,,,,,,,
G.S. Sandhawalia, J",,,,,,,
The present judgment shall dispose of the above-said 735 appeals and one cross-objection filed against the awards of the Reference Court, Panchkula,",,,,,,,
for the 2 notifications, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act'), dated 30.11.2006 and 27.08.2007. Out of the 9",,,,,,,
villages in question, in the first notification dated 30.11.2006, three villages are common and the purpose of acquisition is also inter se related.",,,,,,,
Therefore, the land being situated in close vicinity of each other, both the notifications are being taken together as the potentiality of the land which is",,,,,,,
to be seen for assessing the market value, can be kept in mind if the facts and evidence of both the cases are scanned together. It is pertinent to",,,,,,,
notice that for the second notification in question dated 27.08.2007, the State, as such, is satisfied and has not filed any appeals for decreasing of the",,,,,,,
market value whereas for the first notification, the State appeals have also been filed.",,,,,,,
Facts of the 1st notification dated 30.11.2006 and arguments raised by counsels,,,,,,,
2. The land measuring 467.03 acres of 9 Villages Surajpur, Baglana, Pinjore, Abdullapur, Rathpur, Firozpur, Manakpur Devilal, Manakpur Nanakchand",,,,,,,
and Manakpur Thakardas, Distt Panchkula, was acquired for the public purpose of development of Sectors 27, 28 & 30, Pinjore. The Land Acquisition",,,,,,,
Collector, vide award No.7 dated 26. 11.2009, granted Rs.20 lakhs per acre (Rs.413/- per sq.yard) as uniform compensation. The Reference Court,",,,,,,,
while deciding 481 cases, lead case being Ram Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and another ,on 13. 11.2017 enhanced the market value to Rs.1478/- per",,,,,,,
sq.yard (Rs.71,53,520/- per acre). Thereafter, vide awards dated 09.01.2018, 18. 05.2018, 20.07.2018 and 27.08.2018, the earlier award was followed.",,,,,,,
The ground for enhancing the market value was the basis of 3 sale deeds falling in Villages Ferozepur and Abdullapur (Exs.PW12/D, 12/F & 12/G).",,,,,,,
The average of the said 3 sale deeds was resorted to after giving cumulative enhancement on the same, to fix the market value @ Rs.2956/- per",,,,,,,
sq.yard. and thereafter, 50% cut was applied, to fix the market value.",,,,,,,
3. Counsels for the landowners have, accordingly, argued qua the potentiality of the land to show that it was sandwiched between the National",,,,,,,
Highway-22 leading to Shimla, coming from Ambala and Chandigarh and on the northern side of the land, the Pinjore-Baddi -Nalagarh road, which is",,,,,,,
also National Highway No.21-A, was situated. On the eastern side of the land, the famous Mughal Gardens, namely, Pinjore Gardens were situated",,,,,,,
and the road going to Baddi-Nalagarh, into Himachal Pradesh was the gateway to the industries. It is, accordingly, argued, while placing reliance upon",,,,,,,
Ex.PW19/E, the site-plan that Exs.PW-12/D and 12/G, the land of which was falling in Village Ferozepur, was part of the acquired land being of the",,,,,,,
same khasra number. Resultantly, reliance was placed upon the best sale deed, Ex.PW-12/G to submit that there was only a difference of 6 months",,,,,,,
from the date of execution of the sale deed which was dated 08.05.2006 and land had been sold @ Rs.2500/- per sq.yard. If 7% enhancement was,,,,,,,
granted on account of the time difference, the market value would work out to Rs.2675/- per sq.yard and 30% cut would bring the market value to",,,,,,,
Rs.1800/- per sq.yard. Resultantly, enhancement was prayed for. It was further argued that in the close vicinity for Village Pinjore, land for Bhima",,,,,,,
Devi Temple was acquired though post notification on 14.11.2007, whereby Rs.2400/- per sq.yard had been granted and even if a reverse cut is",,,,,,,
applied, the market value would work out to Rs.1700-1800/- per sq.yard. It is submitted that land was having maximum potential and belting should not",,,,,,,
be resorted to and there is no evidence by the respondents that the nature of the land was different.,,,,,,,
4. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has argued that the Reference Court had not taken into consideration the sale deeds produced by the State",,,,,,,
in its proper perspective, which showed that the market value of the land was bordering around the same range, as awarded by the LAC and that the",,,,,,,
findings were wrongly recorded by the Reference Court that the sale deeds of the State were below to what has been awarded and had wrongly been,,,,,,,
brushed aside, in view of Section 25 of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Lal Chand Vs. Union of India",,,,,,,
2009 (15) SCC 769, to submit that the said sale deeds should have been kept into consideration. It is submitted that Ex.R- 14 dated 28.02.2006 showed",,,,,,,
that the market value was around Rs.28,79,993/- per acre and therefore, was not liable to be rejected, as it was of Village Rathpur. Reference is",,,,,,,
made to Ex.R-35 to point out that the 2 sale deeds, Exs.R-14 and R-21 were shown on the site-plan and were wrongly ignored and therefore, the",,,,,,,
market value was liable to be reduced.,,,,,,,
5. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar Vs. Raghubir Singh 2010 (11) SCC",,,,,,,
581, to submit that belting system should be adopted as lot of land was situated away from the Nalagarh Highway. The land of the other villages which",,,,,,,
were not abutting the National Highway could not be compared with the land which was falling on the Highway. It was similarly argued that equation,,,,,,,
with the acquisition for the Bhima Devi Temple could not be done as the location was different and it was situated in the middle of Pinjore town and,,,,,,,
the land had been acquired subsequently, vide notification dated 14.11.2007.",,,,,,,
Facts of the 2nd notification dated 27.08.2007 and arguments raised by counsels,,,,,,,
6. Vide notification dated 27.08.2007, issued under Section 4, land of 7 villages, namely, Rampur Seeyuri, Razipur, Surajpur, Manakpur Nanak Chand,",,,,,,,
Manakpur Thakur Dass, Lohgarh and Dhamala were acquired. Out of these, three villages, namely, Surajpur, Manakpur Nanak Chand and Manakpur",,,,,,,
Thakur Dass are common villages, in the first notification which had been issued. Land measuring 231.77 acres was acquired for the public purpose",,,,,,,
