TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IK, J. (Oral) This bunch of 39 Regular First Appeals bearing RFA Nos. 305 to 325, 618 to 625, 771, 888, 894, 1570, 1574, 1578, 1580, 1603, 4062 and 4728 of 2012, all filed by the landowners, is being decided vide this common order, as all these appeals arise out of the same acquisition and raise identical questions of law and facts. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and for facility of reference, facts are being culled out from RFA No. 1580 of 2012 (Moti Sagar and others Vs. State of Haryana and another). Facts are hardly in dispute. State of Haryana sought to acquire land measuring 136.62 acres out of the revenue estate of village Budhera, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, at public expenses for public purpose namely; for Development and Utilisation of land for Extension of Water Works in Gurgaon. Accordingly, notification dated 19.5.2008 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short), which was followed by notification dated 26.5.2008 under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector, ('LAC' for short), vide award dated 21.12.2009, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the unif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidered as more nearer than the acquired land in question, then the State must have opted for the same instead of going for paving of drinking water pipe lines from Gurgaon city up to village Budhera. If the acquired land was found suitable by the State for a project meant for providing drinking water to Gurgaon City, then the high potential value of the land could be well presumed from the angle of private builders who are mushrooming around the Gurgaon city. Besides, the acquired land is adjacent to village Kherki Majra, Basai and Dhankot and it has been admitted by the witnesses from both the sides that all the land of village Dhankot, Basai and kherki Majra have same potentiality, situation and location and similar valuation as that of the acquired land. It is an open fact that villages Kherki Majra, Basai and Dhankot are surrounding the fully developed residential sectors 9, 9-A, 10 and 10-A of HUDA. Likewise, village Basai and Kadipur are hardly at a distance of 05 Kms from the acquired land and the market value of the village Budhera and Basai, Kadipur and Dhankot is same. Villages Basai and Kadipur are now almost became the colonies of Gurgaon City. The above fact can be we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir individual merits. It is so said because all these sale deeds were result of either distress sales or these were undervalued transactions. In either of the two situations, these sale deeds are liable to be excluded from consideration, for the purpose of assessing the market value of the acquired land. In this regard, relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 32 of its judgment in Lal Chand vs. Union of India and another 2010 (3) RCR (Civil) 172, which can be gainfully followed in the present case, read as under:- "The existence of several other sale deeds showing a much higher value and the fact that the Land Acquisition Collector chose to award a higher rate in regard to some of the acquired lands, leads to an inevitable inference that Ex.R3 to R7 were either undervalued or were distress sales. Whatever be the reason, they are liable to be excluded from consideration" Before considering the evidence produced by the landowners before the learned reference court, it is necessary to decide CM No. 1826- CI-2013 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('CPC' for short). Notice of this application was issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Agricultural Zone A sizeable area has been reserved as agricultural zone. This zone however will not eliminate the essential building development within this area such as the extension of existing villages, contiguous to abadi deh, if undertaken under a project approved or sponsored by Government and other ancillary and allied facilities necessary for the maintenance and improvement of the area as an agricultural area." Para (ix), (x) (xi) and (xvii) of this notification dated 5.2.2007 dealing with non-conforming uses, either existing or having valid CLU permission and discontinuance thereof as well as relaxation therein, read as under:- IX. Non-conforming uses either existing or having valid CLU permission: (1) With regard to the existing projects located in the zones other than conforming-use zone in the Development Plan, such non-conforming uses shall be allowed to continue for a fixed period to be determined by the Director, but not exceeding ten years; provided that the owner of the building concerned: xx &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; xx xx XVII Relaxation of agricultural zone: In the case of any land laying in Agriculture zone. Government may relax the provisions of this development plan- (a) for use and development of the land into a residential or industrial colony provided the coloniser has purchased the land for the said use and developed prior to the material date and the coloniser secures permission for this purpose as per rules. (b) for use of land as an individual site (as distinct from an industrial colony) Provided that: (i) the land was purchased prior to the material date; (ii) the Government is satisfied that the need of the industry is such that it cannot await alternative allotment in the proper zone; (iii) the owner of the land secures permission for building as required under the rules;\ (iv) the owner of the land undertakes to pay to the Director, as determined by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the parties and going through the record of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the peculiar fact situation obtaining in the present case, the landowners appellants would be entitled for the benefit of judicial precedent available in the form of Annexure A-1, i.e. award dated 29.9.2012 passed by the learned reference court, which has further been modified by this Court vide order dated 20.5.2016 passed in Ram Chander's case (supra). It is so said because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2012) 5 SCC 432, has held that the landowners are entitled to receive the best price for their acquired land. