Allowed

(O&M) Naut Ram and Others v. Stateof Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Oct 2010RFA/1971/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against low compensation awards for land acquired for HUDA sectors. The Single Bench held that the Supreme Court rate in Vishnu Dutt's case is a binding base, enhanced further for time gaps in later acquisitions, and upheld HUDA's right to recover extra costs from allottees.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs. 8,23,500 per acre for 1989 notifications (enhanced to Rs. 10,87,000 for 1991 notification with interest). Statutory benefits and shop account directions issued.

(O&M) Naut Ram and Others Vs Stateof Haryana and… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 (O&M) L.A. Case No. 666 of 1998 Date of decision: October 15, 2010

¶4

Naut Ram and others

¶5

.. Appellants

¶6

¶7

State of Haryana and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

¶10

Argued by: Mr. Shailender Jain, Mr. C. B. Goel, Mr. R.A. Yadav, Mr. Sharad Kumar Yadav, Mr. Vijay Saini for Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr. Manav Bajaj for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Mr. Amit Jain, Mr. Narender Sura, Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocates for the land owners.

¶11

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

¶12

Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for HUDA on 8.10.2010.

¶13

Mr. K.S. Sandhu for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for HUDA on 11.10.2010.

¶14

Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocates for HUDA.

¶15

Rajesh Bindal J.

¶16

This order will dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 171, 292 of 1997; 2217 and 2637 of 2000; 4685 of 2001; 1971, 2107, 2571, 2690, 2693, 2701 to 2707, 2709, 2710, 2850 to 2854, 2926, 2940, 2941, 3142, 3397, 3398, 3472, 3568, 4004, 4028 to 4030 of 2002; 2805, 2806, 2899 of 2003; 722 to 728, 884 and 885 of 2004, 4449 and 4450 of 2006; 3571 and 3572 of 2008 and 681 of 2009, as common questions of law and facts are involved.

¶17

The land acquired in the present set of appeals pertains to three different acquisitions, namely, vide two different notifications dated 17.4.1989 and third one dated 18.12.1991.

¶18

Facts pertaining to acquisition dated 17.4.1989

¶19

In R.F.A. Nos. 2217 and 2637 of 2000 and 4685 of 2001, pertaining

¶20

to acquisition of land of villages Ghatta, Wazirabad and Haiderpur Viran, Tehsil

¶21

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [2]

¶22

and District Gurgaon, the land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.

¶23

4.. Briefly, the facts of the case are that vide notification dated 17.4.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act'), land measuring 833.18 acres, situated in villages Ghatta, Wazirabad and Haiderpur Viran, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired by the State of Haryana for residential/industrial area (Sector 49-50 (Part) Old and Sectors 55-56 (Part New) at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 16.4.1990, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, the Collector') assessed the market value of the acquired land as under:

¶24

“Village Ghatta

¶25

For Gair Mumkin Nala and Johar: 50,000/- per acre 2. For other land 75,000/- per acre Village Wazirabad 1. For Gair Mumkin Nala and Johar: 1,00,000/- per acre 2. For other land 1,25,000/- per acre Village Haiderpur Viran 1. For Gair Mumkin Nala and Johar: 75,000/- per acre 2. For other land 1,00,000/- per acre”

¶26

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 @ ` 106.99 per square yard.

¶27

Facts pertaining to another acquisition dated 17.4.1989

¶28

5.. In R.F.A. Nos. 171, 292 of 1997, 722 to 728, 884 and 885 of 2004, 4449 and 4450 of 2006, pertaining to acquisition of land of villages Sirhaul, Sukhrali and Silokhra, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, the land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeal filed by the State, the prayer is for reduction thereof.

¶29

Vide another notification dated 17.4.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 40.85 acres, situated within the revenue estate of villages Sirhaul, Sukhrali and Silokhra, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired for residential/commercial area in Sector 29 (Part) at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 16.4.1990, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land @ ` 2,50,000/- per acre. 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

¶30

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [3]

¶31

the market value of the acquired land @ ` 7,53,000/- per acre.

¶32

Facts pertaining to acquisition dated 18.12.1991

¶33

In R.F.A. Nos. 1971, 2107, 2571, 2690, 2693, 2701 to 2707, 2709, 2710, 2850 to 2854, 2926, 2940, 2941, 3142, 3397, 3398, 3472, 3568, 4004, 4028 to 4030 of 2002, 2805, 2806, 2899 of 2003; 3571 and 3572 of 2008 and 681 of 2009, pertaining to acquisition of land of villages Chakkarpur, Wazirabad and Haiderpur Viran, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, the land owners are in appeal seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land.