namely to provide access to the residential Sectors 27 to 31, Pinjore and for the purpose of providing a link road starting from NH-22 near Surajpur",,,,,,,
which was to meet the Nalagarh Road near the Aviation Club, Pinjore. The LAC, vide award dated 28.03.2008, also awarded Rs.20 lakhs per acre.",,,,,,,
The Reference Court, while deciding 190 reference petitions, lead case of which was LAC-247 titledR am Singh Vs. State of Haryana &",,,,,,,
another, on 7. 09.2013 fixed the market value @ Rs.888/- per sq.yard (Rs.42,97,920/- per acre). Thereafter vide award dated 20.01.2014, 3. 07.2014,",,,,,,,
09.09.2014, 20.10.2014, 29.10.2014, 22.01.2015, 05.02.2015, 30.03.2015, 15.01.2016 and 08.02.2018, the earlier award was followed. Reliance was",,,,,,,
placed upon sale deeds-Exs.P-21 to P-23 and P-26 of land falling in Villages Islamnagar and Bhagwanpur, which were adjoining villages and across",,,,,,,
the National Highway No.22 and the average of the sale deeds worked out to Rs.2219.50 per sq.yard (Rs.1,07,39,960/- per acre). A cut of 60% was",,,,,,,
imposed on the same to fix the market value @ Rs.888/- per sq.yard.,,,,,,,
7. Counsel for the landowners, accordingly, argued that the land was acquired for the purpose of road and there was no cut liable to be imposed on the",,,,,,,
market value which had been assessed. The sale exemplars were not small plots of land and were of reasonable chunks of land and therefore, the cut",,,,,,,
was not justified. It was, accordingly, argued that the benefit of the sale deeds of the adjoining villages could be granted as there was immense",,,,,,,
potential in the land as private builders were in the process of developing the land in the neighbourhood. On the other side, as noticed, the State had",,,,,,,
itself carved out Sectors 27 to 31 and resultantly, the potentiality was immense.",,,,,,,
8. Similarly, the argument raised was that the benefit of the best sale deed whereby land had been sold @ Rs.2357/- per sq.yard and the land",,,,,,,
measured 25 bighas 17 biswas (5.38 acres) and was situated in Village Bhagwanpur and had been sold on 17.08.2007 (Ex.P-21), only 10 days prior to",,,,,,,
the notification in question, should be granted. It was also submitted that in Villages Rampur Seeyuri, Razipur and Surajpur, a huge chunk of land",,,,,,,
measuring 121 acres had been sold by the ACC Cement Company Ltd., to a developer on 19/21.11.2007, which was post-notification @ Rs.3248/- per",,,,,,,
sq.yard (Ex.P-31). It was submitted that the registered agreement to sell had been executed on 22.12.2006, prior to the date of the Section 4",,,,,,,
notification and the sale had taken place in pursuance of the said agreement and therefore, it was a bona fide sale transaction. Even if it was post-",,,,,,,
Sr.
No.",Village,Hadbast No.,"Land Acquired
(in acres)",,,,
1,Surajpur,109,77.19,,,,
2,Baglana,112,1.65,,,,
3,Pinjore,113,22.71,,,,
4,Abdullapur,115,20.33,,,,
5,Rathpur,116,65,,,,
6,Firezepur,117,39.88,,,,
7,Manakpur Devi Lal,118,129.54,,,,
8,Manakpur Nanak Chand,119,59.30,,,,
9,Manakpur Thakur Dass,120,51.43,,,,
Nalagarh road upto the Railway line was the minimum rate and thereafter, upto the Kalka Tehsil, it was 600 per sq.yard. For the lands of Villages",,,,,,,
Rathpur, Dharampur, Bitna, Abdullapur, Islam Nagar, Bhairo Ki Sair, Naggal, Seeyuri, Ferozpur, the minimum rates were Rs.40,000 per biswa and for",,,,,,,
commercial land, Rs.60,000/- per biswa. For Khera Sita Ram, Tipra, Lohgarh, Tagra Hansua, Tagra Kaliram, Tagra Hakimpur, Tagra, Sahu,",,,,,,,
Vasudevpura, Bhogpur, Rajipur @ Jhajra, Manakpur Devi Lal, Manakpur Nanak Chand, Manakpur Thakur Dass, the rate was Rs.25,000/- per biswa",,,,,,,
and for others, Rs.15,000/- per biswa. For the land of Village Dharampur, Bitna Islam Nagar, Naggal Seeyuri, Bhairo Ki Sair, which were outside the",,,,,,,
Municipal limits, the minimum rates were Rs.25,000/- per biswa. From Pinjore Garden to the outer limit of Pinjore on both sides upto 100 feet, it was",,,,,,,
Rs.4000 per sq.yard and from Pinjore Municipal limits, to BDPO office Kalka Rs.3000 per sq.yard and from BDPO office to Shimla Railway Bridge,",,,,,,,
Rs.3500/- per sq.yard. For Rathpur Colony, Rs.1200/-per sq.yard for residential and Rs.1500/- per sq.yard for commercial and for Vishvakarma",,,,,,,
Colony, Saini Mohalla, Bairagi Mohalla, Bitna Colony, Lekh Ram Colony, Dashmesh Colony, Bhima Devi Colony, Kabir Panthi Mohalla, Rs.1200/- for",,,,,,,
residential and Rs.1500/- per sq.yard for commercial land, was the rate.",,,,,,,
13. Ram Sharan, Addl.Sub-Divisional Engineer, PW-3, produced the latest lay-out plan of Housing Board Colony, Himshikha at Pinjore on the land of",,,,,,,
Islam Nagar and Naggal Sodhian and the Aks-Sijra as P-7 & P-6. The Housing Board had developed a colony, which had been acquired vide",,,,,,,
notification and award (Exs.P-3 to P-5) and the Section 4 notification was dated 01.09.1982 and the Section 6 notification dated 14.02.1983 (Ex.P-4).,,,,,,,
The award was dated 07.07.1983 (Ex.P-5). Rajesh Kumar, Junior Draftsman, PW-4 produced the Blue-prints of development plan of Pinjore Kalka",,,,,,,
Urban Complex upto 2025 AD (Ex.P-8). The Blue-print of Aks Sijra of Sectors 27 & 28, Kalka Pinjore Part-II were produced as Ex.P-10. The",,,,,,,
Amrawati Enclave portion was shown in orange colour as Ex.P-11 and DLF in green colour and IREO in brown and pink colour.,,,,,,,
14. PW-5, Vinod Kumar, AGM (Legal), DLF Pvt. Ltd. also appeared and submitted that they had purchased the land of Village Bhagwanpura and",,,,,,,
Islamnagar from January, 2007 to September, 2007 for development and utilization for residential and commercial colonies by the land owning",,,,,,,
companies. Some of the land had also been acquired but was subsequently released. Brochures, as such, were also brought on record as Ex.P-13 and",,,,,,,
location of the site shown in black colour was produced to submit that it was a Government approved plan falling in Kalka Pinjore Urban Complex and,,,,,,,
companies had purchased land at Rs.1.05 crores per acre approximately.,,,,,,,
15. PW-6, Gurmit Singh stated that lands of Rathpur, Ferozepur and Abdullapur were also within the Municipal limits for the last many years and the",,,,,,,
land of Manakpur Devilal was out of the Municipal limits at the time of the acquisition. It was stated that his land was situated on the National,,,,,,,
Highway No.22 and HMT was at a distance of 8 kms from Baddi city. He stated that the land of Village Razipur was sold @ Rs.1.2 crores per acre,,,,,,,
