Ramdhari and Others RFA

7/29/2019 Ramdhari and Others RFA

1/31

In the court of Sh. Najar Singh, Additional District

Judge, Jind.

L.A.C. Case NO. 77 of 23.2.2005

Date of decision: 8.2.2012

1. Ramdhari son of Biru 2. Ram Phal s/o Sh. Balmat

(since deceased) through his L.Rs. a) Smt. Guddi

Devi widow b) Randeep (minor son) c) Sudesh (Minor

daughter) of Sh. Ramphal, minor son and daughter

through Smt. Guddi Devi widow of Sh. Ramphal as

natural guardian of minors 3. Balwan son of Sh.

Balmat 4. Satyawan son of Sh. Balmat 5. Smt. Kelo

d/o Balmat 6. Smt. Saroj d/o Sh. Balmat 7. Smt. Ram

Piari widow of Sh. Balmat. 8. Balbir son of Sh.

Balmat (since deceased) through L.Rs. a) Smt. Geeta

widow b) Vishal (minor son) of Sh. Balbir, minor son

through Smt. Geeta widow of Sh. Balbir as natural

guardian of minor, all residents of village Dhamtan

Sahib, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

..Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent.

LAC Case no. 78 of 23.2.2005


2/31

1. Puran 2. Hari Singh @ Hari Dass sons of Ram Singh

3. Smt. Maya d/o Ram Singh, residents of village

Dhamtan, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

..Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent

LAC Case no. 79 of 23.2.2005

1. Dhanna (since deceased) through L.Rs. a) Smt.

Lachhmi wife b) Miyan Singh c) Surender d) Balinder

sons e) Smt. Sheona f) Smt. Angoori g) Smt. Santosh

h) Smt. Krishna daughters of Dhanna 2. Smt. Nirma &

Singara (since deceased) through L.Rs. a) Sh. Dalipa

son b) Dhoopa son c) Shamsher son d) Nafe Singh son

e) Dalsher son f) Smt. Mesar daughter g) Smt.

Dhanpati daughter h) Smt. Rajbala daughter, all sons

and daughters of Nirmala and LRs of Singara,

residents of village Dhamtan, Tehsil Narwana,

District Jind.

..Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent

LAC Case no. 80 of 23.2.2005


3/31

Jagat Ram son of Sh. Sadi, resident of village

Dhamtan Sahib, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

..Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent

LAC Case no. 81 of 23.2.2005

1. Jora Singh son of Sh. Siriya son of Sh. Guniya 2.

Ved Parkash 3. Sukhdev sons of Sh. Rameswar son of

Sh. Guniya 4. Telu son of Sh. Dhanna, all residents

of village Dhamtan Shahib, Tehsil Narwana, District

Jind.

..Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent

LAC Case no. 82 of 23.2.2005

1. Smt. Phooli (deceased) daughter of Sh., Jodha

through his legal heirs a) Suba son of Smt. Phooli

r/o village Sishmar, Tehsil and District Kaithal b)

Birmati d/o Smt. Phooli r/o village Sishmar, Tehsil

and District Kaithal. 2. Smt. Shanti Devi d/o Sh.

Jodha son of Sh. Begraj 3. Smt. Dhanpati widow of

Sh. Ram Kumar son of Sh. Jodha 4. Mukesh daughter of


4/31

Sh. Ram Kumar son of Sh. Jodha 5. Kavita daughter of

Sh. Ram Kumar son of Sh. Jodha 6. Dhoop Singh son of

Sh. Ram Kumar son of Sh. Jodha, residents of village


..Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

..Respondent

References under section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894.

Present: Sh. S.N. Singh, counsel for the

petitioners.

Shri Kamal Singh, Govt. Pleader for the

respondent/State.

JUDGEMENT:

It is pertinent to mention here that the

above mentioned references were earlier decided on

28.1.2008 by the court of Sh. S.K. Goyal, the then

learned Addl. District Judge, Jind but on appeal the

same were remanded back by the Honble court for

fresh decision vide order dated 2.5.2011.

