***

HARKESH MANUJA J. –

CM-2780-CI-2023 in RFA-531-2016

Prayer in the present application is for impleading the legal heirs of respondent No.1 i.e. Gulzar Singh s/o of Joginder Singh, who died on 29.06.2017.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, same is allowed and persons mentioned in para 2 of the application are ordered to be impleaded as LRs of respondent No.1, for the purpose of pursuing the present appeal.

Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

Registry to do the needful.

CM-2779-CI-2023 in RFA-6432-2015

Prayer in the present application is for impleading the legal heirs of appellant No.1 i.e. Gulzar Singh s/o of Joginder Singh, who died on 29.06.2017.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, same is allowed and persons mentioned in para 2 of the application are ordered to be impleaded as LRs of appellant No.1, for the purpose of pursuing the present appeal.

Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

Registry to do the needful.

MAIN CASE(S)

By this judgment, a batch of *87 Regular First Appeals, (detail whereof is on the foot of the judgment), shall stand disposed of as common question of law is involved in all the cases. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA No. 531 of 2016.

2. By way of present appeal, challenge has been made to an Award dated 20.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as “Reference Court”), whereby, the market value of the acquired land in question has been assessed @ Rs. 30 lakhs per acre i.e. Rs. 619.83 per square yards as on the date of Notification dated 11.07.2007 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”).

FACTS

3. The relevant information concerning this bunch of appeals is compiled in a tabulated form, as under:-

4. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the pleadings, culled out the following issues:-

1. What was the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for damages, in addition to the compensation? OPP

3. Relief.

ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

5. The landowners / claimants examined the following twelve (12) witnesses before the Reference Court and relied upon the documents mentioned against each as under:-

6. On the other hand, the HSIIDC / State examined Mr. Yashashvi Verma, Manager, HSIIDC, Yamuna Nagar as RW1, who testified that the award in question was passed by LAC after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and the nature of land being agricultural, hence the value of the acquired land could not be compared with the value of residential and commercial land.

7. In the present case, it transpires that land falling in three revenue estates namely, Manikpur, Udhamgarh and Garhi Banjaran, District Yamuna Nagar, measuring 305 acres, 4 kanals and 75 marlas was sought to be acquired vide Notification dated 11.07.2007, issued under Section 4 of the Act. Later on, notification dated 10.07.2008, was issued under Section 6 of Act regarding land measuring 259 acres, 6 kanals and 17 marlas in total, wherein, an area measuring 148 acres, 6 kanal, 19 marlas falling in the revenue estate of Village Manikpur was included and area measuring 71 acres, 2 kanals and 8 marlas of Village Udhamgarh as well as 39 acres, 5 kanals and 10 marlas of Village Garhi Banjaran, was acquired for the purpose of setting up Industrial Estate, Phase-II, Manakpur, Tehsil Jagadhri at Yamuna Nagar. The Land Acquisition Collector, Yamuna Nagar (for short “LAC”), vide Award No. 1 dated 10.07.2009, assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 8 lakhs per acre pertaining to village Manikpur, for the year 2009-2010, besides other statutory benefits. Similarly, for Village Udhamgarh, Award No.2 for the year 2009-2010 was announced on the same date by fixing the same market value i.e. Rs. 8 lakhs per acre, besides other statutory benefits and for Village Garhi Banjaran, the market value was assessed vide Award No.3 dated 10.07.2009, on the same lines i.e. @ Rs. 8 lakhs per acre, besides other statutory benefits.

8. Aggrieved of the Assessment made by the LAC in exercise of powers under Section 11 of the Act, the landowners filed their references under Section 18 thereof. The Reference Court vide its award dated 20.04.2015, assessed the market value at the uniform rate of Rs.30 lakhs per acre for all the three revenue estates, besides, awarding other statutory benefits. While assessing the market value, the Reference Court primarily relied upon a sale deed No.3208 dated 06.07.2006 (Ex.P-1) pertaining to land measuring 8 acres, 4 kanals and 6 marlas for a total consideration of Rs.4,69,56,250/- i.e. Rs.55 lakhs per acre and applying 40-45% thereupon as development cut arrived at the figure of Rs. 30,25,000/- per acre and made the final assessment @ Rs. 30,00,000/- per acre by rounding it off.