and that the Express Highway adjoined the NH-21 at 1 km before Baddi which was constructed by the Punjab State and the said intersection was 8,,,,,,,
kms from the land. His land was adjoining Pinjore, Bhima Devi Colony and Shiv Shakti Colony of Pinjore. Himshikha and Amrawati were situated 500",,,,,,,
meters from his land and it was admitted that the land was at a distance of 3 kms from Himshikha and Amrawati colonies. He also denied that HMT,,,,,,,
Colony and commercial/shopping market complex were not existing at the time of acquisition.,,,,,,,
16. PW-7, Rajinder Kumar, Patwari admitted that some of the land had been released as mentioned in PW-7/4 along with the constructions. PW-8,",,,,,,,
Abinash Kumar, Accounts Officer of M/s Amarnath Aggarwal Pvt. Ltd., brought the record of M/s Amarnath Aggarwal Pvt. Ltd. that the company",,,,,,,
was the owner-in-possession of the land of Villages Bhagwanpur and Islam Nagar and had applied for licence for the purpose of development into,,,,,,,
residential and commercial area of Amrawati Enclave. Photocopy of the lay-out plan was submitted as Ex.PW-8/B. In the year 2005-06, the",,,,,,,
Company had sold plots of 10 marlas @ Rs.5000-6500/- per sq.yard and also for plots measuring 12 and 14 marlas. The details of the plots and the,,,,,,,
estimates were also exhibited. The Amrawati Colony was shown in orange colour in Sector 2 as per Ex.P-11.,,,,,,,
17. PW-9, Mangal Dass, submitted his affidavit and in cross-examination, stated that he had installed a factory in his land without proper sanction.",,,,,,,
Manakpur Nanakchand, abadi was at a distance of 200 meters from his land and he denied the suggestion that Baddi was situated 12 kms from his",,,,,,,
land. PW-10, Surinder Singh tendered the site-plan (Ex.PW-10/1) which was prepared by him and also denied that the factory was without sanction",,,,,,,
and claimed that value of the property in question was not less than Rs.40 lakhs. The abadi of the village was near the land in question.,,,,,,,
18. PW-11 Jawala Ram, Patwari produced the summoned record and the Aks-sijra of the said villages, photocopies of which were exhibited as PW-",,,,,,,
11/B to PW11/J, respectively. The highlighting was done of Sectors 27, 28 & 30 with light-green highlighter. The land of Bhima Devi was falling in",,,,,,,
Khasra No.147, 162 and 163, out of which, 162 and 163 had been acquired by the Archeological Department in 2007 and belonged to Jarnail Singh.",,,,,,,
The other land was at a distance of 350 feet from the the acquired land at Khasra No.124. The land developed by HMT in Surajpur had been shown,,,,,,,
with Orange highlighter and was adjoining the acquired land of Surajpur. Some area of Surajpur was adjoining the revenue boundary of Rajjipur was,,,,,,,
of ACC cement factory, which had been sold by registered sale deed (Ex.P-1) along with adjoining land of Rajjipur, Rampur Siyuri and Surajpur. The",,,,,,,
land between Khasra No.147, 162 & 163 were the adjoining residential Colony, namely, Shiv Shakti Colony, Pinjore. In cross-examination, he stated",,,,,,,
that the Shiv Shakti Colony was a old residential colony already established 15 years prior and houses were existing in the colony. He admitted that the,,,,,,,
entire land did not abut the National Highway and only the frontage abutted the National Highway No.21-A.,,,,,,,
19. PW-12, Tara Chand submitted his affidavit (Ex.P-12/D) and submitted that he was a co-sharer with Jeet Ram to the extent of 1/8th share but had",,,,,,,
sold the land (Ex.PW-12/B) to Ashok. Mutation regarding inheritance of the co-owner, Paras Ram in favour of the son, Lajja Ram etc. was also",,,,,,,
exhibited. Certified copies of PW-12/D to PW-12/G were also brought on record. He submitted that Jeet Ram was his uncle and had died and he had,,,,,,,
only a married daughter and no son. He was residing with his married daughter in Himachal and Jeet Ram was not in possession of his share and,,,,,,,
offered to sell @ Rs.3000/- per sq.yard, which he sold to Ashok. PW-13, Joginder Singh stated about the inheritance from his father, late Paras Ram,",,,,,,,
as per mutation Ex.P-12/C and also that Jeet Ram was his uncle. He also deposed in the same lines that the land was in their possession and that,,,,,,,
Ashok had purchased the land at a lessor amount i.e. Rs.3000/- per sq.yard and the value was more than Rs.5000/-per sq.yard.,,,,,,,
20. PW-14, Mehma Ram, Lambardar was also produced, who had signed the sale deed (Ex.R-21) executed by Jeet Ram in favour of Ashok and",,,,,,,
stated that he knew Jeet Ram personally, whose wife was pre-deceased and he had no son. He deposed that the vendor had told him that he had no",,,,,,,
person or family member residing in the village and therefore, he was selling the land at that rate. The Document Writer had told him that the stamp",,,,,,,
duty would be much more and he had requested him to prepare the sale deed as minimum as possible. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P-21 bore the,,,,,,,
correct sale consideration.,,,,,,,
21. Bhag Chand, Patwari, appearing as PW-15 brought the Aks-sijra (Ex.PW-15/A to PW-15/D) of Village Rathpur, Abdullapur, Ferozpur, Manakpur",,,,,,,
Thakurdass and Pinjore. He stated that the lands of the said villages along with Abdullapur were adjoining Pinjore-Nalagarh National Highway and the,,,,,,,
land of Rathpur was situated near the Railway line was marked-X and the railway line was marked-AB. The said khasra number was about 1 km,,,,,,,
away from the National Highway and was at a height. The Pinjore-Nalagarh Highway was shown as point C to D. The land of Ex.PW-12/D of,,,,,,,
Ferozepur was shown at point A on the Aks-Sijra in Ex.PW-11/H. The land of PW-12/G of Khasra No.53 of Ferozepur was shown at point B. The,,,,,,,
land of Ex.PW-12/F at Khasra Nos.310/289/230/83(2-0) and 228/83 of Abdullapur was marked at point A. The land of Baglana adjoined the NH-22,,,,,,,
which was the Shimla road. The land of all the villages was of same nature, quality and potentiality. Attested copies of the brochures (Ex.PW16/A)",,,,,,,
were produced by the Technical Assistant of the Estate Officer, Panchkula and the blue-print for the development plan of Pinjore-Kalka as Ex.PW-",,,,,,,
17/A were produced by Praveen Kumar, PW-17, the Assistant Town Planner in the DTP's office, Panchkula. Sunil Dutt produced the HUDA",,,,,,,
Sr.