2. This judgement of mine shall dispose of

above mentioned 6 reference filed under section 18

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as the Act for short) as the same have


5/31

arisen out of the same award dated 26.6.2003 passed

by Sh. K.K. Sharma, District Revenue Officer cum

Land Acquisition Collector, Jind (hereinafter

referred to as the Collector) and since the common

question of law and fact was involved in these

petitions, so these petitioners were ordered to be

clubbed vide order dated 3.6.2005 and the

proceedings were ordered to be initiated in petition

no. 77 of 23.2.2005, titled as Ramdhari Etc. Vs.

State of Haryana.

3. Adumbrated facts of the case as emanating

from the pleadings of the parties are that vide

notification No. 2754/268W dated 18.3.2002,

published on 18.3.2002, under section 4(1) Land

Acquisition Act and notification no. 8645/268 WN

dated 7.8.2002, published on 7.8.2002, under section

6 of the Act, land measuring 41 kanals 7 marlas

situated in village Dhamtan Sahib was acquired for

public purposes namely for construction of Kalwan

Sub Minor. So, the Collector assessed the market

value at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre for

nahari land vide his award no. 7 dated 26.6.2003.

Dissatisfied with the award of the Collector,

objections under section 18 of the Act were filed in

respect of the land of village Dhamtan Sahib. It is

maintained that the Collector awarded the


6/31

compensation of the aforesaid land acquired at a

very less rate and did not consider the market value

of the land acquired on the date of publication of

notification under section 4 of the Act. The

compensation of the aforesaid land acquired is

liable to be enhanced on the following grounds:-

(a) That the market value of the land acquired on

the date of publication of notification

under section 4 of the Act was more than

Rs. 15 lacs per acre, so the petitioners

are entitled to get compensation at the

rate of Rs. 15 lacs per acre.

(b) That passage/Rasta to approach the remaining

land of the petitioners has not been

provided to the petitioners and there is

no passage/rasta to approach the remaining

land of the petitioners after acquisition

of the aforesaid land.

(c) That the land of the petitioners is irrigated

by canal water and due to acquisition of

the aforesaid land, now no provision for

khal of the remaining land of the

petitioners has been made and due to non

availability of khal, the petitioners will

not be able to irrigate their remaining


7/31

land by canal water which is main source

of irrigation and thus the value of the

remaining land of the petitioners has

decreased and benefit of the same should

be given to the petitioners and provision

for khal should be made.

e) No compensation has been given for the standing

trees, crops, tubewell etc.

Prayer is made that compensation at the

rate of Rs. 15 lacs per acre of the aforesaid

acquired land be awarded to the petitioners and all

statutory benefits of solatium, additional amount

and interest on the enhanced compensation be also

awarded to the petitioners with all statutory

benefits and provision for passage and khal for the

remaining land of the petitioners be also ordered to

be made. In view of the facts mentioned in the

application, the present references have been sent

up to this court under section 18 of the Act by the

Collector.

4. Notice of the references was given to the

respondent/State. These references were resisted and

contested by State of Haryana by filing written

statement and took preliminary objections inter-alia

regarding cause of action and locus standi. On


8/31

merits, it has been submitted that the Land

Acquisition Collector has rightly awarded the

compensation to the land owners which have been

received by them without any protest. Thus, the

respondent/State of Haryana has prayed for the

dismissal of the present petitions.

5. From the pleadings of the parties the

following issues were framed by the then learned

Addl. District Judge, Jind;

1. What was the market value of the acquired

land? OPP2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for

enhanced value? OPP3. Whether no compensation for standing

crops, trees kotha, tubewell, structure

or bifurcation of un-acquired land has

been given, if so to what amount? OPP4. Whether no statutory benefits under the

Land Acquisition Act have been given, if

so to what benefit? OPP5. Whether the petitioners have no cause of

action and locus standi to file the

petitions? OPR6. Relief.

