R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND 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 , , 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 . 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. The same has even been judicially accepted. 12. Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate appearing for the land owners in some of the appeals submitted that the area around the acquired land in fact, had already R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [5] been developed. As is evident from the notification vide which the acquisition was carried out, the acquired land was meant to be used for development as Sectors 51 and 52, HUDA, Gurgaon. It is adjoining to Sectors 45 and 46. Sector 57 is located beyond Sectors 51 and 52. After development, the plots were offered by HUDA for sale on different dates in various neighbouring sectors, the details of which are as under: Exhibit Sector Date of floatation in LAC No. 920 of 2000 ...... PW3/A 51 17.3.2003 PW3/B 32 and 44 P5/6 45 19.6.1997 P4/A 43 9.11.2001 P4/B 27 and 28 18.6.2001 P4/C 52 14.10.2002 P4/D 57 12.2.2004 P4/E 46 10.8.1995”

13. Learned counsel further referred to various licences issued to the builders in the area for development of land, which were much prior to even the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, which clearly established that the private builders had already started development in the area and the prices of the land had shoot up. The real fact, according to him, is that the private builders, who purchase the land by way of negotiations, try to buy as much land in the area as they can to make it a single block of land at one location, however, still they cannot compel all the land owners to sell the land. It is only these small pockets of land which are subsequently acquired by the State for the purpose of development. Some of the small pockets, which are acquired by the State, cannot even be developed as such considering their isolated location and the size of the plot. There are many instances which show that the State in these circumstances play in the hands of private builders and after acquisition of land, the same is transferred to the private builders so as to enable them to develop the land owned by them in a more appropriate manner. In fact, the procedure required for acquisition for the purpose of private parties is not followed. The reference was made to exchange deed (Ex. PW14/A in LAC No. 920 of 2000). Referring to the above instances, it was submitted that the land forming part of Khasra No. 540/2 was already purchased by a private builder, however, the owner of the land forming part of Khasra Nos. 528, 529, 531, 539, 541, 542, 684 and 685 refused to R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [6] the demand of that builder. However, this land owner was helpless when the State exercised its power under the Act. The power was mis-used than used as after acquisition the land was transferred to the builder. Meaning thereby that acquisition was carried out only for the benefit of the builder. This fact was even admitted by PW14-Om Parkash Kanungo while appearing before the court., 14. Learned counsel for the land owners further relied upon communications between Land Acquisition Collector, HUDA, Gurgaon to Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon (Ex. PW11/1 to Ex. PW11/20 in LAC No. 920 of 2000). Referring to the aforesaid communications, it was submitted that Tehsildar was asked for regarding the value of land in the area. He had informed that on the basis of sale deeds registered in the area during the last one year before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the same was ` 50,55,360/- per acre for Chahi land. However, still the Collector assessed the compensation at such a low rate which was quite arbitrary. It cannot be disputed that the land owners are entitled to compensation for the acquired land as existed on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act considering its future potentiality as well. Once the sale deeds were registered in the area at quite high rate as were even admitted by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Gurgaon in the correspondence, there was no reason to deny the land owners the same amount of compensation. It was in fact, the value as depicted in various sale transactions registered, the record of which was available with the Collector. There was no reason to dispute the genuineness thereof, as the sale deeds were good in number and it was not that some isolated sale transaction was got registered by one of the land owners to claim higher rate of compensation. 15. Besides producing sale deeds, which were registered close to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the land owners in the present case have also produced various sale deeds registered one year prior thereto and also subsequent to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The submission was the consideration paid in the aforesaid sale deeds clearly established that the value, as is shown in the sale deeds, produced by them which were registered close to the acquisition of land was just and fair and the trend of prices in the area, which increased 2-1/2 times within a period of one year after the acquisition. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that as has been claimed by the land owners, substantial portions of land in the area had already been developed by the builders after purchase of land by private negotiations. Small portions of land, which were left R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [7] out, were in fact inferior in quality and it was the reason that the builders did not buy the same. The State had in fact come to the rescue of those land owners by acquiring that land as well, otherwise these were small pockets left in between which were not even fit for agriculture purposes. The land owners should not be granted same rate as is shown in the sale deeds produced by them. The builders in the present case, who purchased the land from various land owners, had in fact paid the price which may not be genuine for the reason that they were in need of the land to make a minimum chunk for getting a licence issued in their favour for development thereof. It cannot be said to be a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer. However, learned counsel was fair enough to submit that genuineness of the transactions as such is not in dispute, as there is no material produced on record by the State as such from which it could be opined that the sale transactions produced on record by the land owners were not genuine. He further submitted that the contention raised by learned counsel for the land owners that various sale deeds, though registered on same day where the seller was one but the buyers were different should be taken cumulatively to show that it was a big chunk of land is not tenable. All the sale deeds should be taken individually showing the transaction for a small plot of land and while assessing the compensation even if those sale deeds are relied upon, the land owners cannot be held entitled to same amount of compensation and appropriate cut is required to be applied in the present case, it should not be less than 1/3rd. 17. He further submitted that prior to the present acquisition, about 7 years back, acquisition of land of village Wazirabad was carried out vide notification dated 16.4.1990. This court had assessed the value of the land acquired in the year 1990 @ ` 212/- per square yard, which was upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8609-8613 of 2001—Bhim Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 24.9.2003. As the acquired land was also situated in the vicinity, in terms of various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, at the most the land owners should be awarded increase @12% per annum thereon and nothing more. 18. He further submitted that the learned court below had gone wrong in not appreciating the sale deeds produced on record by the State. In fact, those have not even been referred to in the impugned award. The average consideration paid therein was ` 200/- per square yard. Though exact location thereof has not been pointed out on any site plan produced on record, however, the fact is that the land pertains to the revenue estate of village Wazirabad. R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [8]