No.",Village,Hadbast No.,"Land Acquired
(in acres)",,,,
1,Rampur Seeyuri,106,38.35,,,,
2,Razipur,108,12.97,,,,
3,Surajpur,109,8.45,,,,
4,"Manakpur
Nanakchand",119,13.35,,,,
5,"Manakpur Thakar
Dass",120,39.30,,,,
6,Lohgarh,121,39.77,,,,
7,Dhamala,122,79.58,,,,
26. PW-2, Rajinder Singh, Patwari, produced the notification dated 30.11.2006 of Sectors 27, 28 & 30 Pinjore and Sectors 2 Part, 3, 4 & 5, Pinjore",,,,,,,
dated 26.09.2007 as Ex.P-10. He further stated that the acquired land abutted the NH-22 and adjoined Villages Bhagwanpur, Islam Nagar and",,,,,,,
Rampur Seeyuri. The Amrawati Enclave was at a distance of 500 meters from the acquired land which was being used for agricultural purposes prior,,,,,,,
to its acquisition. He admitted that the land of the 3 villages was similar in nature, quality and situation. The boundary of HMT touched the acquired",,,,,,,
land and Yadwindra Garden, Pinjore was at a distance of about 4 kms. In cross-examination, he admitted that the land was being used for agricultural",,,,,,,
purposes prior to its acquisition.,,,,,,,
27. PW-3, Jawala Ram, Patwari, Halqa Pinjore proved the Aks Sijra for the villages as Exs.P-14 to P-20. The acquisition was for the purpose of link",,,,,,,
road from NH-22 Panchkula-Kalka road to NH-21A Pinjore Nalagarh Road and to link Sectors 27, 28, 29, 30 & 31 of Pinjore, being developed by",,,,,,,
HUDA, from Rampur Seeyuri on the NH-22 to NH-21A near Aviation Club/Aerodrome. The land had been highlighted on Ex.P-14 to P-20 in Orange",,,,,,,
colour and the same was within the Municipal Limit of Panchkula. The land of ACC Cement Company was shown in Ex.P-15 which had been sold.,,,,,,,
The houses and residential colonies were situated in close proximity of the land acquired and were of villages Rampur Seeyuri, BCW Surajpur, HMT,",,,,,,,
Dhamala etc. Some of the land which had been acquired including some land of HMT was of urban nature. The Amrawati Enclave falling in Sector 2,",,,,,,,
Pinjore was stated to be a posh residential area and opposite the abadi of Rampur Seeyuri from which the link road joined with NH-22. The said,,,,,,,
colony was residential and commercial and developed many years prior to the acquisition. Islam Nagar revenue also adjoined the revenue estate of,,,,,,,
Rampur Seeyuri. The land on the other side of the National Highway along with Amrawati Enclave were relating to revenue estates of Bhagwanpur,",,,,,,,
Naggal Sodian, Islam Nagar, Bhogpur, Bakshiwala were also opposite the revenue estate of Rampur Seeyuri. The land was stated to be of urban",,,,,,,
nature and of the same quality and potential as of the acquired land. Haryana Housing Boad had developed residential and commercial colonies,,,,,,,
namely Himshikha Housing Board on the land of Villages Naggal Sodian and Islamnagar in the early 1980s. The land of Villages Bhagwanpur, Naggal",,,,,,,
Sodian and Islamnagar were also being developed by DLF and IREO. In cross-examination, he stated that Village Razipur was at a distance of 1.5",,,,,,,
kms from Amrawati whereas HMT was adjacent. Baddi was at a distance of 15 kms from the village and the boundary of Himachal Pradesh was,,,,,,,
about 12 kms. The nature of the land at the time of acquisition was rural and Himshikha was situated at about 2 kms from the village. The land was,,,,,,,
barani in nature.,,,,,,,
28. PW-4, Tej Ram submitted his affidavit which was in terms of the petition under Section 18 but in cross-examination, he stated that Razipur was",,,,,,,
situated on NH-22 and his land was situated at a distance of 500 meters from Amrawati Enclave. He denied the suggestion that the same was at a,,,,,,,
distance of 1 km. DLF was at a distance of 1 km from his land and the suggestion that it was 2 kms from his land was denied. He produced the sale,,,,,,,
deeds (Exs.P-21 to P-25).,,,,,,,
29. PW-5, Narota Ram also produced the affidavit in affirmative and in cross-examination, denied that NH-22 was situated at a distance of more than",,,,,,,
1km from Village Lohgarh. He denied that Amrawati Enclave and DLF were situated more than ½ kms from the village. The boundaries of,,,,,,,
Himachal Pradesh started 6 kms from his land. He denied that it was at a distance of 15-16 kms. Punjab border was stated to be 10 kms from his,,,,,,,
village and that the sale deed (Ex.P-26) was not prepared in connivance with the landowners, to obtain higher amount of compensation.",,,,,,,
30. PW-6, Vinod Kumar, AGM, Legal for DLF Homes, Panchkula, produced copy of resolution of the company as Ex.P-27. He admitted that the",,,,,,,
company had purchased the land at Bhagwanpur, Islam Nagar from January, 2007 to September, 2007, for residential and commercial colonies, after",,,,,,,
getting approval from the Government. For this purpose, the company had launched individual residential plots and independent floors, commercial and",,,,,,,
multi-storey scheme in the aforesaid land. The land was stated to be purchased by the land owning companies before acquisition of the land in the,,,,,,,
vicinity, i.e., before 26.09.2007 and some part was also subject matter of acquisition which was subsequently released by the Government. The",,,,,,,
brochure of the company was exhibited as Ex.P-29 and plots had been booked in different areas against the basic sale price as mentioned in Ex.P-28.,,,,,,,
The location of the Highway was drawn on the third page of Ex.P-29 whereby it was shown in black colour. The same was Government approved,,,,,,,
plan and fell in Sector 3 Kalka-Pinjore Urban Complex. The land owning companies had purchased the land from the farmers at an average price of,,,,,,,
Rs.1.05 crores approximately and the range was between Rs.1 crore to Rs.1.05 crores. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not brought the",,,,,,,
sale deeds vide which their company had purchased the land from the farmers. He admitted that the floors/plots were being offered after including,,,,,,,
developmental charges and Government levies. The land was used for roads, parks and market area and other services used by all the occupants and",,,,,,,
the prices of that land was also included in the price of the floors/plots including the profit of the company. He denied that the company's land was,,,,,,,
better situated than the land acquired by the Government.,,,,,,,
31. PW-7, Naresh Kumar, Clerk from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kalka, proved the copy of the Collector's rates for the period of 2007-08 for the",,,,,,,
area as Ex.P-30. He stated that the Collector's rates of NH-21A Pinjore to Nalagarh and on NH-22 both sides of the road upt o200 sq.yard, was",,,,,,,
Rs.50,00,000/- per acre and for the land within the Municipal Committee, Pinjore and Kalka, Rs.80,000/- per biswa. From Pinjore to Nalagarh road,",,,,,,,
the rate for residential area was Rs.3000/- per sq.yard. The attested copy of the sale deed dated 21.11.2007 (Ex.P-31) was also proved by him. He,,,,,,,