6. Both the parties have led evidence oral as

well as documentary in support of their respective

claims. In support of their claim, petitioners

examined Puran as PW1, Singara as PW2, Jagat Ram as


9/31

PW3, Siria as PW4, Dhup Singh as PW5, Ramphal as PW6

and also tendered in evidence copy of the sale deeds

Ex.P2, Ex.P-3 and Ex.PW6/A and thereafter closed

their evidence.

7. On the other hand, respondent has examined

Satbir Singh Poonia, SDO as RW1 and also tendered in

evidence sale deed Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 and thereafter

closed their evidence.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned Govt. Pleader and have gone

through the evidence/documents placed on the file

thoroughly and carefully. My findings on the various

issues with reasons thereof are as under:-

ISSUES NO. 1 TO 5.

9. The pose for consideration in all these

issues is identical and interconnected and are taken

up together for discussion. Onus to prove these

issues lies upon the petitioners. To prove these

issues, the petitioners examined as many as 6

witnesses, who have fully supported and corroborated

the averments mentioned in the application and

categorically deposed that their land has been

acquired by the Govt. for the construction of Kalwan

Sub Minor. They have stated that no compensation has


10/31

been given for the tubewell trees, standing crops

and well in the acquired land and that due to this

acquisition, their land has been bifurcated into two

parts and no proper way/passage and siphon/culvert

for irrigation has been provided. At the time of

acquisition, the value of their land was more than

Rs. 5 lacs per acre and very less compensation has

been given for the acquired land.

10. On the other hand, respondent examined

Satbir Singh Poonia, SDO as RW1, who reiterated the

stand taken in the written statement and deposed

that the adequate compensation has been granted by

the Collector. He denied the suggestion.

11. Initiating arguments, learned counsel for

the petitioners contended that the sale deed

pertaining to land which is located even beyond

acquired land and situated near road and village

land totally ignored. He further contended that the

acquired land is in fact adjoining to the main road.

He further contended that the acquired land of the

petitioners was fertile land and the petitioners

have been deprived from the fruits of the fertile

land. He further contended that the potential value

of the acquired land is also apparent from the site

plan as it is near the village land main road. He

further contended that the sale deed Ex.PW6/A is to


11/31

be considered for the determination of the

compensation. He placed reliance in case Turi Ram

Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009(4) PLR 186. He

further contended that the documentary evidence in

the shape of sale deeds placed on the file are

sufficient for determination of compensation and the

sale deeds are per se admissible to prove the market

value of the land and no formal proof by way of

examination of witnesses was required. He placed

reliance in case Subhash Chand Vs. State of Haryana

2010 (3) RCR (Civil) 67. On similar point, he also

placed reliance in case Lal Chand Vs. Union of India

and another, 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 172. He further

contended that the respondent did not lead any

cogent and reliable evidence to rebut the evidence

of the petitioners and the evidence of the

respondent also reveals that the value of the land

was much more what was awarded by the Collector.

With these submissions, prayer is made for

enhancement of the compensation.

12. On the other hand, learned Govt. Pleader

argued with vehemence that the excess amount has

already been awarded by the Collector and he did not

commit any error in deciding the land acquisition

cases. He further contended that after considering

every pleas of the land owners sufficient amount was


12/31

granted for the acquired land. He further contended

that none of the sale deed produced by the land

owners to justify enhancement of the compensation in

the value of land acquired, is relevant. He further

submitted that there was in fact no value of the

land in the area. The farmers used to grow only one

crop in the year. He further contended that the

value of the portion of the land would always depend

upon infrastructure available which are totally

lacking in the present case. With these submissions,

prayer is made for declining the relief.

