State of Haryana Vs M/S Bharat Machine Tools

By way of present appeal, ch a llenge has been laid to th e judgment date d 13.06.1997 passed by th e learned Additional Distric t Judge, Faridabad, whereby the reference p e tition filed under Section 1 8 of the Land Ac q uisition Act, 1894 (hereinaft e r referred to as ‘the Act’) b y the responden t -landowner, seeking enhan c ement of compensation wa s partly allowed.

¶12

Bri e fly stating, land measuring 4 97.30 acres, situated withi n the revenue e state of Village Jhar Sentl i , Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distric t Faridabad wa s acquired for the public p u rpose for development an d utilization of l a nd as Industrial Sector 58 , Faridabad vide notificatio n dated 26.12.1 9 88 issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Lan d Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAC’) asse s sed the market value at th e

¶13

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.06 17:14 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶14

RFA-2138-1997 with XOBJR-146-2025 (O&M)

¶15

2

¶16

rate of Rs.2,40,000/- per acre for Chahi-Nehari-Magda-Banjar Quadim and Gair Mumkin land and Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for Ghair Mumkin Talab land.

¶17

The respondent-landowner, feeling dissatisfied with the award, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act pleading that the price of acquired land was not less than Rs.1000/- per square yard and Rs.2000/- per acre for the land consisting of Eucalyptus trees.

¶18

Upon notice, the same was contested by the appellant-State asserting that the compensation awarded by the LAC was just and fair.

¶19

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Reference Court on 28.01.1994:-

¶20

“1. What was the market value of the area under acquisition at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP

¶21

Whether the claimant is entitled to the award oc compensation for the building structure and standing trees, as alleged, if so, how much? OPP

¶22

Relief .”

¶23

After considering the evidence, the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide award dated 13.06.1997 enhanced the amount of market value to Rs.150/- per square yard for acquired land. In addition granted compensation @Rs.377.50 per tree for 9300 safeda trees existing over the acquired land. Challenging the aforementioned award, the State of Haryana filed present appeal wherein cross-objections have been preferred by the respondent-landowner.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book as well as cross-objections filed on behalf of respondent-landowner.

¶25

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.06 17:14 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶26

RFA-2138-1997 with XOBJR-146-2025 (O&M)

¶27

3

¶28

The acquisition in the present case pertains to land falling in the revenue estate of Village Jhar Sentli, Tehsil Ballabhgarh and District Faridabad which commenced vide notification dated 26.02.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by award dated 19.12.1991 for public purpose namely for development and utilization of land as Industrial Sector 58, Faridabad. It has not been disputed by either of the parties that market value now stands finally determined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its decision dated 10.12.2014 in Civil Appeal No.11042 of 2014 titled as “ Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana” been assessed at Rs.175/- per square yard. Relevant Para 18 thereof is extracted hereunder:-

¶29

“18. Therefore, the compensation is awarded at the rate of Rs.175/- per square yard in respect of all kinds of land(s) situated in Sector 58 and 59, Faridabad and consequently, the judgment and order passed by the High Court stands modified to the aforesaid extent. On the enhanced amount, the appellants would be entitled to all the statutory benefits.”

¶30

In view of the aforesaid judgment, the appellants are held entitled for market value @ Rs.175/- per square yard along with all other statutory benefit and interest as well as interest on solatium.

¶31

In the present case, the learned Reference Court after evaluating the record in the form of statement of RW-Ram Avtar Singh, J.E., Horticulture Department, Faridabad went on to hold that the total number of eucalyptus (safeda) trees found over the land under acquisition were 9300.

¶32

11 For the purpose of assessment of compensation at the rate of Rs.377.30 per eucalyptus (safeda) tree, the learned Reference Court

¶33

placed reliance upon decision made in case of Sukhdev Singh (supra). TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.06 17:14 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶34

RFA-2138-1997 with XOBJR-146-2025 (O&M)

¶35

4

¶36

Admittedly, the acquisition proceedings in case of Sukhdev Singh’s case (supra) commenced in December 1982, whereas in the present case, notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued on 26.12.1988 and as such, relying upon the decision made by this Court in case of Jasmat’s (supra) , an increase at the rate of 6% per year from December 1982 to December 1988 needs to be awarded in favour of landowners especially when the land under acquisition in both the cases was situated within the same District of Faridabad and there was not much difference in the age of trees in both cases. Relevant para 5 from the decision in case of Jasmat’s (supra) is reproduced hereunder:

¶37

“ RFA No.2286-1998 addresses the issued relating to assessment of compensation for value of trees. The reference Court admitted the valuation as given in a judgment of this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990 (1) RRF 2 where 10 years old safeda were assessed of Rs.377/- per tree. The same valuation was adopted by the reference Court. The learned counsel states that the assessment of Rs.377/- for 10 years old safeda was in reference to land acquired in the year 1982 through a notification and the Court must take judicial notice of the increase of value of the timber also over a period of time from 1982 to 1987 when the notification under Section 4 was made in the instant case. I have no scientific material to assess the actual rate of increase per year for a tree. I a prepare to assume that there ought to have been an increase in value of timber in the same manner as the value of land itself between 1980 to 1990. This Court has accepted an increase of 9% per year and the Supreme Court in a decision in ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745 has held that the assessment for rate of increase for value of land in urban areas ought to be provided differently from the valuation in rural areas. The acquisition has been in relation to a property in village Badkhal, District Faridabad, I would provide for an increase @ 6% per year from 1982 to 1987 and take the value to be Rs.487/per tree.”

¶38

11.1 Furthermore, in the absence of any specific evidence been available on records about any substantial increase in the value of trees in the vicinity, in the present circumstances, it would be appropriate to award simple increase of 6% per annum as has been awarded in

¶39

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.06 17:14 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶40

RFA-2138-1997 with XOBJR-146-2025 (O&M)

¶41

5

¶42

Jasmat’s case (supra), rather than, granting compound increase. The landowner shall also be entitled for all other statutory benefits and interest provided under the 1894 Act.

¶43

12. Accordingly, the present appeal filed at the instance of appellants-State is dismissed and cross-objection filed at the instance of respondent-landowner is allowed.

¶44

13. Wherever the landowner(s) has/have unfortunately expired in the appeal(s)/cross-objection(s) after filing thereof and the legal heirs have not been impleaded, they shall be at liberty to seek execution of the present decision by moving appropriate applications before the learned Executing Court.

¶45

14. P ending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶46

22.01.2026

¶47

Tejwinder

¶48

(HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶49

TEJWINDER SINGH 2026.03.06 17:14 I agree to specified portions of this document

State of Haryana v. M/S Bharat Machine Tools

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. M/S Bharat Machine Tools

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Ofhy. Vs Raja Ram etc.

State of Hy. etc. Vs Bhiwa & Ors.

Dilbag Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Hari Parkash & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

State of Haryana Vs Mukhtiar Singh & Another

State of Haryana Vs Chiranji and Ors.