admitted that the Collector's rate of agricultural land of Islam Nagar was Rs.35,00,000/- per acre (wrongly mentioned as Rs.35,000/- per acre) and",,,,,,,
that of Bhagwanpur was at Rs.50,00,000/- per acre (wrongly mentioned as Rs.50,000/- per acre). PW-8, Paras Ram tendered his affidavit along with",,,,,,,
Jamabandi and copy of Sijra (Ex.P-33). He stated that Dhamala was situated on the NH-21A and denied the suggestion that the Highway was at a,,,,,,,
distance of more than 1 km from the village. He denied that Amrawati Enclave and DLF were situated more than ½ km and stated that the,,,,,,,
boundary of HP was 6 kms from his land.,,,,,,,
32. PW-9, Ram Niwas, Draftsman, District Courts, Panchkula was produced to prove the Aks Sijra of the land of the villages as Ex.P -34. The",,,,,,,
acquired land was abutting NH-22 going upto Surajpur uptill points C and D and shown in Sky-blue colour. Land of Village Rampur Seeyuri fell on,,,,,,,
both sides of NH-22 and the location of Ex.P-21 (wrongly mentioned as Ex.P-9) was shown at points E and F. Similarly, Exs.P-22, P-23, P-24 & P-25",,,,,,,
were shown at points G, H, I & J. The said sale deeds pertained to the land of Village Bhagwanpur and Islam Nagar and Amrawati Colony was",,,,,,,
situated on the land of the said villages in green colour at point K. Some land of the said villages were developed by the DLF, IREO Five Rivers. The",,,,,,,
remaning land of the villages including the land of Naggal Soddian, Bhogpur and Meerapur Bakshiwala had been acquired by HUDA for developing",,,,,,,
Sectors 2 to 5, Pinjore-Kalka Urban Complex. In 1981-82, the land of the said villages had been acquired by the Haryana Housing Board for",,,,,,,
developing Himshikha, a posh residential and commercial colony. On the western side of NH-22, land had been acquired by HUDA for the",,,,,,,
construction of bye-pass for connecting NH-22 with Pinjore-Nalagarh National Highway No.21A, which was the acquisition in question. The land",,,,,,,
acquired adjoined HMT, Sectors 27, 28, 30 and sold vide Ex.P-31 was at point L, which belonged to the three villages of Rampur Seeyuri, Razipur and",,,,,,,
Surajpur. The land was similar in nature of Bhagwanpur and Islam Nagar, which had been acquired for Sectors 2 to 5 and was of similar situation,",,,,,,,
location and nature. Market value had already been assessed @ Rs.1343/- per sq.yard by the said Court, which is on record as Ex.P-36. He stated",,,,,,,
that he was personally aware of the location of the acquired land and other properties mentioned in his statement being a resident of Panchkula and,,,,,,,
having visited the acquired land and its surroundings. In cross-examination, he stated that he had prepared Ex.P-34 by joining the Aks Sijra of different",,,,,,,
villages and by compressing the same to make a joint sketch. He denied the suggestion that he had not correctly marked the sale deeds at points.,,,,,,,
 33. An application for additional evidence was allowed on 17. 12.2019 whereby the award dated 13.11.2017 was brought on record for the earlier,,,,,,,
notification dated 30.11.2006, passed by the Reference Court and the site-plan which had been produced as Annexure A-2. The said award, though",,,,,,,
for an earlier notification which had been passed after the award in question which is under challenge dated 07.09.2013 and thus, is liable to be",,,,,,,
brought on record as it was not available when the Reference Court had decided the issue and could not have been produced by the landowners,,,,,,,
earlier. Thus, it would fall under the ambit of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and would help the Court in pronouncing judgment also.",,,,,,,
Potentiality and reasons for resorting to the belting system:,,,,,,,
34. There is no dispute of the proposition of law that the market price has to be assessed on the date of the Section 4 notification and the best,,,,,,,
methodology, as such, are the relevant sale exemplars on the said date. The sale exemplars, thus, would go on to show that the market value of the",,,,,,,
land in question which is to be assessed on the price which is to be obtained from a willing seller by the person who wanted to purchase the land. The,,,,,,,
potentiality of the land is, thus, to be seen by assessing the land as to whether it can be exploited for the purpose of urban development by carving out",,,,,,,
building residential, commercial or industrial plots and further exploiting it by developing the same. This exercise is, accordingly, to be done objectively",,,,,,,
by keeping various factors in mind and by noticing as to whether the land is situated close to the Highway and its access, whether it is uniform and",,,,,,,
that it is large chunk of land, similarly situated and even in nature, as observed by the Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land",,,,,,,
Acquisition Collector, Poona & another 1988 (3) SCC 751. The factors which are to be kept in mind are the smallness of size, proximity to the road,",,,,,,,
frontage on the road, nearness to a developed area, regular shape, level vis-a-vis land under acquisition. The negative factors would be the largeness",,,,,,,
of the area, situated in the interior and at a distance from the road, narrow stretch of land with very narrow frontage compared to the depth, lower",,,,,,,
level being depressed, to be filled up, remoteness from the developed localities.",,,,,,,
35. In the present set of cases, there is no dispute that the portion of the land abuts the NH-22 for the 2nd acquisition in question from where a road is",,,,,,,
to branch-off to meet the other National Highway No.21A on the Pinjore-Nalagarh Road. The site-plan would show that the land is situated behind,,,,,,,
the famous Mughal Gardens and part of it falls on side of the road leading to Nalagarh from Pinjore. The part of the land for the 1st notification is also,,,,,,,
falling in the Municipal limits of Pinjore qua which there is no doubt regarding its potentiality, for the purpose of residential and commercial",,,,,,,
exploitation. The size of the acquisition also is an aspect which is negative qua the landowners to this extent that as many as 467.03 acres of land in,,,,,,,
the 1st notification had been acquired for development of the three sectors in as many as 9 villages and 231.77 acres of land in the 2nd notification of,,,,,,,
7 villages had been acquired for the purpose of road. Therefore, it is a large area and part of it falls in the interior at a distance from both the",,,,,,,
Highways and does not have that much of access as HMT factory cuts off the access from the NH-22.,,,,,,,
36. The positive factors is nearness to the developed area of Pinjore and the regular shape which is leading to its exploitation for development as,,,,,,,
residential area, thus, deducting the minus factors of largeness of area and being in the interior and having a narrow stretch of land on the frontage on",,,,,,,
highways in both acquisition. It has already come on record by the witnesses produced by the landowners in the 2nd notification qua the exploitation,,,,,,,