¶34

Vide another notification dated 18.12.1991, issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 53.05 acres, situated within the revenue estate of villages Chakkarpur,Wazirabad and Haiderpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was acquired for developmentand utilization of the land as sector road at Gurgaon. The same was followed by notification dated 27.11.1992 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land as under:

¶35

“Village Chakkarpur

¶36

Chahi	`3,60,000/- per acre
Alla Barani/Magda	`3,60,000/- per acre
Bhood	`1,35,000/- per acre
Banjar	`90,000/- per acre
Gair Mumkin	`3,60,000/- per acre
Village Wazirabad
Chahi	`3,60,000/- per acre
Alla Barani/Magda	`2,25,000/- per acre
Bhood	`1,35,000/- per acre
Banjar	`90,000/- per acre
Gair Mumkin	`3,15,000/- per acre
Village Haiderpur Viran
Chahi	`3,60,000/- per acre
Alla Barani/Magda	`2,25,000/- per acre
Bhood	`1,35,000/- per acre
Banjar	`90,000/- per acre
Gair Mumkin	`2,70,000/- per acre”

¶37

¶38

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [4]

¶39

Before I proceed to deal with the respective contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to trace out a brief history of the case as to what transpired before the arguments in the set of appeals were finally heard. When the cases came up for hearing on 21.7.2010, considering the fact that learned counsel for the land owners relied upon an order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2160-2243 of 2005 –Vishnu Dutt and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 31.3.2010, this court passed the following order:

¶40

“The issue under consideration in the bunch of appeals is regarding valuation of the land acquired vide notification dated December 18, 1991, situated in villages Chakkarpur, Wazirabad and Haiderpur, in district Gurgaon. While assessing the compensation, the learned court below relied upon earlier judgment of this court pertaining to land of village Wazirabad acquired vide notification dated April 17, 1989 and granted increase @ 12% per annum for the period of 32 months. The compensation as assessed by this court for acquisition of land vide notification dated April 17, 1989, 106.99 per square yard, i.e., 5,17,831.60 per acre in that case. The reference court had assessed the compensation @ 9,15,000/- per acre which was reduced by this court to 5,17,831.60. The landowners in the aforesaid case filed Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the judgment of this court dated May 13, 1999 reducing the amount of compensation.

¶41

Learned counsel for the land owners at the time of arguments submitted that the matter in dispute was settled between the land owners and the State before the Supreme Court and the compensation for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated April 17, 1989 was enhanced to 8,23,500/- per acre. The submission is that once the amount of compensation has been further enhanced from 5,17,831.60 per acre to 8,23,500/- per acre, i.e., 170/- per square yard, the amount of compensation payable to the land owners in the present set of appeals also deserves to be enhanced by taking base at 170/- per square yard, as against 106.99 per square yard taken by the learned court below.

¶42

The matter was taken up for hearing before vacations and learned counsel appearing for the State sought time to have instructions in the matter. It was again taken up for hearing on 19.7.2010 and adjournment was sought for the same purpose. The matter was

¶43

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [5]

¶44

adjourned for today.

¶45

Today, when the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Mr. Vikas Yadav, Additional Director, Urban Estates, Panchkula, who is present in court, submitted that there were no instructions given to the counsel appearing for the State before Hon'ble the Supreme Court to settle the dispute and get the amount of compensation enhanced from 5,17,831.60 per acre to 8,23,500/- per acre. In fact, the issue regarding compensation for acquisition carried out vide notification dated April 17,1989 was settled before Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 31.3.2010. However, till date, definite stand of the State is not available as to whether the settlement arrived at before Hon'ble the Supreme Court regarding valuation of land pertaining to acquisition dated April 17, 1989 is to be considered as a precedent for assessing the compensation of acquisition carried out subsequently. Learned counsel for the State seeks short adjournment so that learned Advocate General could address the court on the important issue.”