13. After considering the rival contentions

raised by learned counsel for the parties and after

scanning the evidence led by both the parties, it is

candidly clear that the land measuring 41 kanals 7

marlas has been acquired by the State Govt. for

public purposes i.e. for construction of Kalwan sub

Minor. Now the crucial question thus arises whether

the evidence led by the petitioners is sufficient to

hold that the amount awarded by the Collector is

less amount. To prove this factum, the petitioners

have examined s many as 6 witnesses and they have

stated on oath that market value of the acquired

land is more than Rs. 5 lacs per acre for

agricultural land. In support of their pleas, the

petitioners have produced documentary evidence in


13/31

the shape of sale deed Ex.PW6/A bearing no. 2265

dated 7.12.2001 which was executed before

acquisition proceedings in which 1 kanal land has

been purchased for a consideration of Rs. 75,000/-

which comes out to Rs. 6 lacs per acre. But sale

deed relates to a residential plot which is situated

near abadi of the village but acquired land is

agricultural land and is situated away from the

abadi. It is not in dispute that value of plot is

more than the agricultural land. So, keeping in view

the sale deed Ex.PW6/A. I assess the market value of

the acquired land at the time of notification under

section 4 of the Act at the rate of Rs. 3.50 lacs

per acre. While on the other hand, the respondent

also placed sale deeds Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 in support

of their stand. This sale deed based on circle rates

and circulated rate does not take away the right of

such person to show that the property in question is

correctly valued as get an opportunity in case of

undervaluation to prove it before the Collector

after reference is made so the sale deeds Ex.R-1 and

Ex.R-2 placed on file is base don circle rate cannot

be considered. The remaining sale deeds produced by

the petitioners were executed after finishing of the

acquisition proceedings. So, these documents cannot

be considered in evidence.


14/31

14. The last contention of learned counsel for

the petitioners is that all the petitioners have

categorically stated that their crop have also been

damaged and no compensation regarding standing crop

was awarded and the petitioners are also entitled to

claim damages regarding standing corp. while this

contention was refuted by learned Govt. Pleader for

the respondent on the ground that case of the

petitioners is base don oral evidence, which is not

sufficient to establish the stand of the

petitioners. Contention of learned Govt. Pleader is

meritorious because the case of the petitioners is

based on oral evidence. Oral evidence is fragile in

nature and can be easily maneuvered by the concerned

party. It can, therefore, be acted upon provided

that it is unimpeachable on any reasonable ground.

Therefore, the case of the petitioners based on oral

evidence regarding damage of crop, which cannot be

taken to prove the damage of crop. In the absence of

any proof, it cannot be ascertained that crop of the

petitioners was damaged by the respondent at the

time of taking possession. So, this plea of learned

counsel for the petitioners is hereby declined.

Hence, all these issues are decided in favour of the

petitioners and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO. 5.


15/31

15. The onus to prove this issue is upon the

respondent but the respondent has led no evidence to

show that how the petitioners have no locus standi

and cause of action to file the petitions. Moreover,

learned Govt. Pleader has also not pressed this

issue before the court during the course of

arguments. So, this issue is also decided in favour

of the petitioner and against the respondent.

ISSUE NO. 6(RELIEF)

16. As an offshoot of my above discussion and

in view of my findings on the various issues, these

petitions succeed and is allowed with costs

accordingly. I assess the market value of land as

Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre for nahari land. The land

owners are thus, entitled to this enhanced

compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 9%

per annum for the first year and at the rate of 15%

per annum subsequent thereto till the payment is

made alongwith all other benefits under sections

23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Counsel fee is

assessed at Rs. 1100/- in each petition. Memo of

costs be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to

the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court Sd/-

On 8.2.2012 Addl. District Judge,

Jind


16/31

Note: All the 13 pages of this judgement have

been checked and signed by me.