9. By way of present appeal(s), the aforesaid award passed by the Reference Court has been impugned.

10. Learned counsel representing the appellant-HSIIDC submits that the sale deed (Ex.P-1) could not have been relied upon, while assessing the market value, as the same is situated on the other side of the national highway as compared to the land under acquisition. It has been further submitted that the said sale deed was made by some business establishment exclusively for commercial purposes and thus, the same could not have been taken to be an exemplar, while assessing the compensation. Learned counsel further submits that vide present acquisition, a large chunk of land falling in three different revenue estates, had been acquired and therefore, one uniform market value should not have been assessed or fixed as regards the entire chunk. It has further been submitted that if at all the sale deed (Ex.P-1) was required to be considered by the Reference Court, three (03) different cuts were required to be applied upon the consideration mentioned therein; (i) the development cut; (ii) the cut on the ground that the transaction was purely for commercial purpose; (iii) the land under the sale deed was situated on the other side of the national highway. He also submits that the Reference Court, while assessing the compensation was also required to take into consideration the sale deed (Ex.P-4), which also pertained to Village Manakpur, wherein the sale price would come to Rs. 32 lakhs per acre only and at best the Reference Court would have taken a mean of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-4, while assessing the compensation.

11. Learned counsels for the respondents-landowners submit that in view of the location of the land under acquisition being surrounded by already existing developed Manakpur Industrial Estate Phase-I as well as the National Highway and also forming part of the controlled area, besides adjoining the municipal limits of Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, the Reference Court went wrong while applying the development cut @ 40-45%. It has further been contended that considering the large area of sale deed (Ex.P-1), which is more than 8 acres, no cut should have been applied, while assessing the market value. It has also been contended that the registered agreement to sell dated 18.05.2006 (Ex. P-11) which pertained to 73 kanals 01 marla of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Udhamgarh, wherein the sale price was fixed @ Rs. 96 lakhs per acre, was also required to be considered, the same being genuine bona fide transaction, especially when 15% earnest money was paid to the vendor as earnest money.

Learned counsel representing the respondents-landowners also claimed appreciation @ 12% per annum for the difference of period between the date of exemplar sale deeds and the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case which is 11.07.2007.

Referring to the Award, learned counsel(s) further submit that the land under acquisition was having greater potential value being surrounded by already established industrial units, school, hospitals, plywood factories & petrol pump etc. and thus, prays for further enhancement of compensation.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book as well as the record provided of the Reference Court.

13. First and foremost issue is to evaluate the potential value of the land under acquisition upon proper appreciation of its location. From the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as based on consideration of the evidence available on record in the shape of various site plans produced by the respective parties, it is apparent that the acquired land while falls within the revenue estate of Village Manakpur is just abutting the already developed Industrial Estate, Manakpur Phase-I, whereas the land under acquisition falling in the revenue estate of village Udhamgarh is lying sandwiched between the National Highway, 73–A and the land under acquisition falling in Village Manakpur besides the land of village Ghari Banjaran again, touching land of village Manakpur, from the northern side. Therefore, as a whole towards north, the acquired land abuts already developed Industrial Area, Phase-1, Manakpur, whereas on the Southern side, there is Yamuna Nagar – Jagadhari Corporation building and the eastern side portion abuts the State Highway, known as Jagadhri to Dadupur Paonta Sahib with number of industrial and commercial units existing in the adjoining vicinity. Besides it, the following observations made by the Reference Court in paragraph number 20 of the impugned award, being relevant on the point of discussion is also reproduced hereunder:-

“20. The perusal of site plans further shows that acquired land is adjacent/near to Chhachhrauli road i.e. NH-73A from Jagadhri to Paonta Sahib. Acquired area of Manakpur abuts developed Industrial Area, Phase-I, Manakpur. There is a timber market near the area. Flour Mill, PNB Building (Old), Akal Baksh Banda Sahib Gurudwara, Joginder Vihar Colony, plywood factory under the name and style of Jawala Parsad, Aaditya Dharam Kanta, Tannu Timber and Vishavkarma Timber are situated close to the land acquired in village Udhamgarh. Various other establishments and industries are there near the land under acquisition. Learned counsel for petitioners have also drawn attention of the Court to the Revised Draft Development Plan for Controlled Area 2021-AD in which villages Udhamgarh, Manakpur and Garhi Banjaran are shown to be falling within municipal limits. Perusal of this plan, which has not been disputed by the respondents, shows that these villages are within close proximity to town Jagadhri and adjoining to the already developed Industrial Area of Mankapur. PW6 Harender Pal, Patwari, Circle Jagadhri has testified that the boundaries of villages Manakpur, Udhamgarh and Garhi Banjaran are attached with each other and Chhachhrauli road is passing through the land of village Manakpur and Jagadhri. PW2 Darshan Singh, Clerk, O/o District Town Planning, Yamuna Nagar has submitted the certified copy of notification Ex.P5, which shows that villages Manakpur, Udhamgarh and Garhi Banjaran fall within the additional controlled area vide notification dated July 1, 1997. The respondents have heavily relied on the testimony of RW1 Yashashvi Verma, who has also produced the proceedings of committee Ex.D2. A careful perusal of the document Ex.D2 reveals that the nature of the acquired land situated in three villages has been mentioned as Chahi, which means the land under acquisition was not barren land and rather was fertile and cultivable land having potential to be developed as Industrial Area. ”

