located on the boundary of State of Punjab, where on Punjab side also, lot of development was there.

84. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the land owners for all the villages deserve compensation @ Rs.7,50,000/- per acre. Though the compensation assessed by this court for the villages in question is a little less than the compensation assessed by the learned court below, however, still considering the fact that there is a little difference, this court will not like to interfere with the impugned award and the amount of compensation already assessed is upheld.

85. Now taking up the villages, which are located in Pehowa Block.

86. As far as villages Ramgarh Rohar and Rattangarh Kakrali are concerned, notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 23.8.2005. The Collector announced the awards on 30.8.2006 and 13.8.2007 for village Ramgarh Rohar and on 3.3.2006 and 10.8.2007 for village Rattangarh Kakrali. The delay in announcing the award occurred on account of the fact that the land owners filed writ petitions in this court, which were dismissed on 23.7.2007. As per policy of the government, the minimum amount of compensation, which was fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for awards announced on or after 5.3.2005 was increased to Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for the awards announced on or after 22.3.2007. Considering the fact that first award in the present case was announced on 30.8.2006, the land owners deserve to be awarded compensation @ Rs.6,50,000/- per acre.

87. The pronouncement of award by the Collector for some portion of land was delayed on account of pendency of the writ petition filed by the land owners, in which stay was granted. The land owners cannot be granted the benefit thereof for considering the date of announcement of award, as in terms of the policy of the State Government, the cut-off date for assessment of compensation, in case the policy is to be applied, is the date of the award of the Collector. For part of the land, the award was announced on 30.8.2006. The same shall be considered to be the relevant date for the purpose.

88. As far as award of annuity to the land owners in the present case by the learned Reference Court is concerned, this court had considered the issue in [2012(5) Law Herald (P&H) 316] : R.F.A. No. 2536 of 2009 –Prem Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 17.2.2012 and opined that under the provisions of the Act, the Reference Court had no jurisdiction to deal with any issue except determination of compensation for the acquired land. The annuity is payable to the land owners in terms of the policy framed by the State, which is not justifiable in proceedings under the Act for determination of compensation for the acquired land. Still the fact remains that the land has been acquired for use by the State and the annuity is also to be paid by the State, this court would not like to interfere with the directions issued.

89. We shall now consider the villages falling in Kaithal Block.

90. As far as village Jaswanti is concerned, the same is located 13 kilometers from Kaithal town. The learned Reference Court has awarded compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. This Court in R.F.A. No. 3741 of 2009 –State of Haryana and others v. Man Singh and others, decided on 23.3.2011, pertaining to the acquisition of land in village Nouch, which is located at a distance of about 16 kilometers from Kaithal town, has assessed the compensation @ Rs.6,50,000/- per acre.

91. Considering the aforesaid fact, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the learned court below assessing the compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre pertaining to village Jaswanti.

92. As far as land pertaining to villages Balwanti and Deora is concerned, no one appears for the land owners. The appeals filed by the State have already been dismissed. A perusal of the chart as well as the site plan produced in court on record by the State, distance of villages Balwanti and Deora from Kaithal is 13 and 12 kilometers respectively. For village Jaswanti, which is also located at a distance of 13 kilometers from Kaithal and just adjoining to village Balwanti, award of Rs.7,00,000/- per acre by the Reference Court has been upheld.

93. Considering the aforesaid facts, the land owners pertaining to the aforesaid two villages are held entitled to compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre.

94. As regards villages Keorak and Geong are concerned, village Keorak is located on Ambala-Kaithal National Highway No. 65 and village Geong is located on Kaithal-Kurukshetra MDR No. 119. The same are located at a distance of 10 kilometers and 7 kilometers respectively from Kaithal town. The learned court below has assessed the compensation @ Rs.8,50,000/- per acre for the acquired land in both the villages. This court has assessed the compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre for the land pertaining to village Jaswanti, which is located at a distance of 13 kilometers from Kaithal town. Considering the distance of both the villages from Kaithal town, in my opinion, no interference is called for with the award of the learned court below assessing compensation @ Rs.8,50,000/- per acre.

95. For assessment of compensation for different villages located in Pundri Block, the principle as has been applied for assessment of compensation for the villages in other blocks, namely, distance from the main town, the situation and location of the town itself, the kind of development there has been considered. However, a thumb rule had to be applied considering the fact that direct evidence is not available.

96. For the land pertaining to the land of villages Pundri and Fatehpur, though sale deeds have been produced on record, but the same are not very relevant. The amount of consideration paid therein cannot be awarded to the land owners. However, the same certainly show the trend of prices in the area. The land is always dear to the land owners. It is their bread and butter. Village Fatehpur is located just adjoining to village Pundri close to Kaithal-Karnal road. It is a State Assembly Constituency. A big grain market is located there. Number of rice shellers have been set up in the area. It cannot be termed as a village. It is a town which is developing at a good pace.

97. Considering the aforesaid facts, the amount of compensation, as has already been assessed by the learned court below, does not call for any interference by this court. Accordingly, amount of Rs.11,40,000/- per acre awarded by the learned court below as compensation is upheld.

98. Village Jatheri is also stated to be located at a distance of two kilometers from Pundri. However, the site plan produced on record by the State in court shows its location, which is beyond Kaithal-Karnal road. Pundri drain also falls within. The learned court below had assessed the compensation @ Rs.9,00,000/- per acre which, in my opinion, deserves to be upheld considering its location and the amount of compensation awarded for the land pertaining to villages Pundri and Fatehpur. Ordered accordingly.