19. Another contention raised by the learned counsel was that the land owners in the present case had led evidence only for the land pertaining to villages Wazirabad and Samaspur. For the land pertaining to villages Kanahai and Bindapur, there is no independent evidence led. In the absence thereof, the land owners pertaining to land of those two villages cannot be awarded compensation relying upon the evidence led for villages Wazirabad and Samaspur and they could possibly be awarded compensation only by adding 12% per annum on the value as assessed in Bhim Singh's case (supra), which would come out to ` 390/- per square yard, after adding that amount in ` 212/- per square yard. 20. As far as learned counsel appearing for HUDA is concerned, initially he sought an adjournment. However, the same was refused as the date of hearing for today was fixed about 10 days back with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Faced with the situation, the only argument he raised was that he adopts the contentions raised by learned counsel for the State, as has always been the plea in other similar cases. 21. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that acquisition in the present case was for development of the land for the purpose of Sectors 51 and 52, HUDA, Gurgaon. It is per chance that it pertained to the revenue estate of four villages. It was not a single block of land, as admittedly the area in the vicinity had been developed and the acquired land was either located in small pockets within the area developed by the private builders or was surrounded by it. The entire acquired land should be assessed at the same rate. Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pran Sukh's case (supra), it was submitted that in the aforesaid case, the land pertained to four villages and for the purpose of assessment of value thereof, the sale transactions pertaining to the land of one of the villages was relied upon. As far as sale deeds produced by the State are concerned, the submission was that firstly those cannot be relied upon considering the fact that the area pertaining thereto had not been located on any site plan produced on record and secondly, the land owners are entitled to the best price which was available for the land in the area on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 22. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. 23. It is pertinent to mention here that evidence before the learned court below was led primarily in LAC Nos. 70—Dalip v. State of Haryana and others, 497-Mahipal v. State of Haryana and others, 728 of 2000—Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, and 920 of 2000—Amar Nath v. State of Haryana and R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [9] others. 24. Before I proceed to deal with the issue regarding valuation of land, it would be appropriate to deal with the location thereof and also the development activities which are taking place in the area. 25. Learned counsel for the land owners referred to documents [Ex.P6 to Ex. P26, Ex. P32 to Ex. P36 (LAC No. 728 of 2000) and Ex. PW8/1 to Ex. P8/13 (LAC No. 920 of 2000)], which are in the form of licences granted by the State of Haryana for the purpose of setting up of residential colonies and group housing societies in villages Wazirabad, Bindapur, , Chakarpur, Kanhai and . The first licence in the series was granted on 17.1.1992 (Ex. P10) to M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Limited. The licence for development was pertaining to the land located in villages Wazirabad and Sukhrali. 26. Vide Ex. P27 (LAC No. 728 of 2000), Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana had granted permission to M/s DLF Universal Limited for change of land use for establishment of golf course at village Wazirabad on an area of 77.90 acres and club building over an area of 1,100 square yards. 27. The aforesaid documents, whereby the State of Haryana had awarded licences to various builders to carry out development activities in the area in the form of development as residential colonies, golf course and club clearly show that a lot of development activity was in progress in the area beginning from the year 1992 and at a very fast pace in the years 1995 and 1996 when number of licences were awarded to various builders. 28. Even the site plan (Ex. PW8/A in LAC No. 920 of 2000), produced by the land owners clearly shows that acquisition of land by the State is not in the form of a chunk of land located at one place, rather, it is situated in different pockets scattered at different places. At some places, it is in the form of small plots, which is surrounded by the area for which licences had already been granted to the builders for development or were in the process of grant when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. 29. A perusal of another site plan (Ex. P18 in LAC No. 497 of 2000) produced on record by the land owners shows the topography of various sectors located in the area. The acquisition in the present case is for the purpose of development as Sectors 51 and 52. On the site plan, substantial portion of land in Sectors 51 and 52 is already shown in possession of the builders for which they had been granted licences for development for residential purposes. 30. Learned counsel for the land owners has also invited the attention of this court to various brochures produced on record showing as to when the R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [10] developed plots in various neighbouring sectors were offered for sale by HUDA. A perusal of the site plan (Ex. P18 in LAC No. 497 of 2000) shows that Sectors 51 and 52 are surrounded by Sectors 44 to 47, 50, 52-A, 53 and 57. The developed plots were offered for sale by HUDA in the neighbouring sectors at different times beginning from the year 1995. The details of various brochures produced on record in Land Reference No. 920 of 2000 are as under: Exhibit Sector Date of floatation ...... PW3/A 51 17.3.2003 PW3/B 32 and 44 P5/6 45 19.6.1997 P4/A 43 9.11.2001 P4/B 27 and 28 18.6.2001 P4/C 52 14.10.2002 P4/D 57 12.2.2004 P4/E 46 10.8.1995 31. As far as valuation of the land in the area is concerned, besides referring to various sale deeds produced on record, land pertaining to some of which is forming part of the acquired land, whereas in some cases it is adjoining the acquired land which was purchased by the builders for which they had been granted licences by the State Government for development as residential colonies. In some of the cases, the land pertaining to the sale deeds had even been released from acquisition. 32. Besides the aforesaid sale deeds, which I will proceed to deal with in the later part of the judgment, the land owners produced on record documents [Ex. PW11/2 to Ex. PW11/20 (LAC No. 920 of 2000)] in the form of details of 367 sale deeds registered in village Wazirabad from 8.5.1996 to 5.5.1997 showing that the average sale consideration paid therein was ` 50,55,360/- per acre for chahi kind of land. This compilation had been done by learned counsel for the land owners. 33. The following sale deeds pertaining to land of village Samaspur were produced by the land owners on record in LAC No. 497 of 2000, the land of which was part of the acquired land: Exhibit Date Area Sale consideration Rate per square yard Kanal- Marla in ` in ` ...... P1 3.3.1997 2-18 19,80,000/- 1,128.52 P2 1.5.1997 2-18 19,80,000/- 1,128.52 P3 19.11.1996 3-7 19,77,916/- 975.90 R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [11]

