JASPAL SINGH & OTHERS versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 20 October 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Punjaband Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 2086/2016 and other alliedfirst appeals, by which the High Court has allowed the appeals preferredby the respondents herein and has dismissed the appeals preferred bythe appellants herein – original claimants/landowners, the originalclaimants/landowners have preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are asunder:

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are asunder:

That the lands situated at village Jharli, District Jhajjar, Haryanacame to be acquired for Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant. Notification underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to asthe ‘Act 1894’) came to be issued on 09.04.2007. Declaration under A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

ASection 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 13.11.2007. The LandAcquisition Collector declared the award under Section 11 of the Act,1894 and determined and awarded compensation at Rs. 16,00,000/- peracre. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation toRs. 17,64,350/- per acre. The acquiring body/beneficiary as well as theoriginal claimants/landowners both preferred appeals before the HighBCourt challenging the judgment and award passed by the ReferenceCourt, awarding compensation at Rs. 17,64,350/- per acre. By theimpugned common judgment and order, the High Court has allowed theappeals preferred by the State/acquiring body and dismissed the appealspreferred by the original claimants/landowners and has reduced theCamount of compensation to Rs.16,00,000/- per acre, as determined andawarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter ofpresent appeals at the instance of the original claimants/landowners.

2.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the present caseDthe acquiring lands of village Jharli were on the west side of Bahu Road,Jhajjar, Haryana. Simultaneously, the lands of village Jharli situated onthe east side of Bahu Road, Jhajjar, Haryana came to be acquired forArawali Power Company Private Limited. The said lands were justopposite of the land acquired for Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant and inone case – in the case of Jagvir (appellant in Civil Appeal Nos.7447-E7448/2022), the lands acquired for both the projects were out of thesame survey No. 73. For acquisition of the lands for Arawali PowerCompany Private Limited, notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894was issued on 16.01.2007. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on12.04.2007. The Land Acquisition Collector determined and awardedFcompensation at Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court alsodetermined compensation at Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. However, the HighCourt enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 29,00,400/- per acre.By common judgment and order dated 05.09.2017, this Court allowedthe appeals preferred by Arawali Power Company Private Limited anddismissed the appeals preferred by the landowners/original claimants byGdetermining compensation at Rs.25,00,000/- per acre (Civil Appeal No.8757 of 2016 and connected appeals, decided on 05.09.2017).

2.2 Before the High Court, at the time of hearing of the presentappeals, the original claimants/landowners relied upon the decision ofthis Court in the case of Arawali Power Company Private Limited (supra).H

JASPAL SINGH & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HARYANA ANDOTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

However, considering the observations made by this Court whileawarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,00,000/- per acre that “inthe peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and not to be treated asprecedent “, the High Court has not followed the said judgment and hasdetermined compensation at the rate of Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre, asdetermined by the Land Acquisition Collector. Hence, the present appealsat the instance of the landowners/original claimants.

3. Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the original claimant/landowner in Civil Appeal Nos. 7447-7448 of2022, arising out of R.F.A. Nos. 2086 & 2087 of 2016 has vehementlysubmitted that the lands acquired in the present case for Jhajjar ThermalPower Plant and the lands acquired for Arawali Power Company PrivateLimited are similarly situated. It is submitted that even in the case of theappellant/landowner/original claimant in Civil Appeal Nos. 7447-7448/2022, the land in both the cases have been acquired out of the very landbearing survey No. 73 and in between only one road – Bahu Road ispassing. It is submitted that therefore the appellant shall be entitled tothe compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,00,000/- per acre, as determinedby this Court in the case of Arawali Power Company Private Limited(supra).

3.1 It is further submitted that the landowners/original claimantsare entitled to just compensation. It is submitted that as such there is nodifference between the lands acquired for Jhajjar Thermal Power Plantand the lands acquired for Arawali Power Company Private Limited,except that one road – Bahu Road is passing between the lands acquiredfor both the projects. It is submitted that it may not be that for one partof the land, the compensation will be at Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre and foranother part of the very land/survey No. 73, the compensation will be atRs. 25,00,000/- per acre. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the presentappeals accordingly.

3.2 The other learned Senior Advocates/Advocates appearing forthe respective landowners/original claimants have adopted thesubmissions made by Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate.

4. All these appeals are opposed by Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul,learned Senior Advocate representing the Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant.

4.1 So far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court inthe case of Arawali Power Company Private Limited (supra) is AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aconcerned, it is submitted that the said judgment may not be applied as inthe said judgment, it is specifically observed by this Court that the saidjudgment is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and notto be treated as precedent. It is submitted that therefore the High Courthas rightly not awarded compensation as awarded in the case of ArawaliPower Company Private Limited (supra).B

4.2 It is submitted that in the present case the claimants reliedupon two sale exemplars/sale deeds which were executed in the year2010, i.e., post Section 4 notification and one sale deed/sale exemplardated 16.05.2007 was with respect to small parcel of land. It is submittedthat therefore the High Court has rightly not relied upon on the saleCexemplars/sale deeds post Section 4 notification. It is submitted thatthereafter having observed that the claimants/landowners have not ledany evidence to give the comparative geographical location and evidenceto the effect that these sale instances are comparable, the High Courthas rightly allowed the appeals preferred on behalf of the Jhajjar ThermalDPower Plant and has rightly determined the compensation at the rate ofRs. 16,00,000/- per acre.