which was of the land which has been done in the area on account of lack of more suitable land available. As per the statement of PW-1, Parveen",,,,,,,
Gupta, official from the office of the District Town Planner, Panchkula, as per the Master-plan of Panchkula, he had stated that the southern side of",,,,,,,
Panchkula touched the Punjab border and UT border whereas the eastern side touched Ramgarh ITBP Campus. On account of no other land being,,,,,,,
available for the development of Panchkula District, the northern side of Panchkula and Kalka was sought to be acquired. In the adjoining villages of",,,,,,,
Islam Nagar and Bhagwanpur private developers in the form of DLF and IERO had set up shop which had been proved on record by producing the,,,,,,,
authorized official and the brochures. Amrawati Enclave was already in existence and the land also falls of the said colony in Bhagwanpur and Islam,,,,,,,
Nagar which is the adjoining villages to Rampur Seeyuri, whose land falls on both sides of NH-22. The sale deeds in favour of the developers which",,,,,,,
had been executed before the date of Section 4 notification dated 27.08.2007 would, thus, be also of relevant consideration to consider the fact that the",,,,,,,
potentiality of the land had to be considered to be used for urban purpose though the land might be agricultural at the time of the acquisition. But the,,,,,,,
potentiality aspect is the factor which has to be kept into consideration. Similarly, sale deed dated 19/21.11.2007 measuring 121.81 acres (Ex.P-31),",,,,,,,
though post-notification but whose agreement to sell was dated 22.12.2006 and had been duly registered, would show that the land had been alienated",,,,,,,
in favour of a builder, M/s Odyssey Developers Pvt. Ltd. which was earlier being used for industrial purposes by the ACC Cement Plant. Resultantly,",,,,,,,
it can be recorded with satisfaction that the potentiality of the land could not be ignored and that the building activity was taking place in the vicinity,,,,,,,
way-back in 1982-83 and even the Haryana Housing Board had set-up Himshikha Colony in the adjoining villages.,,,,,,,
37. The factum of part of the land falling in the Municipal limits of Pinjore, has also come on record, since PW-2, Meena, Clerk also stated that for the",,,,,,,
villages outside the Municipal limits, the minimum rate was Rs.25,000/- per biswa. The sale deeds which were produced by the State as Exs.R-14 &",,,,,,,
R-21 are also pertaining to Village Rathpur and would go on to show that they were situated within the Municipal area. PW-6, Gurmit Singh also",,,,,,,
stated that the land of Firozepur, Rathpur and Abdullapur were also within the Municipal limits for many years whereas the land of Manakpur Devilal",,,,,,,
were outside the Municipal limits, at the time of the acquisition. Therefore, the land which was within the Municipal limits at the time of acquisition",,,,,,,
would have all facilities available for development for the purposes of residential area and could not be treated as agricultural land. In Gurvinder Singh,,,,,,,
& others Vs. Haryana State 2005 (1) PLR 804, this Court was dealing with the acquisition for the land which fell within the Municipal area of Village",,,,,,,
Khairpur of Sirsa. It was noticed that there was a residential colony known as Khairpur Colony and accordingly, it was held that the classification of",,,,,,,
the acquired land as per the old revenue record would be unwarranted. The potentiality of the land to be developed as residential or commercial area,,,,,,,
falling within the Municipal limits, was recognized and resultantly, similar sale exemplars were held to be acceptable and to be taken into consideration",,,,,,,
for assessing the market value. The said judgment was passed on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna Vs. Special,,,,,,,
Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam (1991) 4 SCC 506, whereby the Apex Court held that the price",,,,,,,
for small plots which were sold cannot be discarded only because large tract of land is acquired. Once the neighbouring area is also developed and,,,,,,,
houses have been constructed, the land had the potential and value to be used as building sites.",,,,,,,
38. It is also settled proposition of law that the value of the adjoining villages can always be kept in mind for assessing the market value of the land,,,,,,,
acquired once the entire area was in a stage of development and it has come on record that land was similarly situated. Reliance can be placed upon,,,,,,,
the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Harinderpal Singh & others (2005) 12 SCC 564, Charan Dass (dead) by LRs Vs. Himachal",,,,,,,
Pradesh Housing & Urban Development Authority & others 2010 (13) SCC 398 and Premwati Vs. Union of India & others 2013 (7) SCC 57.,,,,,,,
39. Another aspect which is in favour of the landowners is the network of roads in the vicinity in the form of National Highways which would,,,,,,,
necessarily lead to the development prospects being on the higher side on account of easy accessibility. The Apex Court has time and again stressed,,,,,,,
on the fact that the advantages of the Highways have to be given due consideration and reliance can be placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court,,,,,,,
in V.Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by LRs Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer 2003 (12) SCC 642 and Ashok Kumar & another,,,,,,,
Vs. State of Haryana 2016 (4) SCC 544.,,,,,,,
40. Thus, keeping in view the site-plans on record, this Court is of the opinion that the argument of the State Counsel is justified that the land falling at",,,,,,,
the back cannot be assessed with the land which has got frontage on the Highway, either on the NH-22 and on NH-21A, leading to Nalagarh. The",,,,,,,
observations of the judgment of Apex Court in Haridwar Development Authority (supra) would be of relevance. Though the Apex Court in the,,,,,,,
said case granted uniform compensation since the land was being acquired for the development of a housing colony whereby a little over 38 bighas of,,,,,,,
land was sought to be acquired and thus, the awarding of uniform compensation, which had been resorted to by the Collector, confirmed by the",,,,,,,
Reference Court and the High Court, was upheld.",,,,,,,
Village,Hadbast No.,"Value of Chahi
land 2007-08
(in Rs./acre)",,,,,
Abdullapur,118,"45,00,000",,,,,
Bhagwanpur,196,"50,00,000",,,,,
Dhamala,122,"17,00,000",,,,,
Firozepur,117,"30,00,000",,,,,
Islam Nagar,192,"35,00,000",,,,,
Kalka,393,"35,00,000",,,,,
Lohgarh,121,"15,00,000",,,,,
Manakpur Nanak Chand,119,"15,00,000",,,,,
Manakpur Thakur Dass,120,"15,00,000",,,,,
Manakpur Devilal,118,"15,00,000",,,,,
Naggal Sodian,191,"35,00,000",,,,,
Pinjore,113,"30,00,000",,,,,
Rampur Seeyuri,106,"15,00,000",,,,,
Rathpur,116,"30,00,000",,,,,
Surajpur,109,"10,00,000",,,,,
Sr.