Still further, the location of the land in question being situated adjacent to National Highway No. 73-A as well as near the Industrial Estate, Phase-1 HSIIDC, Yamuna Nagar, has even been acknowledged and admitted by RW1 Shri Yashasvi Verma, Manager (U.T.L), HSIIDC, Yamuna Nagar in his cross-examination. Relevant portion, therefrom is reproduced hereunder:-

“ It is correct that the department developed the Industrial Estate phase-II at Manakpur. It is also correct that in the North side of the land in question, Industrial Estate Phase-I already exists. The land in question is adjacent to National Highway No. 73-A. Village Manakpur is separate from the land in question. It is correct that the some part of the land in question is adjacent to the southern side of village Manakpur. Our department has developed the industrial Estate Phase-II on the land of village Manakpur, Udhamgarh and Garhi Banjaran. The boundaries of these three villages are adjoining to each other. ”

Thus, taking a cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record and in view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is apparent that the land in question at the time of acquisition was having greater potential & locational value for being used as residential and commercial purposes in the wake of existence of all basic necessary amenities like roads, sewerage, electricity, etc. with the further scope of extension as well.

14. Further, the material available on record in the shape of site plans as well as the oral deposition makes it evident that the three revenue estates, namely, villages, Manakpur, Udhamgarh and Ghari Banjaran forming part of the notification in question are adjacent and abutting to each other. This fact has even been established from the statement of PW6 Sri Harinder Pal, Patwari, Circle Jagadhari, who, in his cross-examination very categorically states that the boundaries of the three villages are attached with each other and there has been no cross-examination or even a suggestion put to him by the appellant-HSIIDC in this regard to counter the same. Moreover, even the committee headed by Commissioner, Ambala Division Ambala, consisting the representatives of the appellants, treated all the above mentioned three revenue estates being of equal potential value and recommended uniform rate of Rs. 8 lakhs per acre for award of compensation for the same. This fact can be discerned from the report dated 27.01.2009, submitted by the above mentioned committee, which has been proved on record as Ex. D2. Besides it, even the Land Acquisition Collector, relying upon the report dated 27.01.2009 awarded uniform market value at the rate of Rs. 8 lakhs per acre for all the three revenue estates forming part of the same notification. Thus, for the purposes of determination of compensation, in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the evidence available on record, the three revenue estates forming part of the acquisition proceedings in the present case cannot be treated differently, and the argument raised on behalf of the appellant-HSIIDC, to the contrary, is accordingly rejected.

15. I am unable to find substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant-HSIIDC to the effect that the sale deed dated 06.07.2006 (Ex. P-1) was required to be discarded being a transaction of commercial nature besides the land forming part thereof, existing on the other side of the National Highway. A perusal of the sale deed Ex. P-1 shows that the land sold therein falls within the revenue estate of Village Udhamgarh and the said revenue estate forms part of the acquired land. Moreover, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the sale deed Ex. P-1, vide which the land was sold in favour of business establishment for commercial purpose, was required to be applied an additional cut on this count. The said contention, rather than helping the appellant, goes other way round and in fact establishes the commercial value of the land situated in / and around the revenue estate of Village Udhamgarh, which lies adjacent to the revenue estate of Village Manakpur whereupon Industrial Area, Phase-I, Manakpur is also existing.

DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION

16. For the purpose of determination of compensation of acquired land, the Reference Court did not take into consideration the registered agreement to sell dated 18.05.2006 (Ex.P-11), which pertained to a large chunk measuring 73 kanals 01 marla of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Udhamgarh, Tehsil Jagadhri at Yamuna Nagar. As per the agreement, the sale consideration was Rs. 96 lakh per acre, against which, 15% was paid as earnest money. The Reference Court even did not consider the sale deed dated 06.07.2006 (Ex. P-2) for the reason of same being of small area. Considering the fact that sale deed dated 06.07.2006 (Ex. P-2) pertaining to 4 kanals of land, also formed part of agreement to sell dated 18.05.2006 besides, being from same khewat, khatauni and the khasra number and also between the same parties and even against the similar sale consideration i.e. Rs. 96 lakhs per acre, the sale deed (Ex. P-2) though being for an area measuring 4 kanals, was required to be considered even having been corroborated through the agreement to sell dated 18.05.2006 (Ex. P-11) pertaining to the same revenue estate, being a bona fide and genuine transaction. There is no doubt about the proposition of law that all genuine and bona fide transactions, including sale deeds as well as agreement to sell, are to be relied upon for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired land. The registered agreement to sell dated 18.05.2006 (Ex. P-11) has been duly proved on record through one of vendors Jaspal Singh, while appearing as PW-4, who specifically deposed that the land under the agreement was agreed to be sold @ Rs. 96 lakhs per acre. Against this, in his entire cross-examination not even a single word was put to him by the appellant-HSIIDC doubting the genuineness of the agreement or even the sale consideration. The cross-examination of PW-4 which was recorded on 27.03.2014 before the Reference Court is re-produced hereunder:-

“ At the time of passing the award, I have produced the sale deed Ex. P2 and agreement to sell Ex. P11 but the same were not considered by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is correct that I am availing Rs. 15,000/- per acre till today as per award. The award was passed jointly for 260 acres of land of village Udhamgarh, Manakpur and Gari Banjara. I was the owner of 26 acres of land at that time. There were tube wells, trees and underground water pipe line in the acquired land. It is correct that the award was passed for acquired land, trees and tubewells. I cannot tell as to how much amount I received for the trees standing at that time in the acquired land. I cannot tell whether Forest Department had prepared any estimate regarding the value of trees standing in the acquired land. I have received total awarded amount of my acquired land. It is incorrect to suggest that Collector rate at that time was not more than Rs. 10 lac. It is also wrong to suggest that award which was passed by Land Acquisition Collector on the basis of fertility of land and as per the sale deeds prevailing at that time. ”

Thus, the agreement in question besides the sale consideration mentioned therein being bona fide and genuine was required to be taken count of by the Reference Court. Reliance in this regard can be made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “Calcutta Metropolitan Development Auth. & State of W.B through its First Land Acquisition Collector Versus Dominion Land & Industries Ltd. & Sri Kalidas Chakraborty”, reported as 1995 (3) RRR 60. Relevant paras-13 & 14 from the judgment passed in case of Dominion Land & Industries Ltd. (supra) are reproduced hereunder:-

“13. Thus, we have every reason to think that the said agreement to sell (Ex.P-1) was a genuine and bona fide transaction relating to the very acquired land entered into between the parties (respondents-1 and 2) concerned, bona fide, and it reflected the real market value of the land as a whole between September 3, 1975 and March 3, 1983.

14. Because of the availability of the said genuine and bona fide agreement to sell pertaining to the very land acquired under the LA Act which reflected the real market value of the acquired land at about the time of acquisition, i.e., November 2, 1978, there was no scope for determining the market value of the said acquired land by resorting to the method of Belting or hypothetical building to the method of Comparable Sales in the vicinity of he acquired land or the like. Hence, in our view, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had committed a manifest error in adopting the method of Belting of determining the market value of the aforesaid land acquired under the LA Act. with the market value of which we are concerned here. ”

The aforementioned view has been followed by this Court in case of “Harpartap Rai Prui Versus State of Punjab”, reported as 2003 (3) RCR 249.

17. The Reference Court for the purposes of determination of market value, relied upon solely on the sale deed dated 06.07.2006 (Ex.P1), pertaining to the highest sale consideration. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the acquired land formed part of three different revenue estates i.e. Villages Udhamgarh, Manakpur and Garhi Banjaran, the three sale deeds (i) dated 06.07.2006 (Ex. P-1), Village Udhamgarh; (ii) dated 06.07.2006 (Ex. P-2), Village Udhamgarh, and (iii) dated 29.09.2006 (Ex. P-4), Village Manakpur, were all required to be considered, while adopting more practical approach for making the assessment of compensation.