¶46

10. On 27.7.2010, the following order was passed:

¶47

“On the issues noticed by this court vide order dated 21.7.2010, learned Advocate General, Haryana, referred to para 7 of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 31.3.2010 noticing the settlement arrived at between the State and the land owners in the case before Hon'ble the Supreme Court where as a special case the State decided to settle the matter by agreeing for award of compensation at the rate fixed by the Reference Court less 10%. However, it was submitted by the State therein that the same should not be treated as a precedent for other cases and the consent should not be treated as an admission as the amount determined by this court was quite low. The principle adopted was to be explained by stating that the total of about 150 crores was to be recovered by the State on account of excess paid compensation which included the principal amount and statutory benefits plus interest. However, the State could recover only 15 crores from them because of agitation by the farmers. As a special case in principle it was decided that only 10% of the amount having been recovered, the balance shall be treated as

¶48

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [6]

¶49

the amount of compensation payable to the land owners.

¶50

As is evident from the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the issue under consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was regarding acquisition of land pertaining to villages Sukhrali and Silokhra, District Gurgaon, vide notification dated 27.8.1987 for development as Sector 29, Gurgaon and the second acquisition was pertaining to land of villages Ghata and Wazirabad acquired vide notification dated 17.4.1989 for development as Sectors 55 and 56, Gurgaon.

¶51

As the amount of compensation payable to the land owners was reduced by this court and before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the State settled the matter in Lok Adalat by agreeing to pay a higher amount, the issue as to whether the amount which has been paid beyond the judicial pronouncement by this court in a settlement before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a Lok Adalat is to be borne by the State-Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, `HUDA') for whose benefits the land was acquired or the burden thereof has already been passed on the plot holders, the stand of the State or the HUDA shall be required.

¶52

At this stage, learned counsel for the land owners pointed out that in fact the HUDA had already recovered the amount of enhanced compensation calculating the same at the rate of 9,15,000/- per acre which was ultimately reduced by this court to 5,17,831.60 paise. As the area after acquisition was transferred to HUDA, which was developed and the plots were sold by it, let notice be issued to HUDA as well so that the status regarding the aforesaid factual position is placed before this court.”

¶53

The order passed by this court on 30.8.2010 is also extracted below: “In response to the order passed by this court on 27.7.2010, affidavit of R. P. Gupta, Administrator (HQ), HUDA Sector 6, Panchkula has been filed. It has been stated therein that the entire amount either awarded by this court or by Hon'ble the Supreme Court along with interest accrued thereon is chargeable by HUDA from the plot holders whether the court awarded the same on merits or by way of settlement. Reference was also made to Regulation 2(b) of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Building)

¶54

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [7]

¶55

Regulations, 1978, which provides as under:

¶56

“Additional Price and Additional Premium means such sum of money as may be determined by the Chief Administrator in respect of the sale or lease of land or building by allotment, which may become payable by the transferee or lessee with respect to land or building sold or leased to him in a sector on account of the enhancement of compensation of any land or building in the same sector by the court on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the amount of cost incurred in respect of such reference.”

¶57

The submission was that in terms of the aforesaid regulation, the HUDA is entitled to claim amount of compensation for any land or building as enhanced by the court.

¶58

Learned counsel appearing for HUDA seeks time to address arguments as to whether settlement arrived at before Hon'ble the Supreme Court where the State itself volunteered to pay higher amount of compensation to the land owners instead of a lesser amount determined by this court, can be said to be the determination of amount of compensation by the court thereby entitling HUDA to recover the same from the plot holders.”

¶59

The arguments in the set of appeals were partly heard on 8.10.2010 and were concluded on 11.10.2010.

¶60

On the issue, as are evident from the aforesaid interim orders passed by this court on various dates, Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel for Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, `HUDA') made his submissions. At the cost of repetition, it is mentioned here that the issues raised were as to whether the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) can be considered as a precedent to be relied upon for determination of compensation for the land which was acquired subsequently and secondly, as to whether the amount agreed to be paid by the State before Hon'ble the Supreme Court can be said to be determination by the court, thereby entitling HUDA to pass on the burden thereof on the allottees of the plots.

