IN THE COURT OF SHRI KRISHAN KANT, HON’BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE, ROHTAK

Balwan Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others

Written Statement of reference petition under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act 1894 on behalf of respondent No.3 & 4

Respected Sir,

The answering respondents respectfully submit as under:-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS:

1. That the present petition is legally not maintainable.

2. That the petitioners have got no locus standi to file the present petition .

3. That the present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and mis-

joinder of unnecessary party.

4. That the present petition is not maintainable as the rates claimed by the

petitioners in the present petition are exorbitant and without any basis and not as

per the prevailing market value. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed

being devoid of any merit.

5. That the rates awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector are just fair adequate

and have been awarded after considering all the relevant factors provided under

the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The compensation has been awarded

as per rising trend of the prices of the land and keeping in view the location,

situation and potential value of the acquired land. Therefore, the petition is

devoid of any merit and hence same is liable to be dismissed.

6. That the Collector rate of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notice u/s 4

and L.A. Act/ as per State Govt. was less than the compensation awarded by the

respondents, so, the contention of the petitioners that the market value of the

land is more than the compensation awarded by respondent is false on the face

of it.
 2

7. That the land in question has been acquired strictly in accordance with the

provisions of Land Acquisition Act for public purpose i.e. for the scheme setting

up of the industrial estate/Rohtak to be planned and developed as an integrated

complex for industrial and other public utilities etc.

8. That the land in question is an agricultural land as per revenue record. The

agriculture land could neither be utilized nor converted for any other use, unless

change of land use (C.L.U.) was obtained/granted under the provisions of the

Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated

Development Act, 1993. The land in question is agricultural, thus the same was

under disability qua its other uses, therefore, the value of land in question cannot

be compared with that of residential and commercial land as permission of

change of land use has not been taken from proper authority.

9. That the value of sale deed, if any, though there is no such sale deed, may not

be genuine but a case of deliberate manipulation to manage a proof for claiming

enhanced compensation.

10. That the petition is barred by limitation.

11. That the petition is false, frivolous, malafide and the same is not maintainable.

The petitioners relied upon matters to be neglected in determining compensation

by court under section 24 of Land Acquisition Act and hence the same is liable to

be dismissed with costs.

REPLY ON MERITS

1. That the contents of para No.1 of the petition admitted to the extent that the

Haryana Government has acquired the land situated within the revenue estate of

village Kharawar, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak for carving out Industrial Model

Township, Rohtak. However, the rest of the contents of this para of the petition

are wrong, hence denied. The claim of the property of the petitioner made in the

present petition is admitted upto the extent specified in the statement under

Section 19 of Land Acquisition Act which is attached with the case.

 3

2. That the contents of para No.2 of the reference petition is wrong, hence denied.

It is wrong to allege that the Land Acquisition Collector has awarded very less or

inadequate or improper amount of compensation or has illegally ignored the well

settled principle of law for ascertaining the market value and price of the acquired

land alongwith other statutory benefits. It is further wrong to allege that the

learned Land Acquisition Collector has greatly under valued the land of the

petitioners. It is wrong to allege that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement

of compensation of the acquired land on any of the grounds. However, sub-

parawise reply is as under:-

i) That the contents of this sub para of the reference petition is wrong, hence

denied. It is submitted here that all the spots enumerated in this sub para are

part of Rohtak city whereas the land in question is situated at about 10 KM

away from Rohtak city. It is wrong to allege that the land is situated near

various hotels and banquet halls, Tilyar Lake. It is further wrong to say that

land in question is surrounded by various educational institutions including

Shri Baba Mast Nath College of Engineering, Eye Hospital, Ayurvedic

College, College of Pharmacy, College of Physiotherapy, Baba Mast Nath

Residential Public School, Indus Public School, DGV Public School and DAV

Centenary Public School and other educational institutions and residential

colonies including the Government project and Omaxe Project and

Sector-27. It is stated here that the rate of the compensation assessed and

claimed by the petitioners are exorbitant and unreal, unsubstantiated and

unspotted by legal provisions. It is submitted here that the land in question

was recorded as agriculture land and was being used for agriculture purposes

and as per clause 8 of Section 24 of Land Acquisition Act, the land in

question cannot be used for residential, industrial or commercial purpose

without first getting the permission of change of land use(C.L.U) from the

Director, Town & Country Planning. It is wrong to allege that the learned

Land Acquisition Collector has completely ignored all these facts and has

assessed the compensation at a very lower side.