P4 19.11.1996 3-7 19,77,916/- 975.90 P7 5.11.1996 3-8 19,77,916/- 961.55

34. The sale deeds pertaining to land of village Wazirabad produced by the land owners on record in LAC No. 728 of 2000, the land of which was part of the acquired land “ Exhibit Area Name of Seller Name of Purchaser Rate per square Sale consideration Date Biswa-Biswansis yard in ` in ` ...... P-161 9-3 Roop Chand Gopal Dass Estates Housing 1241/- 17,16,796/- 14.10.96 Pvt. Ltd., Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

P-162 9-4 Balram Neeta Estate Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 1234/- 17,16,796/- 14.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

P-163 9-3 Parkash Chand R.D. Machines Ltd. 1241/- 17,16,796/- 14.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW13/1 10-0 Dharam Singh Neeta Estate Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 1235/- 18,68,490/- 28.8.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW13/2 9-19 Dharam Singh R.D. Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. 1242/- 18,68,490/- 29.8.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW13/5 9-19 Dharam Singh M/s SAS Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 1242/- 18,68,490/- 4.9.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW13/6 9-19 Dharam Singh Gopal Dass Estate & Housing 1242/- 18,68,490/- 2.9.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW13/7 9-19 Dharam Singh Neeta Estate & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 1242/- 18,68,490/- 3.9.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW13/8 10-0 Dharam Singh Meghdut News Pvt. Ltd. 1235/- 18,68,490/- 30.8.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW13/9 10-0 Dharam Singh R.D. Machines Ltd. 1235/- 18,68,490/- 3.9.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW13/10 10-0 Dharam Singh SAS Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 1235/- 18,68,490/- 30.8.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [12]

PW13/11 10-0 Dharam Singh R.D. Mechanical Industries 1235/- 18,68,490/- 2.9.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW13/12 10-0 Dharam Singh R.D. Unitron Computers Pvt.Ltd. 1235/- 18,68,490/- 29.8.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

35. The sale deeds produced by the land owners pertaining to village Wazirabad on record in LAC No. 920 of 2000, the land of which was part of the acquired land:

“ Exhibit Area Name of Seller Name of Purchaser Rate per square Sale consideration Date Biswa-Biswansis yard in ` in ` ...... P-16 9-3 Ganpat M/s R.D. Mechanical Industreis 1242/- 17,18,750/- 14.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/11 9-0 Satbir Neeta Estates Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 1054/- 14,34,375/- 5.8.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/15 9-6 Munshi Neeta Estates Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 1238/- 17,41,072/- 6.9.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi PW12/16 4-10 Gopi Gopal Dass Estates & Housing 1240/- 8,43,750/- 2.9.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/23 2-15 Bishambar M/s R.D. News Pvt. Ltd. 1240/- 5,15,625/- 19.11.96 Dayal Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

36. The sale deeds produced by the land owners pertaining to village Wazirabad on record in LAC No. 728 of 2000, the land of which was notified under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act but released later on from acquisition, as award pertaining to this land was not announced: Exhibit Area Name of Name of Purchaser Rate per square Sale consideration Date Biswa - Biswansi Seller yard in ` ......

PW12/1 10-12 Jamna Devi R.D. Machines Ltd. 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/2 10-12 Jamna Devi R.D. Business Centre 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [13]

PW12/3 10-12 Jamna Devi Gopal Dass Estate Housing 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/4 10-12 Jamna Devi R.D. Machines Ltd. 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/5 10-12 Jamna Devi SAS Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/6 10-12 Jamna Devi R.D. Business Centre 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/7 10-12 Jamna Devi R.D. News Pvt. Ltd. 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/8 10-12 Jamna Devi R.D. Mechanical 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/9 10-12 Jamna Devi R.D. Unitron Computers. 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/10 10-12 Jamna Devi R.D. News Pvt. Ltd. 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/11 10-12 Jamna Devi R.D. Unitron Computers 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/12 10-12 Jamna Devi R.D. Mechanical 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/13 10-12 Jamna Devi Neeta Estate and Linking 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/14 10-12 Jamna Devi SAS Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [14]