18. Accordingly, the compensation pertaining to the acquired land needs to be determined by taking into consideration aforementioned reasoning as well as three sale deeds dated 06.07.2006, 06.07.2006 & 29.09.2006 (Exhibits P-1, P-2 & P-4 respectively) by taking mean thereof and applying a cut of 20% thereupon. Considering the fact that there has been a difference of around 10 to 12 months between the three sale deeds and the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case which is dated 11.07.2007, an appropriate increase of 12% needs to be applied. Reliance in this regard can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar Versus Raghbir Singh etc., reported as 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 301. Relevant paras-10 & 11 thereof are reproduced hereunder:-

“10. Only one grievance of the claimants remains to be addressed. The claimants pointed out that the relied upon sale transaction is dated 19.12.1990, whereas the notification under section 4(1) of a the of Act in this case was of 7.12.1991; and as there is a gap of nearly in one year, an appropriate increase in the market value should have been provide keeping in view the steady increase in prices. It is well settled that an increase in market value by about 10% to 12% per year can be provided, in regard to lands situated near urban areas having potential for non-agricultural development. (See: Sardar Jogendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (17) SCC 133).

11. We are therefore of the view that the value arrived at by the Collector, and accepted by the Reference Court and the High Court requires to be increased by 12% in view of the fact that the preliminary notification was one year after the relied upon sale transaction. Accordingly by increasing the value of Rs. 26/25 by 12%, we arrive at the market value as on 7.12.1991 as Rs. 29/40, rounded of to Rs. 29/50 per sq.ft.”

Considering the locational and potential value of the acquired land, the market value in the present case is thus calculated as under:-

19. Moreover, in view of the fact that the land under acquisition as a contiguous unit was touching the Industrial Area, Phase-I, Manakpur having been developed by the appellant-HSIIDC, from one side and the National Highway 73-A (Kurukshetra to Paonta Sahib) on the other, all basic amenities, such as water, electricity, sewerage etc., besides other necessary infrastructure were already existing in the close vicinity of the acquired land and was just required to be expanded further for the purpose of development of Phase-II, Industrial Estate, Manakpur. In this view of the matter besides considering the locational and potential value of the same, a cut of 20% instead of 40-45% was more than sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as in view of the evidence available on records.

RELIEF

20. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the appeals filed on behalf of the appellant-HSIIDC are dismissed, whereas the appeals filed by the respondents-landowners are allowed. Resultantly, the award dated 20.04.2015, passed by the Reference Court is modified and the market value for the acquired land, involving the three revenue estates is unformally enhanced to Rs. 54,65,600/- per acre, besides grant of all other statutory benefits as provided under Sections 23(2), 23(1-A) of the Act as well as interest in terms of Section 28 of the Act.

21. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Appeals dismissed.

*1. RFA-531-2016 (Main case) Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Gulzar Singh and others

2. RFA-532-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Banta Singh and others

3. RFA-533-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Ishwar Kumar and others

4. RFA-534-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Atma Singh and others

5. RFA-535-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Darshan Lal and others

6. RFA-536-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Naseeb Kaur and others

7. RFA-537-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Manmohan Singh @ Mohan Singh and others

8. RFA-538-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Manmohan Singh @ Mohan Singh and others 9. RFA-539-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Gram Panchayat Udhamgarh and others

