R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: October 01 ,2010 Sudama and others .. Appellants v. The State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Argued by: F or the land acquired vide notifications dated 5 th and 15 th M ay, 1997 Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukul Aggarwal & Mr. Narender Sura, Mr. Shailendra Jain, Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Mr. Amit Jain, Mr. Sanjay Vij, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Mr. S. K. Yadav, Mr. R. A. Yadav, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia and Mr. Raghujit S. Madan, Advocates for HUDA. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. For the land acquired vide notification dated 8.9.1997 Mr. Shailendra Jain, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Sanjay Vij, Mr. Amit Jain, Mr. Narender Sura, Mr. P.R. Yadav, Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Mr. Pardeep Bajaj for Mr. R. S. Khosla, Advocates for the land owners. Mr. H. S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 1824 of 2006; R.F.A. Nos. 4199 to 4390, 4431, 5228 to 5233, 5256 to 5264, 5269, 5270, 5283 to 5291, 5416, 5519 to 5550, 5792 to 5806, 5814 and 5815 of 2008; R.F.A. Nos. 113 to 124, 126 to 132, 158, 159, 169, 244 to 259, 296, R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [2] 303 to 306, 317, 318, 346, 402 to 404, 611 to 619, 631, 639, 821, 822,, 1014 to 1207, 1496, 1497, 1553, 1734, 1831, 1832, 1964, 1993, 2027, 2049, 2051, 2682, 2683, 2686, 2864, 2865, 3103, 3106, 3110, 3162, 3350 to 3353, 4033, 4114 and 4187 of 2009 and R.F.A. No. 616 of 2010, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The case in hand relates to acquisition of land vide notifications dated 5.5.1997, 15.5.1997 and 8.9.1997 pertaining to villages Kanhai, Samaspur, Wazirabad, Bindapur and Chakarpur. 2. In the appeals filed by the land owners, they are seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned court below for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by the State/HUDA, the prayer is for reduction thereof. 3. In the bunch, there are some appeals, which arise out of the award of the learned court below, which was subject-matter of appeals in first round of litigation, when the cases were remanded back by this court vide judgment in R.F.A. No. 2263 of 2004 –Mahipal and others v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 26.4.2006. 4. The acquisition of compact block of land in the present set of appeals is pertaining to four villages, situated in the vicinity. The same being Samaspur, Wazirabad, Kanhai and Bindapur in District Gurgaon. The land had been acquired for development as Sectors 51 and 52, Gurgaon. Acquisition regarding village Kanhai 5. Vide notification dated 5.5.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,`the Act'), State of Haryana acquired 7.70 acres of land in village Kanhai, District Gurgaon for residential, commercial and institutional area in Sector 52 at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 4.5.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector') vide award assessed compensation @ ` 12,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 9,60,000/- per acre for Allabrani land; ` 8,40,000/- per acre for Bhood land and ` 7,20,000/- per acre for Banjar and Gair Mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 361/- per square yard. Acquisition regarding village Samaspur 6. Vide notification dated 15.5.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 89.87 acres, situated in village Samaspur, District Gurgaon R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [3] was acquired by the State of Haryana for residential, commercial and institutional area in Sector 51, Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 14.5.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector'), vide award dated 13.5.2000, assessed the market value @ ` 5,40,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 4,20,000/- per acre for allabarani land; ` 3,60,000/- per acre for Bhood land and ` 2,40,000/- per acre for banjar and gair mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 361/- per square yard. Acquisition regarding village Wazirabad 7. Vide notification dated 15.5.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana acquired 193.16 acres of land in village Wazirabad, District Gurgaon for residential, commercial and institutional area in Sector 52 at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 4.5.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector vide award dated 3.5.2000 assessed compensation @ ` 12,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 9,60,000/- per acre for Allabarani land; ` 8,40,000/- per acre Bhood land and ` 7,20,090/- per acre for Banjar and Gair Mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 361/- per square yard. Acquisition regarding village Bindapur 8. Vide notification dated 15.5.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Act, State of Haryana acquired 42.48 acres of land in village Bindapur, District Gurgaon for residential, commercial and institutional area in Sector 51 at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 4.5.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector vide award dated 3.5.2000 assessed compensation @ ` 6,,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; ` 4,20,000/- per acre for Magda land; ` 3,60,000/- per acre for Bhood land and ` 2,40,000/- per acre for Banjar and Gair Mumkin kind of land. Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 361/- per square yard. 9. Some of the land owners preferred appeals against the award of the learned court below. This Court vide detailed judgment in Mahipal's case (supra) remanded the matters back with a direction to the learned court below for fresh determination of market value of the acquired land. On remand, the learned court R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [4] below assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 717/- per square yard. It is this award which is impugned in the present set of appeals. 10. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners submitted that the impugned award of the learned court below deserves to be modified and the compensation enhanced primarily on two grounds, namely, that correct value, as is depicted in the sale deeds produced by the land owners, has not been taken. Sale instances, which were produced on record, were pertaining to the land which was part of the acquired land, adjoining the acquired land or was surrounded by it. In fact, the entire area in the vicinity had already been developed by the private colonisers after purchasing the land. They had been issued requisite licences by the government for the purpose. The area of land sold and dealt with in various sale deeds was quite a big chunk which should be relied upon as such without applying any cut therein. In fact, in the present case, even the exercise of power by the government for acquisition of land was quite arbitrarily as substantial land was released after the same was notified under Section 4 of the Act while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act. Even subsequent thereto as well, certain land was released before the award was announced. 11. While addressing arguments pertaining to acquisition of land of village Wazirabad, submitted that average sale consideration paid in the sale deeds produced on record pertaining to land of village Wazirabad comes to ` 1290.64. Entire area in the vicinity had already been developed as the private builders had purchased land in these sectors and started development activity. The average sale consideration paid in the sale deeds pertaining to village Samaspur was lesser. It would not be appropriate to deprive the land owners of village Wazirabad the amount of compensation on the basis of sale instances for the land pertaining to their village only because the value of land of the neighbouring village was lesser. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 – Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, the submission was that no cut should be applied for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land in terms of the sale deeds produced on record. It is a matter of common knowledge as is even accepted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pran Sukh's case (supra) that sale transactions were always under valued for various reasons including saving of stamp duty.