Sd/-

Addl. District Judge,

Jind 8.2.2012

True copy

Advocate


17/31

LAC Case No. 82 of 23.2.2005

Smt. Phuli Devi. Vs. State

Petitioners Respondents1. Stamp for

petition

Rs. 10.00 00.00

2. Stamp for power Rs. 02.00 00.003. Stamp for process Rs. 00.00 00.004. Misc. Rs. 10.00 00.00

5. Counsel fee Rs. 1100.00 1100.00Total Rs. 1122.00 1100.00

Given under my hand and the seal of the

court this 8th day of February, 2012.

Sd/-

(Najar Singh)

Addl. District Judge,

Jind 8.2.2012

True copy

Advocate

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.F.A No. ---------of 2012

(Arising out of L.A.C CASE No.77 of 23.02.2005)

MEMO OF PARTIES---------------

1. Ramdhari son of Biru

2. Smt.Guddi Devi widow of Ram Phal


18/31

3. Randeep minor son Ram Phal

4 Sudesh Minor daughter of Sh. Ramphal, minor son

and daughter through Smt. Guddi Devi widow of Sh.

Ramphal as natural guardian of minors

5. Balwan son of Sh. Balmat

6. Satyawan son of Sh. Balmat

7. Smt. Kelo d/o Balmat

8. Smt. Saroj d/o Sh. Balmat

9. Smt. Ram Piari widow of Sh. Balmat.

10. Smt. Geeta widow of Balbir

11.Vishal (minor son) of Sh. Balbir, minor son

through Smt. Geeta widow of Sh. Balbir as natural

guardian of minor, all residents of village Dhamtan

Sahib, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

appellants

Versus

State of Haryana, through Land Acquisition Collector,

Jind, District Jind.

.Respondent

Notification No: 2754/268W U/s 4(I) dated 18.03.2002

: 8645/268WN U/s 6 dated 07.08.2002Of the Revenue Estate Vill.DhamtanSahib,Tehsil Narwana, Distt. Jind.

Chandigarh (R.N.LOHAN)

Dated: 07.05.2012 Advocate

Counsel for the appellants


19/31


R.F.A No. ---------of 2012



1. Puran

2. Hari Singh @ Hari Dass sons of Ram Singh

3. Smt. Maya daughter of Ram Singh, all resident of

village Dhamtan Sahib, Tehsil Narwana, District

Jind.

appellants

Versus


20/31



.Respondent







R.F.A No. ---------of 2012(Arising out of L.A.C CASE No.79 of 23.02.2005)


1. Miyan Singh

2. Surender

3. Balinder sons of Dhanna

4. Smt. Sheona

5. Smt. Angoori

6. Smt. Santosh

7. Smt. Krishna daughters of Dhanna

8. Sh. Dalipa

9. Dhoopa

10. Shamsher


21/31

11. Nafe Singh

12. Dalsher sons of Nirma @ Nirmala wd/o Singara

13 Smt. Mesar

14. Smt. Dhanpati

15. Smt. Rajbala daughter of Nirma @ Nirmala wd/o

Singara, all residents of village Dhamtan Sahib,

Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

appellants

Versus



.Respondent



Note:- Smt. Lachhmi wife of Dhanna has died and her

Lr`s i.e. appellants No. 1 to 7 are already on the

file





22/31


R.F.A No. ---------of 2012



Jagat Ram son of Sh. Sadi, resident of village


appellant

Versus



.Respondent

Notification No: 2754/268W U/s 4(I) dated 18.03.2002: 8645/268WN U/s 6 dated 07.08.2002Of the Revenue Estate Vill.DhamtanSahib,Tehsil Narwana, Distt. Jind.


23/31





R.F.A No. ---------of 2012



1. Jora Singh son of Sh. Siriya

2. Ved Parkash

3. Sukhdev sons of Sh. Rameswar

4. Telu son of Sh. Dhanna,

all residents of village Dhamtan Shahib, Tehsil

Narwana, District Jind.

appellants

Versus



.Respondent




24/31

Chandigarh (R.N.LOHAN)Dated: 07.05.2012 Advocate



R.F.A No. ---------of 2012



1. Suba @ Sube Singh son of Smt. Phooli

2. Birmati daughter of Smt. Phooli

both resident of village Sishmar, Tehsil and

District Kaithal.