10. RFA-540-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Balwinder Singh and others

11. RFA-566-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Yad Ram and others

12. RFA-2392-2016 Pardeep Singh Versus State of Haryana and others

13. RFA-4697-2015 Rulia Ram and others Versus State of Haryana and others

14. RFA-4515-2015 Yad Ram (Since Deceased Through Lrs) and another Versus State of Haryana and others

15. RFA-4698-2015 Ajmer Singh Versus State of Haryana and others

16. RFA-4701-2015 Mehar Singh Versus State of Haryana and others

17. RFA-4702-2015 Satish Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others 

18. RFA-4703-2015 Lachman Dass Versus State of Haryana and

others

19. RFA-4704-2015 Jasmer Singh Versus State of Haryana and others

20. RFA-4705-2015 Anil Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others

21. RFA-4706-2015 Naresh Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others

22. RFA-4707-2015 Parveen Kumar Versus State of Haryana and others

23. RFA-4747-2015 Ram Kishan and others Versus State of Haryana and others

24. RFA-4748-2015 Samay Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others

25. RFA-4749-2015 Jai Pal and others Versus State of Haryana and others

26. RFA-4776-2015 Gian Chand and others Versus State of Haryana and others

27. RFA-4777-2015 Ved Pal and another Versus State of Haryana and others

28. RFA-4778-2015 Birbal and another Versus State of Haryana and

others

29. RFA-4779-2015 (O&M) Devender Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and others

30. RFA-4780-2015 Darshani and others Versus State of Haryana and others

31. RFA-4781-2015 Simran Mohan Singh Versus State of Haryana and others

32. RFA-4782-2015 Ghasitu Ram Versus State of Haryana and others

33. RFA-4783-2015 Nirmal Singh (Since Deceased Through His Lr) and another Versus State of Haryana and others 

34. RFA-4784-2015 Nachhattar Pal and another Versus State of Haryana and others

35. RFA-5355-2015 Gurdeep Singh Versus State of Haryana and others

36. RFA-5361-2015 Sheo Pal and another Versus State of Haryana and others

37. RFA-5649-2015 (O&M) Darshan Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others

38. RFA-6263-2015 Banta Singh Versus State of Haryana and others

39. RFA-6264-2015 Chandan Madaan and others Versus State of Haryana and others

40. RFA-567-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Nachhattar Pal and others

41. RFA-568-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Gram Panchayat Manakpur and others

42. RFA-569-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Naresh Kumar and others

43. RFA-570-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Pardeep Singh and others

44. RFA-571-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Simran Mohan Singh and others

45. RFA-572-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Rulia Ram and others

46. RFA-573-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Mehar Singh and others

47. RFA-574-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Birbal and others

48. RFA-575-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Randhir Singh and others

49. RFA-576-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Parveen Kumar and others

50. RFA-577-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Lachman Dass and others

51. RFA-578-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Sheo Pal and others

52. RFA-579-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Nirmal Singh and others

53. RFA-580-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Jasmer Singh and others

54. RFA-581-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Anil Kumar and others

55. RFA-582-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Darshani and others

56. RFA-583-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Gurdeep Singh and others

57. RFA-584-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Satish Kumar and others

58. RFA-585-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Ghasitu Ram and others

59. RFA-586-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Ved Pal and others

60. RFA-587-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Onkar Singh and others

61. RFA-588-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Ajmer Singh and others

62. RFA-589-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Devender Singh and others

63. RFA-59-2016 Atma Singh (Deceased) Through His LRs Iqbal Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others

64. RFA-60-2016 Naseeb Kaur (Deceased) Through Her Lrs Lakhwinder Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others

65. RFA-590-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Arvinder Singh and others

66. RFA-591-2016 (O&M) Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Panchkula Versus Darshan Singh and others

67. RFA-624-2016 Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Panchkula Versus Gurnam Singh and others

68. RFA-6421-2015 Ishwar Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana and others

69. RFA-6430-2015 Manmohan Singh Alias Mohan Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others

70. RFA-6431-2015 Darshan Lal and another Versus State of Haryana and others

71. RFA-6432-2015 Gulzar Singh and others Versus State of Haryana

and others

72. RFA-6433-2015 Balwinder Singh and another Versus State of

Haryana and others

73. RFA-6434-2015 Gurnam Singh and another Versus State of Haryana and others

74. RFA-6435-2015 Madan Lal and others Versus State of Haryana

and others

75. RFA-6436-2015 Manmohan Singh Alias Mohan Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others

76. RFA-6437-2015 Onkar Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others

77. RFA-6438-2015 Arvinder Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others

78. RFA-6837-2015 Randhir Singh Versus State of Haryana Through Collector Yamuna Nagar and others

79. RFA-73-2019 (O&M) HSIIDC Versus Shiv Dass Garg and others

80. RFA-74-2019 (O&M) HSIIDC Versus Jai Pal and others

81. RFA-75-2019 (O&M) HSIIDC Versus Samay Singh and others

82. RFA-76-2019 (O&M) HSIIDC Versus Ram Kishan and others

83. RFA-77-2019 (O&M) HSIIDC Versus Chandan Madaan and others

84. RFA-78-2019 (O&M) HSIIDC Versus Gian Chand and others

85. RFA-79-2019 (O&M) HSIIDC Versus Madan Lal and others

86. RFA-80-2019 (O&M) HSIIDC Versus Banta Singh and others

87. RFA-345-2012 (O&M) Dharam Dev Versus Rulia Ram

********