¶61

Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel appearing for HUDA, while referring to various provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short, the HUDA Act') and Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations,1978 (for short, the Regulations') and also

¶62

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [8]

¶63

various provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short, `the 1987 Act') submitted that an award even if made by the Lok Adalat is executable as a decree of the civil suit and once it is a decree, HUDA is certainly entitled to pass on the burden of compensation so determined in those proceedings to the allottees of the plots in the area. He further referred to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) to submit that no doubt, the amount therein had been determined in a Lok Adalat conducted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, however, the final award was not of the Lok Adalat, but the appeals were finally decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties and the appeals filed by the land owners were partly accepted while increasing the amount of compensation. Meaning thereby it was the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. What happened in the background as regards the manner of determination of compensation, whether it was by way of adjudicatory process or non-adjudicatory process, would not be relevant. 15. As far as the issue, whether the judgment in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) can be relied upon as a precedent, the submission was that the same should not be relied upon for the reason that the process for determination of compensation in that case was non-adjudicatory. It is only the judgments, which are delivered after following the adjudicatory process, which can be relied upon or referred to as a binding precedent. However, no judgment in support of the argument was cited. He was candid in saying that still as the matters had been decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it can certainly be an input for judicial process in future.

¶64

On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, appearing for the land owners in some of the appeals and also assisting the court on the issues raised, submitted that the judgment in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) should be relied upon for the purpose of determination of compensation for the acquisition carried out in the same area, as it is not an award passed by the Lok Adalat in Hon'ble the Supreme Court, rather it is a final judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court determining a particular amount of compensation. As to what happened in the background thereof would not be relevant. The State as a fair litigant can always concede and settle the disputes with its subjects. Even in land acquisition cases also, it can very well submit before the court that they are agreeable to pay a particular amount of compensation for the acquired land, which is to the satisfaction of the land owners. Lok Adalat is also one of the mode of alternative dispute resolution, which is part of the judicial process. There is nothing on record to doubt the bonafides of the persons, who settled the matter before Hon'ble the Supreme Court agreeing to pay

¶65

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [9]

¶66

a certain amount of compensation for the acquired land, which may be more than the compensation determined by this court.

¶67

He further submitted that in case the matters are settled only in the Lok Adalat and an award is passed, though it may be executable as a decree, but the determination being not by a court, in terms of the existing provisions of the HUDA Act and the Regulations, HUDA may not be entitled to pass on the burden of enhanced compensation so determined on the allottees. There can be a settlement regarding the amount of compensation even in courts. Any judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is a binding precedent. In the present case, reliance is sought to be placed upon by the land owners in the subsequent acquisition only on a question of fact regarding the amount of compensation determined for the acquired land. It is not a concession by the State before Hon'ble the Supreme Court on a question of law, which may or may not be a precedent. However, to state that a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is not a binding precedent in a case where the amount of compensation has been determined would be totally misconceived.

¶68

The value of land is determined on the principle as to what a willing buyer is ready to pay to a willing settler. The State was the buyer, though it was through the process of acquisition of land and the land owners were the sellers of land. The State as a buyer agreed to pay a particular amount of compensation to the satisfaction of the land owners. The other land owners in the area should be denied compensation, which is similar in line. They are also entitled to pray for further enhancement of compensation for the land acquired subsequently. It would be too anomalous to state that for the acquisition carried out in the earlier years in the same area, the land owners would be entitled to higher compensation, whereas for the land acquired subsequently in the same area, the land owners should be paid lesser compensation. If the argument of learned counsel appearing for HUDA regarding not relying the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as a precedent is considered, the same would create an anomalous position. He further submitted that it was merely a half-hearted attempt by learned counsel for the State appearing before Hon'ble the Supreme Court when it was stated that the amount of compensation conceded to be paid by them to the land owners in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) should not be treated as a precedent, Hon'ble the Supreme Court did not accept that plea as there was no such direction by Hon'ble the Supreme Court not to treat the same as a precedent. All what the operative part of the judgment says is that the amount of compensation is determined at the rate conceded by the State.

¶69

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [10]