PW12/15 10-12 Sarbati Devi R.D. Machines Ltd. 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/16 10-12 Sarbati Devi R.D. Unitron Computers 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/17 10-12 Sarbati Devi R.D. News Pvt. Ltd. 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/18 10-12 Sarbati Devi Neeta Estate and Leasing 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 15.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/19 10-12 Sarbati Devi SAS Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/20 10-12 Sarbati Devi R.D. Business Centre 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/21 10-12 Sarbati Devi Gopal Dass Estate Housing 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi PW12/22 10-12 Sarbati Devi R.D. Mechanical 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/23 10-12 Sarbati Devi SAS Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/24 10-12 Sarbati Devi R.D. Business Centre 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/25 10-12 Sarbati Devi R.D. Mechanical 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/26 10-12 Sarbati Devi Gopal Dass Estate 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Housing Pvt. Ltd.Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [15]

PW12/27 10-12 Sarbati Devi R.D. News Pvt. Ltd. 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/28 10-12 Sarbati Devi Neeta Estate and 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/29 10-12 Sarbati Devi R.D. Mechanical Industries 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 14.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

PW12/30 10-12 Sarbati Devi R.D. Unitron Computers 1,240/- 19,87,500/- 16.10.96 Pvt. Ltd. Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan, 28, Barakhamba Road, Delhi

The sale deeds being part of the acquired land, genuineness or adjoining the same is not disputed by learned counsel for the State. 37. Before analysing the evidence led by the parties for assessment of fair value of the acquired land, I proceed to deal with the contentions raised by learned Assistant Advocate General. It was not disputed by him that for substantial portions of land in Sectors 51 and 52, Gurgaon, for which the land in question was acquired, licences had been granted to various builders for development as residential and commercial area. To state that portions of land which were left out in between had become totally useless and it was land locked is totally baseless. Apparently, these portions of land were left out as the owners thereof had not sold the same to the private builders and it was only the State which stepped in later on to acquire these small portions of land, which otherwise as such could not be developed independently for any commercial or residential purposes, as some portions of land may be even measuring an acre or even less than that. To state that with all around development in the surrounding, the value of these small portions of land had gone down is totally mis-conceived. I do not find any merit even in the contention raised by learned counsel for the State that unrealistic prices were paid by the builders which were not prevailing in the market at the relevant time. The genuineness of the sale deeds as such has not been doubted. There was no compelling circumstances for the builders who had paid unrealistic prices, as they had the open to buy land at any other place also where according to them the prices may be realistic. The mere fact that a willing buyer had paid a particular price of the land has to be considered as the genuine sale transaction, unless otherwise proved by the person who alleges the same to be contrary. Further the contention of learned counsel for the State that the sale R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [16] transactions produced by the land owners pertained to small portions of land and hence these should be considered independent transactions and the acquired land being large chunk of 333.11 acres, a reasonable cut is required to be applied while assessing the fair value of the acquired land has also no legs to stand. As the details of the sale deeds, which have been referred to above and are being dealt with in the preceding paragraphs shows that seller and buyer were practically common. It was only for the reason best known to the parties that different sale deeds even on the same day were got registered, otherwise the total area dealt with in the transactions was not as small as is sought to be projected. 38. Reliance on the earlier judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhim Singh's case (supra) dealing with the acquisition of land of village Wazirabad vide notification dated 16.4.1990, whereby the value was determined at 212/- per square yard also has no relevance in the present case considering the fact that the land owners have been able to produce not an isolated sale deed showing substantial increase in the value of land in the area during the intervening period, but large number of sale deeds registered even during the period of one year prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act consistently showing similar price. In the light of aforesaid evidence, the standard principle of awarding increase @ 12% per annum cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 39. The sale deeds produced by the State are also totally irrelevant for the purpose of determination of fair value of the acquired land for the reason that exact location thereof has not been pointed out on any of the site plan produced on record. The contention that there being evidence led by the land owners only pertaining to land of villages Wazirabad and Samaspur, the same is required to be considered only qua the land of both the villages. As far as other two villages are concerned, namely, Kanhai and Bindapur, there being no independent evidence on record, the value should be determined by placing reliance on Bhim Singh's case (supra) and awarding increase @ 12% per annum thereon, which would come out to 390/- per square yard. Even the aforesaid contention is totally misconceived for the reason that acquisition in the present case is for the purpose of development as Sectors 51 and 52, Gurgaon. It is per chance that in the area, the acquired land pertained to four different revenue estates, otherwise it is all adjoining the land or small portions of land left out surrounded in the pockets already developed by the private builders. Considering these facts, in my opinion, there is no justification to differentiate the land pertaining to different villages for the purpose of its valuation. R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [17]