4.3 Learned counsel representing the State of Haryana hassupported the impugned common judgment and order passed by the HighCourt and has fully endorsed the submissions made by the learned counselEappearing on behalf of the Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties atlength.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that with respect to thelands acquired for Arawali Power Company Private Limited for whichFnotification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 16.01.2007,this Court had determined the compensation at the rate ofRs. 25,00,000/- per acre. It is required to be noted that the lands acquiredin the present case and the lands acquired for Arawali Power CompanyPrivate Limited were of the same village Jharli, District Jhajjar, Haryana.GThe only difference is that the lands acquired for Jhajjar Thermal PowerPlant are on the west side of Bahu Road, Jhajjar, whereas the landsacquired for Arawali Power Project were on the east side of Bahu Road,Jhajjar. The lands acquired in both the cases are just across the BahuRoad, Jhajjar, Haryana. At this stage, it is required to be noted that out ofthe lands acquired, the land bearing survey No. 73 owned by the originalHlandowner – Jagvir (appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 7447-7448 of 2022)

was also acquired for both the projects. The resultant effect pursuant tothe impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court would bethat with respect to some portion of land out of survey No. 73 acquiredfor Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant, the landowner will get compensationat the rate of Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre and with respect to other parcelof land out of survey No. 73 acquired for Arawali Power Project, thelandowner will be getting compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,00,000/-per acre.

6. Having considered the location of the lands acquired for JhajjarThermal Power Plant as well as Arawali Power Project, we are of theopinion that the lands acquired for both the projects can be said to besimilarly situated with some difference in the time gap of issuance ofsection 4 notification. Once the landowners whose lands have beenacquired for Arawali Power Project are held to be entitled to compensationat Rs. 25,00,000/- per acre, the landowners whose lands have beenacquired for Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant cannot be denied the just andreasonable compensation. There will be a vast difference in amount ofcompensation for the lands acquired for Jhajjar Thermal Power Plantand the Arawali Power Project, which as observed hereinabove can besaid to be similarly situated. In one case, the landowners/claimants areheld to be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 16,00,000/- peracre (in the case of lands acquired for Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant)and with respect to the lands acquired for Arawali Power Project, thelandowners/claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.25,00,000/- per acre.

7. It may be true that while determining compensation at the rateof Rs. 25,00,000/- per acre by this Court in the case of Arawali PowerCompany Private Limited (supra), the words used are “in the peculiarfacts of the case and not to be treated as precedent”. However, the saidwords “in the peculiar facts of the case and not to be treated as precedent”are to be considered in the context in which the same are used. Fromthe observations and order passed by this Court, wherever the wordsused are “in the peculiar facts of the case and not to be treated asprecedent”, the same can be said to be with respect to consideration ofthe sale deeds which were executed in the year 2010 (post section 4notification). As the sale deeds/sale exemplars which were consideredby this Court were post section 4 notification, this Court had taken intoconsideration the sale deeds post section 4 notification by observing that A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ait was agreed between the parties that the subsequent sale deeds werebona fide and could be taken into consideration. The observations that“in the peculiar facts of the case and not to be treated as precedent” areto be construed while considering the sale deeds executed post section 4notification. As per the settled position of law, normally the sale deeds/sale exemplars post section 4 notification may not be taken intoBconsideration. However, as it was agreed between the parties that thesubsequent sale deeds were bona fide and could be taken intoconsideration, to that and in the peculiar facts of the case and not to betreated as precedent, this Court had taken into consideration thesubsequent sale deeds and determined compensation at Rs. 25,00,000/-Cper acre after giving a reasonable deduction, i.e., 15% deduction.

8. However, at the same time, considering the evidence on recordand the sale instances which were relied upon on behalf of the landownersand while considering the fact that the landowners shall be entitled tojust and reasonable compensation for the lands acquired and taking intoDconsideration the decision of this Court in the case of Arawali PowerCompany Private Limited (supra), we are of the opinion that if thelandowners in the present case are awarded compensation at the rate ofRs. 22,00,000/- per acre, the same can be said to be just and reasonablecompensation. The impugned common judgment and order is requiredto be modified to the aforesaid extent.E

9. Now so far as the landowners in the appeals arising out of RFANos. 4322/2016, 4682/2016, 804/2017 and 805/2017 are concerned,considering the order passed by the High Court dated 17.08.2018 passedwhile condoning the delay in filing/refiling the appeals on condition thatthe landowners shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amountFof compensation, if any, the landowners shall not be entitled to interestfor the period of delay in filing/refiling the said appeals before the HighCourt.

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and orderGpassed by the High Court is hereby modified and it is observed anddirected that the landowners whose lands have been acquired for JhajjarThermal Power Plant shall be entitled to compensation at the rate ofRs. 22,00,000/- per acre. The landowners shall also be entitled to all thestatutory benefits including interest which may be available under theHAct, 1894. However, it is observed and directed that so far as the JASPAL SINGH & OTHERS v. THE STATE OF HARYANA ANDOTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

landowners in the appeals arising out of RFA Nos. 4322/2016, 4682/2016, 804/2017 and 805/2017 are concerned, they shall not be entitled toany interest on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period ofdelay in filing/refiling the appeals before the High Court.

A

11. All these appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. However,in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as toBcosts.

Ankit Gyan(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H