No.",Exhibit,"Particulars of sale
deed/allotment","Rate Per
Sq.Yard
(in Rs.)","(+-) 12% per annum as on
30.11.06 (in Rs.)",,,
1.,"Ex.PW-
12/D","559/1 dated 28.06.04
for 1B-15B i.e. 35
Biswa = 1764 sq.yd.
sold for Rs.25.00
lakh of Ferozpur",1417/-,"28.06.04 = 1417
28.06.05 (1417 + 12%) = 1587
28.06.06 (1587 + 12%) =
1777.44 28.11.06 (1777.44 +
5%) = 1866.31",,,
2.,"Ex.PW-
12/F","1793/1 dated
03.01.05 for 800
sq.yd. sold for
Rs.28.00 lakh of
Abdulapur",3500/-,"03.01.05 = 3500
03.01.06 3500+ 12% = 3920.00
30.11.06 3920 + 11% = 4351.00",,,
3.,"Ex.PW-
12/G","372/1 datd 08.05.06
for 600 sq.yd. sold
for Rs.15.00 lakh of
Ferozpur",2500/-,"30.11.06
2500+7% = 2675.00",,,
4.,Ex.R-14,"4698 dated
28.2.2006 of
Rathpur 1 Bigha =
1000 sq.yards,
Railway line sold for
Rs.6,00,000/-",595.04,"28,79,993/- per acre",,,
,,"Rs.10,42,000/-",,,,,
or 1992 (prior to the date of preliminary notification), the statistics relating to sales/acquisitions in future, say of the years 1994-95 or 1995-96 are taken",,,,,,,
as the base price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by making deductions at the rate of 10% to 15% per annum. How far is this safe? One,,,,,,,
of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of,,,,,,,
acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting",,,,,,,
in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Let us illustrate. Let us assume there was no development activity in a particular area. The appreciation in,,,,,,,
market price in such area would be slow and minimal. But if some lands in that area are acquired for a residential/commercial/industrial layout, there",,,,,,,
will be all round development and improvement in the infrastructure/ amenities/facilities in the next one or two years, as a result of which the",,,,,,,
surrounding lands will become more valuable. Even if there is no actual improvement in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of improvement on",,,,,,,
account of the proposed residential/commercial/ industrial layout will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the annual increase in",,,,,,,
market value was around 10% per annum before the acquisition, the annual increase of market value of lands in the areas neighbouring the acquired",,,,,,,
land, will become much more, say 20% to 30%, or even more on account of the development/proposed development. Therefore, if the percentage to",,,,,,,
be added with reference to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10% per annum, the percentage to be deducted to arrive at a market value with",,,,,,,
reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of standard increase becomes",,,,,,,
unreliable. Courts should therefore avoid determination of market value with reference to subsequent/future transactions. Even if it becomes,,,,,,,
inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future. Be that as it may.â€",,,,,,,
58. Therefore, the judgment passed in RFA-829-2010 titled Jarnail Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & another, decided on 22.05.2017, whereby",,,,,,,
Rs.2400/- per sq.yard had been awarded for the land which had been acquired for Bhima Devi Temple, is liable to be ignored, being the market value",,,,,,,
post notification and of land better situated.,,,,,,,
59. The argument of counsels for the landowners that cut should not be applied on the market value of Ex.PW-12/G is not liable to be accepted, since",,,,,,,
the area of land which has been acquired has already been taken into consideration. The judgment in Bhagwathula Samanna (supra) was distinguished,,,,,,,
by the Apex Court in Kasturi Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354 and it was held that where area is acquired for development, civic amenities",,,,,,,
have to be provided and the reduction can go upto 1/3rd. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:,,,,,,,
“14. On facts and in the light of the legal position emerging from the various decisions referred to above, it is not possible for us to say that cut of",,,,,,,
20% adopted by the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment is wrong or unsustainable. It appears to us,,,,,,,
having regard to facts and circumstances of the case that the High Court has applied cut of 20% as against the normal 1/3 deduction. We find that the,,,,,,,
High Court was right and justified in doing so.,,,,,,,
15. The decision of Bhagwathula Samanna (supra) does not help the appellants as the said decision was rendered on the facts of that case. As already,,,,,,,
noticed above, the said decision was referred to in earlier decisions of this Court and distinguished. That was a case of a fully developed land having",,,,,,,
all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. In the context of the facts of that case, in para 11, it is stated thus:-",,,,,,,
The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land.",,,,,,,
In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only,,,,,,,
relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If,,,,,,,
smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity,",,,,,,,
communications etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified."" (emphasis",,,,,,,
supplied),,,,,,,
16. In that case deduction was not given on the ground that even in the vast area there may be land, which is fully developed having all amenities and",,,,,,,
situated in an advantageous position; if smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity,,,,,,,
roads, drainage, electricity, communication, etc., then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not",,,,,,,
be justified.,,,,,,,
17. In the present case the situation is entirely different. The area acquired is not a small area; it was not developed; may be it had some advantages; a,,,,,,,
small portion of the large tract was abutting the main road; it was also not the case that any smaller area within the large tract of land acquired was,,,,,,,
fully developed having all facilities as in the case of Bhagwathula Samanna (supra). The appellants herein did not establish that the entire area of 84,,,,,,,
acres of land acquired was fully developed having all the facilities such as roads, drains, sewers, water, electricity lines and civic amenities. In order to",,,,,,,
convert the land into plots for the purpose of construction of residential and commercial buildings certain area was to be earmarked for the,,,,,,,
abovementioned purposes in accordance with the law governing in the matter of creating layouts in addition to incurring of expenditure for the,,,,,,,
development area. Hence the claim of the appellants that there should have been no deduction out of the compensation amount determined for the,,,,,,,
entire area acquired is unsustainable. May be the acquired land with potentiality for construction of residential and commercial buildings had some,,,,,,,
advantages, which aspect is taken note of by the High Court in giving cut of only 20% as against 1/3 normal deduction.",,,,,,,
18. We do not find any force in the contention that the HUDA has made unjust enrichment by collecting more money from the allottees after the,,,,,,,
compensation amount was enhanced by the District Judge and that neither the State nor the HUDA will be put to any loss as they have collected,,,,,,,
money from the allottees. It is not the case where collection of any tax is involved to bring in the theory of unjust enrichment. Be that as it may, we",,,,,,,
are not concerned in these cases as to what happened between the HUDA and the allottees. The question for consideration is as to the determination,,,,,,,
of amount of compensation for the acquired land. Once the proper amount of compensation is finally determined, the land owners will be entitled only",,,,,,,
to that amount.â€,,,,,,,
60. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789, the Apex Court has held that where a large block of land is to be",,,,,,,
developed, development charges for preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots may range between 20%",,,,,,,
and 50% of the total price. In Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568, deduction of 20% was allowed on the similar piece of land.",,,,,,,
Similarly, the law of deduction has been discussed in Lal Chand (supra), Subh Ram & others Vs. State of Haryana & another (2010) 1 SCC",,,,,,,
444, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Vs. K.Manohar Reddy & others 2010 (12) SCC 707 and Special Land Acquisition Officer & another Vs.",,,,,,,
M.K.Rafiq Sahib (2011) 7 SCC 714. Thus, deduction has been held permissible between 20% and 50%, which has been further fortified by the",,,,,,,
judgment passed by the Apex Court in Chandrashekar (supra) to take it to the level of 75%.,,,,,,,
61. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and the location of Ex.PW-12/G, this Court is of the opinion that 30% deduction would be",,,,,,,
reasonable and therefore, the market value for the land falling within 2 acres (440 feet) from the National Highway No.21-A and within the Municipal",,,,,,,
limits of Pinjore at the time of the Section 4 notification, would work out to Rs.1873/- per sq.yard (Rs.90,65,320/- per acre). For the land beyond the",,,,,,,
said distance or outside the Municipal limits, it would be appropriate to put another cut of 20% as it would be a totally raw agricultural land and",,,,,,,
therefore, the market value would work out to Rs.1500/- per sq.yard (Rs.72,60,000/- per acre). Resultantly, the award passed by the Reference Court",,,,,,,
is modified to that extent, by resorting to belting system and by enhancing the compensation, to the above-said tune along with all statutory benefits.",,,,,,,
S.