40. Further the land owners have produced evidence on record to show that the land pertaining to Sectors 51 and 52 is adjoining to Sectors 45 and 46. The plots in those sectors had already been floated for sale after development on 19.6.1997 and 10.8.1997 respectively, meaning thereby that the area in the vicinity was not in same position as was when the acquisition was carried out in the year 1997. 41. Now coming to the issue for determination of fair value of the acquired land, in my opinion, the evidence in the form of various sale deeds, as have been referred to in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment would be the best piece of evidence, considering the fact that the land pertaining to number of sale deeds was forming part of the acquired land, whereas in some of the cases, it was notified initially but was left out of the acquisition at the time of announcement of the award. The genuineness of none of the sale deeds was doubted by the State, meaning thereby that it was a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller at a price which was mutually agreed upon. The average sale consideration paid in five sale deeds registered between 5.11.1996 till 1.5.1997 pertaining to land of village Samaspur is ` 1,034/- per square yard. The land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds was not part of the acquired land. The average sale consideration paid in 18 sale deeds pertaining to village Wazirabad, the land of which was forming part of the acquired land, the average sale consideration paid therein is ` 1,228/- per square yard. In similar line is the consideration paid in 30 sale deeds pertaining to land of village Wazirabad, which though was notified under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, but was left out at the time of announcement of the award. The average sale consideration paid therein was 1,240/- per square yard. It may be added here that the land pertaining to 10 of the sale deeds forming part of the acquired land was sold by one owner to different vendees who apparently are part of the same group as they all are located at the same address. The total area dealt with therein is 96 biswas and 76 biswansis. Similarly, in 30 sale deeds, the land pertaining to which though was initially notified under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, but was left out later on at the time of announcement of award, is owned by merely two persons. Out of 30 sale deeds, in 14 the vendor is Jamna Devi, whereas in other 16, the vendor is Sarbati Devi and the vendee is a group of companies. All the sale deeds were registered within a time gap of three days, namely, 14.10.1996 and 16.10.1996. The total area dealt with therein is 300 biswas and 360 biswansis. 42. The aforesaid transactions clearly establish that it was not an isolated sale transaction of one marla plot, which has been relied upon by the land owners R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [18] to plead their case that value of the acquired land has not been determined by the learned court below in consonance with the evidence produced on record, rather, there were number of sale transactions and the consideration paid therein was also similar. The land had been purchased by the private persons who apparently will not pay higher amount than the market price. At the cost of repetition, it is added that genuineness of the sale deeds has not been doubted. 43. The details regarding the measurement of land, on the basis of which average price per square yard has been calculated in the sale deeds, as furnished by the learned counsel for the land owners, are extracted below: One Bigha 3025 square yards One Biswa 151.25 square yards One Biswans 7.5625 square yards One Bigha 20 Biswas One Biswa 20 Biswansis

One Acre 4840 square yards One Kanal 605 square yards One Marla 30.25 square yards One Acre 8 Kanals One Kanal 20 Marlas

44. In view of the aforesaid evidence, I do not find any reason not to consider the aforesaid sale deeds as reliable piece of evidence for the purpose of assessment of fair value of the acquired land. However, still considering the fact that the land pertains to four different villages though acquired for the purpose of development of Sectors 51 and 52, Gurgaon, the sale deeds have been produced pertaining to land of two villages and there is small difference in the consideration paid therein, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to average sale consideration in both the sale deeds and determine the same as compensation payable to the land owners for the acquired land. I do not find any reason to apply any cut therefrom, the reasons for which have already been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of the judgment and to repeat, it may be added that the sale transactions produced on record are not pertaining to small plots, as in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the transactions are not to be considered individually but collectively as the buyer and the seller are same persons, though different sale deeds were got registered for small portions of land. 45. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the land owners shall be entitled to ` 1,216/- per square yard as compensation for the acquired land along with all R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [19] the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. 46. The land owners, whose sale deeds are part of the acquired land, they shall get the same amount of compensation as depicted in the sale deeds.

Land pertaining to villages Wazirabad and Chakarpur acquired vide notification dated 8.9.1997. 47. This order shall dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 5283, 5535 to 5545, 5556, 5864 to 5875, 5931 and 5940 of 2009; and R.F.A. Nos. 216 to 226, 239 to 245, 1169 to 1214, 1278 to 1308, 1723 and 1724 of 2010. 48. In the second set of appeals, vide notification dated 8.9.1997, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 250.12 acres, situated within the revenue estate of village Wazirabad and land measuring 263.62 acres, situated within the revenue estate of village Chakarpur was acquired for residential, commercial, institutional and open spaces area for Sectors 26-A, 27, 28, 42 and 43, Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 7.9.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector, vide award dated 6.9.2000, assessed the market value @ 12,00,000/- per acre for Chahi land; 9,60,000/- per acre for Allabarani land; 8,40,000/- per acre for Bhood land and 7,20,000/- per acre for Banjar 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 @ ` 717/- per square yard. 49. Additional contentions raised by learned counsel for the land owners pertaining to the second set of appeals arising out of notification dated 8.9.1997 issued under Section 4 of the Act are that the area now acquired is located quite close to Delhi Border. Towards that side, the area had already been developed. The acquisition in the present case was also for pockets scattered along with the area already developed by private colonisers. Site plan (Ex. P463 in Land Reference No. 70 of 2000) shows that the area in the vicinity of the acquired land had already been purchased by the builders and had been developed after obtaining licences from the government. Even in the oral statements of various witnesses produced in court, namely, PW7 -Balwinder Singh Patwari (LAC No. 70 of 2002) and PW7-Surender Sikand (LAC No. 11 of 2002) clearly established the aforesaid facts. Even site plan (Ex. R5 in LAC No. 70 of 2002) produced by the State on record also shows that the area in the vicinity either had already been developed or was in the process of development as the land had been purchased by the builders for which they had even been granted requisite licences. R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [20]

50. As far as value of the acquired land is concerned, it was submitted that the acquired land being close to Delhi and there being pressure in the area in the vicinity for fast development, especially for commercial purposes, the prices of land had shoot up quite high. Various sale deeds were produced on record, which were registered even after issuance of notifications dated 5th and 15th May, 1997, the details of which are as under: “ Regarding Village Chakarpur (LAC No. 70 of 2002)” Exhibit Area Name of Name of Purchaser Rate per square Sale consideration Date Biswa - Biswansi Seller yard in ` ......

