MADAN PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R.F.A. Nos. 2373 to 2380, 2478, 2853, 2978, 3044 to 3048, 3127 to 3146, 3148 to 3164, 3170 to 3186, 3191, 3223, 3383 to 3401, 3503 to 3525, 3540, 3541, 3790 to 3798, 3840 to 3842, 3930 to 3946, 3959 to 3975, 4043 to 4062, 4148, 4149, 4153, 4157, 4158, 4162 to 4169, 4171, 4172, 4174 to 4177, 4179 to 4192, 4195, 4213 to 4215, 4217 to 4220, 4235, 4236, 4241, 4278, 4281, 4312 to 4320, 4322 to 4368, 4514, 4527, 4528, 4585 to 4587, 4597 to 4601, 4624, 4625, 4646, 4674, 4739, 4740, 4837, 4838, 4856 to 4861, 4871 to 4876, 4949, 4984, 5016 to 5022, 5275, 5359, 5360, 5382, 5383, 5482 of 2010; Cross Objections Nos. 173-CI, 182-CI, 184-CI to 189-CI, 193- CI, 198-CI, 216-CI and 217-CI of 2010; RFA Nos. 150, 622 to 626, 673, 683, 1195 to 1199, 1714, 1915, 2234, 2247 to 2249, 2407 to 2453, 2864 to 2871, 3009, 3061 to 3078, 3102 to 3109, 3181 to 3231, 3358 to 3361, 3364, 3365, 3373 to 3376, 3429, 3443, 3444, 3708, 3769 to 3774, 4113 to 4115, 4118, 4119, 4136, 4139, 4154, 4199 to 4202, 4205, 4206, 4307, 4310, 4319, 4322, 4326 to 4328, 4333, 4334, 4342, 4343, 4353, 4354, 4357, 4455, 4464, 4468, 4477, 4491, 4492, 4513, 4586 to 4608, 4712 to 4720, 4817, 4818, 4830 to 4832, 4841, 4842, 5230, 5231, 5343 to 5346, 5385, 5386, 5390, 5431, 5941 to 5957, 6124, 6132, 6139, 6146, 6154, 6242 to 6305 to 6357, 6482, 6494 to 6508, 6525 to 6527, 6735 to 6738, 6797, 6798, 6804, 6805, 6887, 6888, 6943, 6949, 6957, 7122, 7125, 7133, 7139, 7259, 7260, 7336 to 7341, 7370, 7645, 7654, 7665, 7689, 7825 to 7829, 7868, 7878, 7882, 7897, 7993 of 2011; Cross Objections Nos. 14-CI, 15-CI, 80-CI of 2011; RFA Nos. 256, 268, 270, 271, 522, 523, 552, 553, 1087, 1088, 1189, 1562, 1573, 1597, 1968, 2677, 2678, 3072, 3088, 4687 to 4689, 4736, 5582, 5762,6532, 6546, 6942, 6943, 7149 to 7151, 7185, 7225, 7242, 7260 to 7262 of 2012; Cross Objections Nos. 4-CI, 11-CI of 2012; RFA Nos. 384, 385, 399, 400, 462, 465, 958, 959, 1022, 1023, 1056, 1088, 1094, 1102, 1355 to 1363, 1656, 1969 to 1972, 2075 to 2080, 2086 to 2091, 2126 to 2128, 2138, 2142, 2143, 2146, 2147, 2360, 2488, 2507 to 2515, 2539 to 2542, 2616, 2638, 2726 to 2730, 2822, 2826, 2872, 2874, 3378, 3381 to 3443, 3469 to 3490, 3766, 3801, 3802, 3828 to 3839, 3899 to 3901, 4012, 4013, 4018, 4019, 4034, 4105, 4106, 4224 to 4226, 4304, 4319, 4334, 4338, 4356, 4398, 4424 to 4426, 4434, 4440, 4446, 4472, 4474, 4476, 4487, 4549 to 4600, 4602 to 4607, 4751, 5414, 5418, 5420, 5898, 5901, 6211, 6369, 6424, 6549, 6853, 6865, 6875, 6880, 7110 to 7116, 7119, 7135, 7225, 7275, 7294 to 7296, 7317, 7326, 7333, 7337, 7661 to 7673, 7692 to 7696, 7913 to 7916, 8048 of 2013; Cross Objections Nos. 69-CI, 71-CI to 75-CI of 2013; RFA Nos. 42, 55, 74, 75, 80, 86, 89, 92, 134 to 139, 143, 144, 149, 151, 157, 161 to 163, 168, 169, 171, 172, 178, 192, 193, 245, 246, 515 to 518, 527 to 530, 582, 594, 678, 679, 769 to 771, 776, 777, 1013, 1014, 1038, 1039, 1242, 1243, 1261, 1272, 1273, 1495, 1508, 1513, 1514, 1576, 1799 to 1806, 1817 to 1819, 2067 to 2079, 2090, 2091, 2154, 2155, 2199, 2204 to 2207, 2230 to 2234, 2253 to 2255, 