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17 and 18 of its judgment in Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana, 2010 (12) SCC 51, held as under:- "Although, in the present matter, sale instances around or near abouts the date of Notification of the present acquisition are available yet these cannot justify or explain the potential of a particular piece of land on the date of acquisition as the potential can be recognized only some time in the future and it is open to a l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case. Be that as it may, we must assume that the landowners were entitled to the compensation fixed by the High Court on the date of the award of the Collector and had this amount been made available to the landowners on that date, it would have been possible for them to rehabilitate their holdings in some other place. This exercise has been defeated for the simple reason that the payment of compensation has been spread over almost two decades. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a landowner is entitled to say that if the compensation proceedings continued over a period of almost 20 years as in the present case, the potential of the land acquired from him must also be adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years if the evidence so permits and cannot be limited to the near future alone. We, therefore, feel that in the circumstances, the appellants herein were fully entitled to say that the potential of the acquired land had not been fully recognized by the High Court or by the Reference Court. We must add a word of caution here and emphasize that this broad principle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ond the amount claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, put a cap on the minimum; compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner. Although in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court in Sanjay Batham v. Munna Lal Parihar held that "17. It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the Appellant had claimed compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident." In Bhag Singh and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, this Court held that there may be situations w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upra), the amended provisions would be applicable under which there is no restriction that award could only be upto the amount claimed by the claimant. Hence High Court order granting compensation more than what is claimed cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence the review itself, as is confined for the aforesaid reasons, has no merit." 11. Further, in Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, a three-Judge bench reiterated the principle in Bhag Singh (supra) and rejected the contention that a higher compensation than claimed by the owner in his pleadings cannot be awarded by the Court. In that case, the High Court had concluded that although the market price of the land was Rs 66,550/- per acre, since the appellant had only claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 58,500/- per acre in his pleadings, therefore he could only be awarded compensation limited to his claim. This Court, while reversing the decision of the High Court, awarded the petitioner the market value, i.e., Rs. 66,550/- per acre thereby holding that the award would not be limited to the claim made by him." In this regard, it is also relevant to refer to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Court in RFA No. 1956 of 2010 ( State of Haryana Vs. Hansraj and others) decided on 8.4.2016. In Hansraj's case (supra), the relevant judicial precedents were not available to the landowners, at the time of decision of their land references and benefit thereof was granted by this Court at the time of deciding first appeals like the present ones. So far as fact situation obtaining in the present case is concerned, notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on 19.5.2008, whereas the earlier acquisitions for the purpose of setting up Water Works in Gurgaon, out of the revenue estate of this very village, took place vide notification dated 13.3.2006 under Section 4 of the Act, thus, there was a time gap of more than two years. Learned counsel for the State has tried to raise the argument that except only the increase for this time gap, present landowners are not entitled to place reliance on any kind of other evidence which might become available to them in the interregnum, including the abovesaid award dated 29.9.2012 (Annexure A-1). The contention raised by learned counsel for the State has been duly considered but has been found wholly misplaced and the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of argument only, that there is some distance between two pieces of land acquired out of the revenue estate of village Dhankot and the acquired land in the present cases, then the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashrafi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 2013 (5) SCC 527, Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2014 (2) SCC 165 and Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer and another, AIR 2001 SC 2424 clearly supports the claim of the landowners. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove and proceeding on a holistic, pragmatic and constructive approach with a view to do complete and substantial justice between the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the landowners in the present set of appeals, cannot be denied the benefit of award Ex.P-14 dated 19.9.2008 passed by the LAC qua the land of adjoining village Dhankot, which was modified by the learned reference court vide its award dated 12.11.2012 and also by this Court vide its abovesaid order dated 20.5.2016 passed in Ram Chander's case (supra). Accordingly, in the abovesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 20.5.2016 passed by this Co....