99. Now taking up the cases of villages Mundri and Kakout. Both the villages are stated to be situated at a distance of six kilometers from village Pundri, the main town nearby. The learned court below had assessed the compensation @ Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for the land pertaining to village Mundri, whereas for the land pertaining to village Kakout, the same had been assessed @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre. The villages are located on either side of Kaithal-Karnal road. Considering its location and the fact that these are at an equal distance from Pundri, a town nearby, in my opinion, the compensation payable for the land pertaining to both the villages deserves to be assessed at the same rate, i.e., Rs.9,00,000/- per acre. Ordered accordingly.

100. Village Naina is stated to be situated at a distance of seven kilometers from Pundri. It is located at quite a distance from Kaithal- Karnal road. Considering the aforesaid fact and the compensation assessed for the land pertaining to villages Mundri and Kakout, which are located close to Pundri and also on Kaithal-Karnal road, in my opinion, the compensation assessed for the land pertaining to village Naina @ Rs.7,50,000/- per acre does not call for any interference by this court. Accordingly, the same is upheld.

101. Now taking up the cases pertaining to the land of villages Pai and Theh Badella. Both are stated to be situated at a distance of 8 kilometers from Pundri, close to Pundri-Rajound road. Pai is stated to be a State Assembly Constituency. A big grain market is already located there. It is not a village, rather, a developing town. Considering the aforesaid fact and the amount of compensation assessed for the land pertaining to village Pundri, in my opinion, the compensation already awarded by the learned court below @ Rs.9,00,000/- per acre does not call for any interference by this court. Accordingly, the same is upheld.

102. As far as land pertaining to villages Karora and Ramana Ramani is concerned, both the villages are stated to be located at an equal distance, i.e., 14 kilometers from Pundri. The compensation payable for villages Pai and Theh Badella, which are situated at a distance of eight kilometers from Pundri has been assessed @ Rs.9,00,000/- per acre. For the land pertaining to village Kakout, compensation has been awarded @ Rs.9,00,000/- per acre. It is located at a distance of six kilometers from Pundri. For village Bakal, which is located at a distance of 18 kilometers from Pundri, compensation @ Rs.6,50,000/- per acre has already been upheld by this court in R.F.A. No. 314 of 2011—The State of Haryana and another v. Kabal Singh and others, decided on 28.3.2011.

103. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the landowners pertaining to village Ramana Ramani deserves to be granted compensation at the same rate, i.e., Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. Ordered accordingly. As far as acquisition of land pertaining to village Karora is concerned, the award of the learned Reference Court is upheld.

104. With regard to acquisition of land pertaining to village Bakal, no one appeared for the land owners. A perusal of the chart as well as the site plan produced in court on record by the State, distance of village Bakal from Pundri is 18 kilometers. For village Ramana Ramani, which is located at a distance of 14 kilometers from Pundri, award of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre by the Reference Court has been upheld.

105. Considering the aforesaid facts, the land owners pertaining to village Bakal are held entitled to compensation @ Rs.7,00,000/- per acre.

106. To sum it, it is held that the land owners shall be entitled to the compensation at the following rates pertaining to different villages:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sr. No. Name of village Amount assessed by this

court per acre in Rs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Mahmudpur 8,10,000/-

2 Malikpur 8,00,000/-

3 Chaba 8,00,000/-

4 Daba 7,50,000/-

5 Sarwala 7,00,000/- and 8,50,000/- for awards dated 9.1.2006 and 29.6.2007 respectively.

6 Khambahera 7,00,000/-, 8,00,000/- and 8,72,000/- for awards dated 10.1.2006, 28.6.2007 and

12.12.2007 respectively.

7 Tatiana 8,25,000/-

8 Kharal 7,00,000/-

9 Badsui 7,00,000/-

10 Harigarh Kingon 7,50,000/-

11 Bhagal 7,50,000/-

12 Balbehra 7,50,000/-

13 Jaswanti 7,00,000/-

14 Balwanti 7,00,000/-

15 Deora 7,00,000/-

16 Keorak 8,50,000/-

17 Geong 8,50,000/-

18 Naina 7,50,000/-

19 Mundri 9,00,000/-

20 Fatehpur 11,40,000/-

21 Pundri 11,40,000/-

22 Kakout 9,00,000/-

23 Jatheri 9,00,000/-

24 Pai 9,00,000/-

25 Theh Badella 9,00,000/-

26 Karora 8,00,000/-

27 Ramana Ramani 8,00,000/-

28 Bakal 7,00,000/-

29 Ramgarh Rohar 6,50,000/-

30 Rattangarh Kakrali 6,50,000/-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The land owners shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits available to them under the Act.

107. As far as grant of severance is concerned, this court would not like to interfere with the amount whatever has been awarded to the land owners in terms of the evidence led before the court below. However, as far as grant of statutory benefits thereon is concerned, the learned court below shall consider the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Amarjit Singh and another, [2011(1) Land L.R. 563 (SC)] : [2011(2) Law Herald (SC) 1388 : 2011(2) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 1055] : AIR 2011 (SC) 982.

_________

RFA No. 1714 of 2009 (O&M)

State Of Haryana & Anr. v. Pala Ram & Ors.

Structured Summary of the Judicial Opinion (BML Hansi Butana Channel Land Acquisition Appeals)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (State of Haryana) — Principal Arguments

Respondents (Landowners) — Principal Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

State Of Haryana & Anr. v. Pala Ram & Ors.

Comments