¶70

Arguments on merits

¶71

Regarding acquisition of land vide notification dated 17.4.1989 pertaining to villages Sirhaul, Sukhrali and Silokhra acquiring 40.85 acres of land for development as Sector 29 (Part), Gurgaon is concerned, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court determined the value of the land acquired vide notification dated 27.8.1987 pertaining to land of villages Sukhrali and Silokhra. In the present acquisition also, the land pertaining to both the aforesaid villages and in addition to that, the adjoining land of village Sirhaul was also acquired. Once Hon'ble the Supreme Court had determined the value therein at 8,23,500/- per acre, the land owners should be awarded increase @ 12% per annum for the time gap in the two notifications, which is one year and eight months and the compensation should be assessed @ 9,88,100/- per acre. He further submitted that the amount of compensation determined in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) was itself relied upon in a subsequent judgment by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1910 of 2005 –Kaptan Singh v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 19.8.2010, pertaining to acquisition of land of village Jharsa, District Gurgaon vide notification dated 27.8.1987. Even the learned court below while determining the amount of compensation for the land in question had relied upon the earlier judgment of this Court in R.F.A. No. 1071 of 1997 –State of Haryana v. Jyoti Parkash and others, decided on 5.8.1999. In that case, the judgment of this court for the acquisition of land, which was subject-matter of dispute before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) was relied upon and the compensation was determined accordingly. The State, in fact, being not in appeal had not disputed reliance on the aforesaid judgment for the assessment of value of the land, in principle.

¶72

As far as acquisition of land vide notification dated 17.4.1989 is concerned, it was submitted that these are a few left out cases of land, the valuation of which was under consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra). The land owners therein are entitled to the same amount of compensation, as has been determined in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra).

¶73

As far as acquisition of land pertaining to villages Chakkarpur, Wazirabad and Haiderpur vide notification dated 18.12.1991 is concerned, the submission was that even in those cases, the learned court below had relied upon the earlier judgment of this court in R.F.A. No. 991 of 1996 –Indraj and others v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 13.5.1999, pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 17.4.1989, which was subject-matter of appeal before

¶74

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [11]

¶75

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) and awarded increase @ 12% per annum thereon for the time gap. As the principle for determination of compensation in that case is not in dispute, the State being not in appeal, the compensation for acquisition of land carried out vide notification dated 17.4.1989 having been enhanced by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the land owners should be granted increase accordingly.

¶76

In R.F.A. No. 2107 of 2002, an application for additional evidence has been filed seeking to place reliance upon a subsequent award of the learned court below determining the amount of compensation for the land acquired vide same notification at a higher rate. It was stated that the land owner therein has even filed further appeal seeking enhancement.

¶77

As far as the merits of the case are concerned, no one represented HUDA, when the cases were taken up for hearing on 11.10.2010. When the arguments were heard, proxy counsel appeared stating that as far as the issues raised by this court are concerned, the arguments had already been addressed by Mr. Anupam Gupta on 8.10.2010 and there are no instructions from HUDA in any other case. Even though it is claimed by HUDA while filing appeals in number of cases, which are hundreds in number, even in the cases where the State is already in appeal before this court contending that it has to take care of the interest of the allottees, however, in the present cases, it did not think it appropriate to contest the cases filed by the land owners seeking enhancement of compensation. Not only this, even the Advocate General also did not think it appropriate to assist the court even though important issues were involved.

¶78

As far as learned counsel for the State is concerned, he submitted that for the acquisition carried out vide notification dated 17.4.1989 pertaining to villages Sirhaul, Sukhrali and Silokhra, the learned court below having relied upon an earlier judgment of this Court in Jyoti Parkash's case (supra), which had attained finality, there was no question of granting enhancement to the land owners in the aforesaid cases. Reliance on Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) is totally mis-conceived even on factual aspect. Even in terms of the evidence led by the land owners on record, the amount of compensation, as has been determined by the learned court below, is fully justified.

¶79

As far as acquisition of land of villages Ghatta, Wazirabad and Haiderpur Viran vide notification dated 17.4.1989 is concerned, though not disputing that some of the cases regarding the aforesaid acquisition were before Hon'ble the Supreme Court and were decided in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra), but still as the same is not to be considered as a precedent, it should not be relied upon

¶80

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [12]

¶81

and the assessment of compensation should be made on the basis of evidence already on record. Similar is the argument with regard to acquisition of land vide notification dated 18.12.1991.

¶82

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.

¶83

Discussion

¶84

The issues on which the assistance of learned counsel for HUDA was required in so far it is related with passing of the burden of the enhanced compensation on the allottees of plots is concerned, prima facie this court is of the opinion that burden, in the facts and circumstances of the case, can be passed on to the allottees of plots in the area. It is for the reason that in Section 2(b) the Regulations, it has been mentioned that amount of enhanced compensation of any land by the court is recoverable from the allottees of the land in that area as additional price/premium. A perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) shows that determination of compensation in that case was not by the Lok Adalat in Hon'ble the Supreme Court, rather, it was a decision of the court, in terms of which the appeals filed by the land owners were partly accepted and the amount of compensation was determined. As to what transpired in the process of determination may not be relevant, when ultimately it is the judgment of the court. The award of Lok Adalat may be at a different pedestal. However, this issue is not directly related in the present set of appeals, accordingly, this court is not recording any definite finding thereon and the issue would be considered independently whenever the same is raised before the court by the affected parties.