P-397 0-19-13 Umrao Kaur Sahara Housing Ltd. 3,203/- 95,17,969/- 23.05.97 2A, Shakeshpeare Sarani, Calcullta-71

P-398 1-11-0 Kamlesh Kumari Sahara India Housing Ltd. 3,203/- 1,50,15,625/- 23.05.97 2A, Shakeshpeare Sarani, Calcullta-71

P-399 0-09-12 Bhagmal Sahara India Housing Ltd. 3,203/- 46,50,000/- 23.05.97 2A, Shakeshpeare Sarani, Calcullta-71

P-400 0-09-12 Munni Devi Sahara India Housing Ltd. 3,203/- 46,50,000/- 23.05.97 2A, Shakeshpeare Sarani, Calcullta-71

P-401 0-09-12 Katri Devi Sahara India Housing Ltd. 3,203/- 46,50,000/- 23.05.97 2A, Shakeshpeare Sarani, Calcullta-71

P-402 0-017-12 Raghubir Sahara India Housing Ltd. 3,202/- 85,25,000/- 23.05.97 2A, Shakeshpeare Sarani, Calcullta-71

P-403 0-2-19.5 Rajbir M/s Gulab and Farms Ltd. 2,112/- 9,50,000/- 01.07.97 17/48, Shopping Complex, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-404 0-2-19.5 Chander Kala M/s Sweets Peas Pvt. Ltd. 2,112/- 9,50,000/- 01.07.97 17/48, Shopping Complex, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-405 0-2-19.5 Desh Raj M/s Gulab and Farms Ltd. 2,112/- 9,50,000/- 01.07.97 17/48, Shopping Complex, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-406 0-2-19.5 Kaptan M/s Sweets Peas Pvt. Ltd. 2,112/- 9,50,000/- 01.07.97 17/48, Shopping Complex, Malcha Marg, New Delhi P-407 2-15-0 Surender Sahara India Housing Ltd. 3,203/- 2,66,40,625/- 28.07.97 2A, Shakeshpeare Sarani, Calcullta-71

P-408 3-16-0 Ravinder Kaur Sahara India Housing Ltd. 3,203/- 3,68,12,500/- 28.07.97 2A, Shakeshpeare Sarani, Calcullta-71 R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [21]

P-409 3-4-0 Surender Sahara India Housing Ltd. 3,203/- 3,10,00,000/- 28.07.97 2A, Shakeshpeare Sarani, Calcullta-71

“ R egarding Village Wazirabad (LAC No. 70 of 202)

P-87 0-5-15 Daya Ram M/s Marri Housing 2,066.80 17,96,875/- 28.07.97 Construction Pvt. Ltd. 48/1, Commercial Centre, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-88 0-5-15 Daya Ram M/s Future Vision and 2,066.80 17,96,875/- 28.07.97 Security Pvt. Ltd. 48/1, Commercial Centre, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-89 0-5-15 Daya Ram M/s Mandakani Builders 2,066.80 17,96,875/- 28.07.97 and Investment Ltd. 48/1, Commercial Centre, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-90 0-5-15 Daya Ram M/s Henji Estates Pvt. Ltd. 2,066.80 17,96,875/- 28.07.97 48/1, Commercial Centre, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-91 0-5-15 Daya Ram M/s Home Age Builders 2,066.80 17,96,875/- 28.07.97 Ltd. 48/1, Commercial Centre, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-92 0-5-15 Daya Ram M/s Lupin Builders and 2,066.80 17,96,875/- 28.07.97 Security Pvt. Ltd. 48/1, Commercial Centre, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-93 0-5-15 Daya Ram M/s Bridon Estate (P) Ltd. 2,066.80 17,96,875/- 28.07.97 48/1, Commercial Centre, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-94 0-5-15 Daya Ram M/s Birgaintine (P) Ltd. 2,066.80 17,96,875/- 28.07.97 48/1, Commercial Centre, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-95 0-5-15 Daya Ram M/s EMU Properties Ltd. 2,066.80 17,96,875/- 28.07.97 48/1, Commercial Centre, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-96 0-5-15 Daya Ram M/s Spark Mark Builders 2,066.80 17,96,875/- 28.07.97 Pvt. Ltd. 48/1, Commercial Centre, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-97 0-5-15 Daya Ram M/s Ujjaval Builders 2,066.80 17,96,875/- 28.07.97 Investment Pvt. Ltd. 48/1, Commercial Centre, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-98 0-5-15 Daya Ram M/s Bridon Estate (P) Ltd 2,066.80 17,96,875/- 28.07.97 48/1, Commercial Centre, Malcha Marg, New Delhi

P-99 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s EG Move Builders 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-100 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s Nimble Builders 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [22]