No.","Sale
Deed No.
& Dated
&
Village",Area,Rate,"Average
rate per
acre",Exhibits,"Sale deed
mentioned
as point in
combined
Aks Sajra
in Ex.P-34","Per
Sq.yard
1,"1444/1
dated
17.08.07
Village
Bhagwan
-pur","25 Bigha
17
Biswas
5.38
acres","6,14,46,520/-","1,14,09,748/-",P-21,E & F,"2357/-
approx
2,"424/1
dated
09.05.07
Village
Islam
Nagar","12 Bigha
15
Biswas
2.65
acres","2,67,75,000/-","1,00,80,000/-",P-22,G,"2083/-
approx
3,"769/1
dated
06.06.20
07
Village
Islam
Nagar","14 Bigha
2 Biswas
2.94
acres","2,96,10,000/-","1,00,80,000/-",P-23,H,"2083/-
approx
,,,,,,,
4,"718/1
dated
04.06.07
Village
Bhagwan
-pur","13 Bigha
7 Biswas
2.78
acres","3,17,06,250/-","1,14,00,000/-",P-26,,"2355/-
approx
5.,"2120/1
dated
19/21.11.
07
Villages
Rampur
Seeyuri,
Razipur
and
Surajpur","121.81
Acre","191,49,38,515
ACC Factory","1,57,20,700",P-31,L,3248/-
which a buyer would purchase the lands. Another fact noticed by the High Court is that the buyers for all these sale transactions had vested interest in,,,,,,,
the land adjoining or around the properties in such transaction.,,,,,,,
20. In light of the aforesaid, it can be concluded that the buyers would not have hesitated in offering higher prices to purchase the lands than the",,,,,,,
market rate of such lands and, therefore, in determination of compensation payable to the land-losers, such price could not be relied upon without",,,,,,,
making necessary deductions bringing it at par with the estimated fair market value of the acquired lands. In our considered view, the High Court has",,,,,,,
correctly made appropriate deductions to the consideration offered under the sale deeds produced and marked in the evidence while assessing fair and,,,,,,,
true market value of the acquired lands on the date of issuance of Section 4 notification.â€,,,,,,,
70. Resultantly, by applying a 50% cut, the market value works out to Rs.1178.50 per sq.yard (Rs.57,03,940/- per acre) rounded off to Rs.1180/- per",,,,,,,
sq.yard (Rs.57,11,200/- per acre). The said amount is, accordingly, awarded for the land falling upto the depth of 2 acres (440 feet) from NH-22.",,,,,,,
Thereafter, by applying a 20% cut, the market value works out to Rs.944/- per sq.yard (Rs.45,68,960/- per acre), for the land beyond the said distance.",,,,,,,
Similarly, since the land which is abutting the Pinjore-Nalagarh road on the northern end, would also be entitled for higher market value since apart",,,,,,,
from being on the said Highway, it is also closer to the town of Pinjore. Accordingly, upto the depth of 2 acres (440 feet) from the said highway also,",,,,,,,
market value of Rs.1180 per sq.yard (Rs.57,11,200/- per acre) is granted along with all statutory benefits.",,,,,,,
71. Relief:-,,,,,,,
(i) Accordingly, for the notification dated 30.11.2006, market value is fixed @ Rs.1873/- per sq.yard (Rs.90,65,320/- per acre), for the land falling",,,,,,,
within 2 acres (440 feet) from the National Highway No.21-A and within the Municipal limits of Pinjore, at the time of Section 4 notification. For the",,,,,,,
land beyond the said distance or outside the Municipal limits, the market value would be @ Rs.1500/- per sq.yard (Rs.72,60,000/- per acre), along with",,,,,,,
all statutory benefits.,,,,,,,
(ii) For the notification dated 27.08.2007, market value is fixed @ Rs.1180/- per sq.yard (Rs.57,11,200/- per acre) for the land falling upto the depth of",,,,,,,
2 acres (440 feet) from NH-22 and for the land abutting the Pinjore-Nalagarh road on the northern end, upto the same depth. For the land beyond the",,,,,,,
said depth of 2 acres, from both sides, the market value would work out to Rs.944/- per sq.yard (Rs.45,68,960/- per acre), along with all statutory",,,,,,,
benefits.,,,,,,,
(iii) In appeals where delay has been condoned conditionally, the benefit of interest on the enhanced compensation for the period of delay in filing the",,,,,,,
appeals shall not be granted to the landowners, as specified in the orders condoning the delay.",,,,,,,
(iv) The State shall also comply with the directions laid down by the Apex Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Pran Sukh,,,,,,,
& others 2010 (11) SCC 175, to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman, which read as under:",,,,,,,
(a) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tahsildar, who shall get in touch with all the",,,,,,,
land owners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation.,,,,,,,
(b) The concerned officers shall also instruct the land owners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do,,,,,,,
not have such account.,,,,,,,
(c) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months.,,,,,,,
(d) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.,,,,,,,
(v) The entitlement of the landowners would be to the amounts awarded above along with statutory benefits. The State would also be entitled to make,,,,,,,
adjustment of the amounts which have already been paid during the litigation.,,,,,,,
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in which no separate orders have been passed, stand disposed of accordingly.",,,,,,,