¶85

As far as issue regarding precedent value of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is concerned, though learned counsel for HUDA raised argument that only the judgment delivered by the court where adjudicatory process is followed is to be treated as binding precedent and not the case where nonadjudicatory process is followed. No judgment in support of the argument was cited. Be that as it may, the fact in the present case is that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has not decided any legal issue as such in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra). It was only determination of compensation for the acquired land. The process, which is adopted for determination therefor can either be adjudicatory or non-adjudicatory. The fair price of land is determined on the basis of principle as to what a willing buyer is ready to pay to a willing seller. In the present case, the State is buyer of the property, though the process adopted for purchase was by way of compulsory

¶86

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [13]

¶87

acquisition. As a buyer of the property, the State conceded before Hon'ble the Supreme Court that they are willing to pay compensation @ ` 8,23,500/- for the land in village Sukhrali and Silokhra acquired vide notification dated 27.8.1987 as also for the land in villages Ghata and Wazirabad acquired vide notification dated 17.4.1989, which was accepted by the land owners.

¶88

As regards the statement made by learned counsel for the State before Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the same should not be treated as a precedent in other cases was not as such accepted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as at the time of disposal of the appeals, there is no such direction issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Finally, Hon'ble the Supreme Court accepted the appeals filed by the land owners partly and enhanced the compensation.

¶89

Another important aspect is that even subsequently in Kaptan Singh's case (supra), again on the basis of determination of compensation in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra), value of the land for village Sukhrali was also determined, though as per the consent of counsel for the State there. It was sought to be explained by learned counsel for the State that there was no prior approval of any competent authority for making such a statement in Kaptan Singh's case (supra) and the government is considering that issue, but still the fact is that on the basis of statement of the counsel, the appeals were disposed of.

¶90

Yet another important aspect in the opinion of this court is that if the contention raised by learned counsel for the State for not treating the determination of compensation in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) and Kaptan Singh's case (supra) as a base for determination of compensation of land in the area acquired by subsequent notification is considered, it would create an anomolous situation. The land, which was acquired prior in time, for that the land owners have been paid higher rate of compensation, whereas for the land, which has been acquired subsequently, lesser amount of compensation is sought to be justified. Nothing on record was pointed out by any of the parties that the statement made by learned counsel for the State before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) was not bonafide or it was tainted with some extraneous consideration. In case, the State had agreed to pay the land owners in an area a particular amount of compensation, for the land acquired subsequently it would not lie in their mouth to say that compensation should be paid at a lesser rate ignoring the rate conceded by them for the earlier acquisition.

¶91

In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the rate, as has been determined by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra)

¶92

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [14]

¶93

can very well be relied upon by this court for the purpose of determination of compensation for the land acquired subsequently, even though the rates therein may have been determined by adopting a non-adjudicatory process, as the fact remains that ultimately it was the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

¶94

After crossing the hurdle of finding the base value for the purpose of determination of compensation for the acquired land, now coming to the issue of assessment of fair value of land for three different acquisitions carried out in the present set of appeals, in my opinion, as far as appeals pertaining to notification dated 17.4.1989, issued under Section 4 of the Act, for the land of villages Haiderpur Viran, Ghata and Wazirabad are concerned, these are merely some of the left out cases of the acquisition, which was under consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra). Accordingly, I do not find any reason to grant a different rate to the land owners in the aforesaid appeals and the value of their acquired land is determined @ ` 8,23,500/- per acre.