P-101 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s God Gifty Properties 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-102 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s Fedora Estate 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-103 0-0-19 Jeet Ram M/s VD Properties 3,132.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-104 0-0-19 Jeet Ram M/s Mangapolice Estate 3,132.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-105 0-0-19 Jeet Ram M/s Brigalo Estate 3,132.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-106 0-0-19 Jeet Ram M/s Triple Five Properties 3,132.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-107 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s Calaimantine Estate 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-108 0-0-19 Jeet Ram M/s Sukh Sarovar 3,132.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Properties Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-109 0-0-19 Jeet Ram M/s Daimiraj Estate 3,132.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-110 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s Heart Land Properties 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-111 0-0-19 Jeet Ram M/s Aaina Properties 3,132.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-112 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s Magalopolice Estate 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-113 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s Brigalo Estate 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-114 0-1-4 Jeet Ram M/s Home Age Properties 2,617.00 4,75,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-115 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s Triple Five Properties 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-116 0-0-18 Jeet Ram M/s EG Move Builders 3,307.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-117 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s Sukh Sarovar Properties 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-118 0-0-18 Jeet Ram M/s Nimbal Builders 3,307.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [23]

P-119 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s VD Properties 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-120 0-0-18 Jeet Ram M/s God Gify Properties 3,307.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-121 0-0-18 Jeet Ram M/s Fedora Estate 3,307.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-122 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s Aaina Properties 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-123 0-0-19 Jeet Ram M/s Calaimantine Estate 3,132.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-124 0-0-19 Jeet Ram M/s Heart Land Estate 3,132.00 4,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi

P-125 0-4-3 Jeet Ram M/s Damiaraj Estate 3,107.00 19,50,000/- 01.08.97 Pvt. Ltd. 53, Khan Market, New Delhi 51. The submission of learned counsel for the land owners was that the land pertaining to village Chakarpur was being sold at an average price of ` 3,160/- per square yard, whereas the land pertaining to village Wazirabad was sold @ ` 2,523/- per square yard. Considering the fact that the sale transactions were literally between the same seller and a group of companies under one flag, no cut was required to be applied as in totality, the transactions were for big chunk of land. Genuineness of the transactions were not doubted by the State, as the buyers were for public/ private sector limited companies. It was further submitted that one Daya Ram son of Nand Lal sold four acres of land, which in fact had been sold by him to the private builders. However, the sale deeds upto the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act could be registered only for two acres of land and the other two acres were acquired. The average sale consideration received by him was `1,00,00,000/- per acre, i.e., ` 2066.11 per square yard. For the adjoining land, even his co-sharer in the land, namely, Jeet Ram had sold his share of land by way of private negotiations just before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act at a price of more than ` 1,50,00,000/- per acre. Various sale deeds were got registered by him on 1.8.1997. 52. Additional contention raised in the bunch of appeals bearing R.F.A. No. 5940 of 2009 was that the land owner therein had not been awarded appropriate compensation for the super structure existing on the acquired land. The Collector awarded meagre amount, whereas the amount spent by the land owner thereon was substantial. In support of the claim, clinching trust worthy evidence was produced, but the same was totally ignored as the learned court R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [24] below even did not consider this issue. 53. It was further submitted that the provisions under the Act are being mis-used by the State at the behest of the private builders, who are not able to pressurise the land owners to part with their land. Those small pockets of land were got acquired by these builders through the State. Subsequently, those portions of land were transferred by the State in favour of those builders either for a consideration or in exchange of other land. In fact, HUDA, for the benefit of which the land was acquired, has in fact started behaving as a private builder. It is getting the land of poor land owners acquired at a meagre price and selling the same at exhorbitant price making huge profits therefor, though the claimed policy is “no profit no loss”. Reference was made to Khasra Nos. 562 min, 563 min, 564, 565/1 min, 565/2 min, 568/1 min, 569 min, 560 min, 561 min, 503/1 min, 296 min, 189 min, 168 min, 179 min, 180, 2366, 304/4 min, 2318/3, 2318/4, 2358/1, 2356/1, 823/2, 297 min, 302 min, 299 min, 301 min and 146 min in the award of the Collector pertaining to land of village Chakarpur and also the exchange deed (Ex. P-500 in LAC No. 70 of 2002) signed between HUDA and DLF Universal Ltd. 54. On the other hand, Mr. H. S. Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana submitted that the evidence, which is sought to be pressed by learned counsel for the land owners before this court was not pressed before the learned court below, as there is no discussion in the award pertaining thereto. However, he did not dispute the fact that the same is part of the record. The genuineness of the transactions as such has not been doubted. He further submitted that other sale transactions produced on record were rightly ignored by the learned court below being for small plots. Even if those are to be considered, cut was required to be applied. As far as sale deeds produced by the State are concerned, it was not disputed that the same were below the award of the Collector and even the location of the land pertaining thereto, as depicted on the site plan (Ex. R5) clearly established that the same were far of from the acquired land. He further submitted that whatever amount is determined by the court for the acquisition carried out vide notifications dated 5th and 15th May, 1997, the same amount should be awarded to the land owners in the present acquisition, as there is no difference as such as the land is located close by. Licences granted to various builders in the area for development of the land has no bearing for the purpose of assessment of its value. However, he did not dispute the fact that the land had great future potential as Gurgaon is face of Haryana. 55. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State was confronted R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [25] with a fact that though HUDA had filed appeals pertaining to acquisition of land vide notifications dated 5th and 15th May, 1997, but no appeal had been filed pertaining to the acquisition of land vide notification dated 8.9.1997. What can be the possible reason therefor is that HUDA is selective in filing the appeals or the object was to benefit some one in the earlier bunch of appeals, though even the HUDA also realised that there was no substance in their appeals as such. The learned Advocate General submitted that off hand he cannot say what weighed with the HUDA in not filing appeals for the subsequent acquisition carried out merely four months after the earlier one, though the amount of compensation awarded was the same. All what he can visualise that good sense must have prevailed as some one may have examined the issue. If that is the answer, there arises another question as to why even the State Government did not apply its mind in finding as to whether the cases were fit for filing appeals or not as the State had filed appeals even for the subsequent acquisition. 56. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. 57. As far as location of the land is concerned, the same is located in two villages, namely, Wazirabad and Chakarpur, which was acquired for the purpose of development as residential, commercial and institutional areas for Sectors 26-A, 27, 28, 42 and 43, Gurgaon. Site plans (Ex. P463 and Ex. R5) clearly show that it was located towards Delhi border. The area around the border on Delhi side was already developed and so was the position even for the area in the vicinity, as the same had been developed by the private builders after grant of licences by the government. It was small pockets of land left in between or the portions of land on one side, which was acquired by the State. Even PW7-Balwinder Singh Patwari had also admitted the fatum of development of area in the vicinity. 58. Small portions of land were acquired in the present case, which were surrounded by the area already purchased and being developed by the private builders is established from the fact that Haryana Urban Development Authority had exchanged small portion of land of village Chakarpur with DLF Universal Ltd., meaning thereby that the State utilised its authoritative power under the Act to deprive the land owners of their land which they were not willing to part with just for the benefit of the private persons otherwise as such even Haryana Urban Development Authority also could not have used that small portion of land for that purpose. Even if the same was left out as such, it would have been to the benefit of the private builders whose land was situated all around. 59. As far as determination of fair value of the acquired land is R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [26] concerned, in my opinion, the contention raised by learned Advocate General that it should be the same as has been determined by this court for the land acquired vide notifications dated 5th and 15th May, 1997, as there was small gap or at the most for a period of 4 months, 4% increase should be awarded has to be noticed and rejected only. It can be the position in a case when there was no independent evidence as such on record to determine the value of the land on the basis of sale transactions in the area but in the present case, the position is otherwise, as the land owners have been able to produce on record various sale deeds showing sale of substantial portion of land to private builders at a price ranging from ` 2,111/- to ` 3,202/- per square yard as far as village Chakarpur is concerned and ` 2,066/- to ` 3,305/- per square yard as far as village Wazirabad is concerned in between the earlier notification dated 15.5.1997 and 8.9.1997, the date on which notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued. As far as land of village Chakarpur is concerned, for a chunk of 13 bighas an 12 biswas, there were only two sets of buyers. Similarly, for the land pertaining to village Wazirabad, there are only two vendors, namely, Daya Ram and Jeet Ram and only two sets of vendees. In one set, the land has been purchased by a group of companies from Daya Ram, whereas in other set land has been purchased by another group from Jeet Ram. The total area dealt with in the aforesaid two sets of cases is 3 bighas and 6 biswas and 3 bighas and 10 biswas respectively. The genuineness of the aforesaid transactions has not been doubted. Even otherwise, it is not an isolated transaction which can be said to have been registered just to claim higher rate of compensation, as these are large in number. 60. Now the issue as to whether the value should be determined relying upon the aforesaid sale transactions which show abnormal increase of more than 100% within a time of nearly four months. A perusal of site plan (Ex.P463) shows that the land pertaining thereto is either located on some existing road or close thereto or having other strategic advantages for which the vendees in these sale deeds may have paid extra price considering the advantages attached thereto, which may not be the value of the entire acquired land as such. In my opinion, for the purpose of assessment in the present case a guess work has to be applied and on the basis thereof, I deem it appropriate to award 25% more amount for the land acquired vide notification dated 8.9.1997 over and above the value of the land determined for the acquisition carried out vide notifications dated 5th and 15th May, 1997, i.e., ` 1,216/- + ` 304/- = ` 1,520/- per square yard. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [27]