2266, 2276, 2277, 2304, 2310, 2314, 2422 to 2425, 2442 to 2444, 2530, 2542, 2543, 2898 to 2902, 2906, 2908, 3371, 3382, 3388, 3425 to 3427, 3651, 3669, 3731, 3734, 3942, 3943, 4004 to 4056, 4077 to 4079, 4400, 4631 to 4635, 4643, 4664, 4963 to 4967, 4973, 5102 to 5210, 5274, 5321 to 5323, 5431, 6619, 7224, 7225, 7276 to 7279, 7357, 7382, 8160, 8186, 8993, 9171, 9373, 9737, 9741, 9746, 9805, 10319, 10385 of 2014; Cross Objections Nos. 5-CI, 6-CI, 18-CI, 39-CI, 54-CI to 67- CI, 69-CI, 90-CI, 95-CI, 102-CI of 2014; RFA Nos. 279, 316, 442, 2230, 2695, 3499, 3743 of 2015; Cross Objections Nos. 21-CI, 26-CI, 28-CI, 36-CI, 40-CI, 65- CI of 2015. In the appeals and cross-objections filed by the land owners, they are seeking further enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, whereas in the appeals filed by Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. ( for short, 'HSIIDC') and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the prayer is for reduction thereof. Details of acquisition being dealt with

(2.) In the first round of litigation, appeals filed by the landowners as well as HSIIDC pertaining to acquisition vide notifications dated 6.3.2002 and 7.3.2002 were decided by this court vide judgment dated 11.2.2011 in RFA No. 2373 of 2010-Madan Pal Vs. State of Haryana and another. None of the counsels appearing for the parties pointed out at that time that appeals pertaining to acquisition vide notification dated 26.2.2002, which was earlier in time, were still pending. In the aforesaid case, this court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.37,40,000.00 per acre, whereas in the appeal filed by M/s Kohli Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (RFA No. 4646 of 2010), the landowner was held entitled to compensation @ Rs.2,119.00 per square yard as land in that case was abutting National Highway No. 8. Both the parties preferred Special Leave Petitions before Honourable the Supreme Court. Vide order dated 2.7.2013 passed in 2013(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 896 : Civil Appeal Nos. 4843-4940 of 2013 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 17962-18059 of 2011) - Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Vs. Udal and others etc. etc.. Honourable the Supreme Court remitted the matters back to this court for fresh disposal.

(3.) This is how the appeals pertaining to acquisition vide notifications dated 6.3.2002 and 7.3.2002 are before this court. As the acquisition, where notification under Sec. 4 of the Act were issued on 26.2.2002, 28.6.2004, 17.9.2004, 27.9.2005 and 24.11.2006 and the land pertaining thereto is located adjoining to the earlier acquired land or was left out portions in the earlier acquisition and the learned Reference Court for the purpose of assessment of compensation in all the cases primarily relied upon the judgment of Honourable the Supreme Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Pran Sukh and others, 2013(1) RCR (Civil) 846, all the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. Further the acquired land is located at one place.