¶95

As far as the cases pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 17.4.1989 of villages Sirhaul, Sukhrali and Silokhra are concerned, the learned court below in that case had relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jyoti Prakash's case (supra), whereby for the land acquired vide same notification, the compensation was assessed @ 7,53,000/- per acre. It was not disputed at the time of hearing that the aforesaid award pertaining to that acquisition had attained finality and in large number of cases, the land owners have been paid the aforesaid amount of compensation. It is only that a few left over cases have been listed now. A perusal of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra) shows that compensation @ 8,23,500/- per acre was assessed for the land acquired by two different notifications, namely, 27.8.1987 pertaining to land of village Sukhrali and Silokhra acquired for development as Sector 29, Gurgaon, and notification dated 17.4.1989 pertaining to land of villages Ghata and Wazirabad, acquired for development as Sectors 55 and 56, Gurgaon. The notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 17.4.1989 for the land of villages Sirhaul, Sukhrali and Silokhra. As before Hon'ble the Supreme Court compensation @ ` 8,23,000/- per acre was determined even for acquisition carried out vide notification dated 17.4.1989, though in the neighbouring village, I deem it appropriate to award the same amount of compensation to the land owners in the present set of appeals and no further increase for the time gap, as was claimed by them.

¶96

The contention of learned counsel for the State that the earlier award pertaining to the same acquisition in Jyoti Prakash's case (supra) was good enough

¶97

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [15]

¶98

to deny relief to the land owners also deserves to be noticed and rejected for the reason that in the pending appeals, an appellant can always take benefit of any subsequent judgment, which is to their advantage.

¶99

As far as acquisition of land vide notification dated 18.12.1991, pertaining to land of villages Chakkarpur, Wazirabad and Haiderpur Viran is concerned, the learned court below had relied upon the earlier award pertaining to acquisition of land vide notification dated 17.4.1989 and granted increase for the time gap @ 12% per annum thereon. The amount of compensation, as was assessed by this court for the land acquired vide notification dated 17.4.1989, pertaining to villages Ghata, Wazirabad and Haiderpur Viran was subject-matter of appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra), where the same was enhanced to 8,23,500/- per acre. The State had not filed any appeal against the award of the learned court below in the present set of appeals. Meaning thereby that the principle on the basis of which the amount of compensation was determined by the learned court below is not disputed by it, i.e., reliance on the award pertaining to the earlier acquisition vide notification dated 17.4.1989. Even otherwise, a perusal of both the notifications shows that the land pertaining to two of the villages in both the notifications is common, namely, Wazirabad and Haiderpur Viran. As for the land acquired vide notification dated 17.4.1989, the amount of compensation has been assessed @ 8,23,500/- per acre in Vishnu Dutt's case (supra), I deem it appropriate to award increase @ 12% per annum thereon for 3 years and 8 months. Adding 32% on 8,23,500/- per acre, the amount of compensation shall come out to 10,87,020/- per acre, which is rounded off to ` 10,87,000/- per acre, which shall be the amount of compensation payable to the land owners, whose land was acquired vide notification dated 18.12.1991.

¶100

In view of my aforesaid discussion, it is held that for the land acquired vide notifications dated 17.4.1989 pertaining to villages Ghata, Wazirabad, Haiderpur Viran, Sirhaul, Sukhrali and Silokhra, the land owners are held entitled to compensation @ 8,23,500/- per acre, whereas for the land acquired vide notification dated 18.12.1991, pertaining to villages Chakkarpur, Wazirabad and Haiderpur, they are held entitled to compensation @ 10,87,000/per acre. The land owners shall also be entitled to all the statutory benefits available to them under the Act.

¶101

To ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman in the process of disbursement of enhanced compensation, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6515 of 2009 –Haryana State Industrial Development

¶102

R.F.A. No. 1971 of 2002 [16]

¶103

Corporation v. Pran Sukh and others, decided on 17.8.2010, issued certain directions. I deem it appropriate to issue same directions in the present set of appeals as well, which are as under:

¶104

“With a view to ensure that the land owners are not fleeced by the middleman, we deem it appropriate to issue following further directions:

¶105

(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.

¶106

(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.

¶107

(iii) The bank account numbers of the land owners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months.

¶108

(iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the land owners.”

¶109

The appeals are disposed of to the extent mentioned above.

¶110

October 15, 2010 mk

¶111

(Refer to Reporter)

(O&M) Naut Ram and Others v. Stateof Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Naut Ram and Others v. Stateof Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raunak Chand Vs C.B.I.

Maluk Singh Vs Suraj Mukhi

Puneet Kaur Vs Rajbinder Singh @ Rajwinder Singh

Ram Pal Vs State of Haryana

Kuldip Singh Vs U.T. Chd.

Mangtu Vs State of Haryana etc.