61. The land owners, whose sale deeds are part of the acquired land, they shall get the same amount of compensation as depicted in the sale deeds. 62. As regards super structure in RFA No. 5940 of 2009 is concerned, the claim of the land owner is that sufficient amount has not been awarded by the Collector and the learned court below did not consider that issue. This court while dealing with the issue regarding valuation of super structure had been applying a thumb rule by awarding 25% increase on the value as assessed by the Collector. It is for the reason that the Collector is quite conservative in estimating the value thereof, whereas the land owners make exhorbitant claims and this court has no expertise as such to determine the same. Accordingly, the land owner in R.F.A. No. 5940 of 2009 is awarded 25% additional compensation on account of super structure on the value so assessed by the Collector. The land owner shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. 63. To sum up, it is held that for the land acquired vide notifications dated 5.5.1997 and 15.5.1997, the land owners shall be entitled to compensation @ ` 1,216/- per square yard, whereas for the land acquired vide notification dated 8.9.1997, the land owners shall be entitled to compensation @ ` 1,520/- per square yard. They shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act. The land owners, whose sale deeds are part of the acquired land, they shall get the same amount of compensation as depicted in the sale deeds. 64. 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, to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue same directions in the present set of appeals as well. The same are as under: “With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it appropriate to issue following further directions: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar, 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. (ii) 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. R.F.A. No. 1824 of 2006 [28]

(iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.” 65. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above.

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge October 01 ,2010 mk