3. Smt.Shanti Devi daughter of Sh. Jodha

4. Smt.Dhanpati widow of Sh. Ram Kumar

5. Mukesh daughter of Sh. Ram Kumar

6. Kavita daughter of Sh. Ram Kumar

7. Dhoop Singh son of Sh. Ram Kumar

All residents of village Dhamtan Sahib, Tehsil

Narwana, District Jind.

appellants

Versus



.Respondent



25/31







26/31

R.F.A. No. ----------- Of 2012

Miyan Singh and others Appellants

VERSUS

State of Haryana ...Respondent

Court Fee

___________________________________________________

Chandigarh (R.N. Lohan)Dated:07.05.2012 Advocate



R.F.A. No. ----------- Of 2012


27/31

Miyan Singh and others .Appellants

VERSUS


I N D E X

Sr.No. Particulars Dated Pages1. Grounds of appeal 07.05.2012 1-4

2. Memo of Parties 07.05.2012 5-5A

3 Copy of judgment 08.02.2012 6-25

Ld. ADJ Jind

4. Power of attorney 07.05.2012 26

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Notes:-

1. No caveat has been filed

2. Similar case if any: Nil


Counsel for the appellants(P-706-1982)

GROUNDS OF APPEAL.

1. That the judgment dated 08.02.2012 passed by

ld. Addl. Distt. Judge, Jind enhancing the


28/31

compensation to the tune of Rs. 3, 50,000/- per acre

only is contrary to law and evidence on the file and

the same is liable to be modified and enhanced to

the tune of Rs. 15.00 lacs per acre along with

interest and other statutory benefits.

2. That the findings of ld. Addl. District Judge,

Jind are based on surmises and conjectures. Ld.

Addl. District Judge, Jind has erred in not granting

any compensation to the appellants for bifurcation

of their land by the construction of the Kalwan sub

Minor.

3. That the ld. Addl. District Judge, Jind has

erred in not considering the fact that due

bifurcation of the land , the value of the remaining

land of the appellants has been decreased and

nothing has been paid on this account.

4. That the ld. court below has erred in not

considering the evidence on the file regarding the

market value of the land acquired. The market value

of the land is on less than Rs. 15.00 lacs.

5. That the finding of the ld. Courts below are

based on surmises and conjectures. The ld. Courts

below has erred in not relying upon the authorities


29/31

cited by the appellants and have wrongly relied upon

the authorities cited by the respondents, which are

not applicable to the facts and peculiar

circumstances of the case.

6. That the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Jind has

also erred in awarding the meager compensation of

tubewell and no compensation has been awarded for

the trees standing on the land of the appellant.

Even the interest awarded by the ld. Addl. District

Judge, Jind is on the lower side.

7. That the filing of the identical/similar appeal

is denied for want of knowledge.

8. That the appellant have not filed any such or

similar appeal either before this Hon`ble court or

the Hon`ble Supreme court of India earlier

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that

the judgment dated 08.02.2012 passed by the ld.

Addl. District Judge, Jind may kindly be modified

and the compensation be enhanced to the tune of Rs.

15.00 lacs per acre along with interest and

statutory benefits, in the interest of justice.


30/31



In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

R.F.A. No. ----------- Of 2012

Ram Kumar and another .Appellants

VERSUS


I N D E X

Sr.No. Particulars Dated Pages

1. Grounds of appeal 16.01.2012 1-4

2. Memo of Parties 16.01.2012 5-5A

3 Copy of judgment 09.11.2011 6-45Ld. ADJ Jind

4. Power of attorney 16.01.2012 46

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


31/31

Notes:-1. No caveat has been filed

2. Similar case if any: Nil


Counsel for the appellants(P-706-1982)

Ramdhari and Others RFA

Documents

Transcript of Ramdhari and Others RFA