 4

ii) That the contents of this sub para of the reference petition is wrong, hence

denied. It is wrong to allege that the land in question is situated within

National Capital Region within the radius of 10 KM from Rohtak City and is

surrounded by thickly populated residential as well as industrial and

commercial area and is easily approachable by bus as well as by train. It is

wrong to allege that the land is situated at a very good location. It is wrong to

allege that the land in question is situated at a walking distance from

Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and Pt. B.D. Sharma. PGIMS,

Rohtak. It is further wrong to allege that several religious places like

Hanuman Mandir, Sai Nath Temple, Radha Saomi Trust are situated near the

acquired land. It is wrong to allege that the land of the petitioners is to be

used for commercial purpose. It is submitted here that the land in question

has been acquired by keeping in view all the relevant provisions provided in

the Land Acquisition Act which are essential for just determination of the

market price of the land including the rates supplied by the Collector who is

the competent and the proper authority under the revenue law to assess such

rate on the basis of average of registered sale deed executed before

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for the nearby land of

the similar category.

iii) That the contents of this sub para of the reference petition is wrong, hence

denied. It is wrong to allege that IMT Baliana which is under development is

situated in the western side of the acquired land. It is further wrong to allege

that IMT Bohar is also situated on the north-west side of the acquired land. It

is wrong to allege that the acquired land has commercial value for industrial

use. It is also pointed out here that the land is recorded as agriculture land

and without obtaining the C.L.U, the same cannot be used for any other

purpose.

iv) That the contents of this sub para of the reference petition is wrong, hence

denied. It is wrong to allege that the land of the petitioners is best adapted for

the residential as well as commercial purpose. It is wrong to allege that the

vicinity where the land of the petitioners is situated having best educational
 5

and medical facilities in the entire State of Haryana. As stated above, the

land in question is recorded as agriculture land and considering all the

relevant facts and the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, the amount of

compensation has been granted to the petitioners as per their entitlement.

v) That the contents of this sub para of the reference petition is wrong, hence

denied. It is wrong to allege that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has

wrongly assessed the value of the land treating the same as agricultural. It is

wrong to allege that the value of the land is to be assessed keeping in view

the facts that the land is surrounded by thickly populated. It is also pointed out

here that there is no residential area near the land in question.

vi) That the contents of this sub para of the reference petition is wrong, hence

denied. It is wrong to allege that the learned LAC has ignored the fact that the

land in question commands a very good situation for industries, commercial

and residential site. It is wrong to allege that the learned Land Acquisition

Collector has arbitrarily and without taking into consideration the provision of

Section 23 of the Act has announced the Award at a very low rate. It is

absolutely wrong to allege that the market value of the acquired land is more

than Rs.5 crore per acre at the time of acquisition. The claim raised by the

petitioners is without any substance and without any basis and the same is

highly exorbitant. It is submitted here that the amount of compensation

granted to the petitioners by learned Land Acquisition Collector is quite

correct and the same has been awarded taking into account all the relevant

factors and the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.

vii) That the contents of this sub para of the reference petition is wrong, hence

denied. It is wrong to allege that all the objections and suggestions of the

petitioners were summarily rejected and no proper and sufficient opportunity

has been given to the petitioners. It is submitted here that sufficient

opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioners.

viii) That the contents of this sub para of the reference petition is wrong, hence

denied. It is wrong to allege that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has

ignored the established principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts
 6

and the Hon'ble Apex Court of the country while assessing the market value

of the acquired land. It is also pointed out here that the amount of

compensation has been awarded to the petitioners taking into account all the

principles and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of the country.

ix) That the contents of this sub para of the reference petition is wrong, hence

denied. It is wrong to allege that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has

not given the compensation for trees, tube-wells, kothas standing over the

land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It is further wrong to allege

that the learned Land Acquisition Collector has failed to recognize the factual

position that at present the petitioners have shown the crops over the

acquired land and no compensation has been provided to them keeping in

view, the market price of the crops. It is submitted here that the petitioners

have been given the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the

Land Acquisition Act and as per their entitlement. Since the possession of

the vacant land was taken by the respondent, so the petitioners are not

entitled to any compensation as is being claimed.

x) That the contents of this sub para of the reference petition is wrong, hence

denied. It is wrong to allege that the acquisition is malafide, discriminatory

and has been done with the ulterior motives. It is also pointed out here that

the land has been acquired for the public purpose and there is no question of

any malafide on the part of the answering defendant.

xi) That the contents of this sub para of the reference petition is wrong, hence

denied. The petitioners have received the amount of compensation without

any protest or condition.

3. That the contents of para No.3 of the reference petition are wrong, hence denied.

The petition has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

4. That the contents of para No.4 of the reference petition are wrong, hence denied.

It is established in principle of law that any person preferring remedy for

enhancement under Section 18 is not entitled to challenge the acquisition

proceedings.
 7

5. That the contents of para No.5 of the reference petition needs no reply being

legal.

That the prayer para of reference petition is wrong, hence denied. The

rates claimed by the petitioners i.e. Rs.5 crore per acre is exorbitant and

same is without basis, substance logic and documentary proof. It is stated

that in view of above aspects, the only impartial equitable, just and fair

method to assess the market value if to take place the average value of

the genuine registered sale deed executed for nearby land of similar

category and extent and before notification under Section 4 of the Act.

It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the above mentioned facts

and circumstances, the reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition

Act filed by the petitioners may kindly be dismissed with costs.

Place:Rohtak Respondent No. 3 and 4

Dated:

HSIIDC, IMT, Rohtak

(on behalf of respondent No.3 & 4)

Through: Pardeep Ahlawat, Advocate, Rohtak

Verification:

Verified that all the contents of para No.1 to 11 of preliminary objections

and para No.1 to 5 of reply on merits of this written statement are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and information as derived from official
record and nothing has been concealed therein.

Place:Rohtak Respondent No. 3 and 4

Dated:

HSIIDC, IMT, Rohtak

(on behalf of respondent No.3 & 4)