{"id":18525,"date":"2009-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-03T09:15:04","modified_gmt":"2016-03-03T03:45:04","slug":"siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009<\/div>\n
RFA No. 3071 of     1993                                     1\n\n\n\n        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                       CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                     RFA No. 3071 of 1993\n                                     Date of Decision: 20.11.2009\n\n\n\n\nSiria                                                  ..Appellant\n\n                        Vs.\n\nThe State of Haryana                                   ..Respondent\n\n\n\nCoram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma\n\n\n\nPresent:     Mr.M.L.Sharma & Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocates,\n             for the appellants.\n\n             Mr.Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG, Haryana,\n             for the respondent\/State.\n\n                        ---\n\n        1.   Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may\n             be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n        2.   To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n\n        3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in\n             Digest?\n                        ---\n\nVinod K.Sharma,J.\n<\/pre>\n
             This order shall dispose of RFA Nos. 3071 to 3073, 3412 to<\/p>\n
3414, 3432, 3733 and 3734 of 1993 titled Siria Vs. The State of Haryana;<\/p>\n
Mohan Vs. The State of Haryana; Jeet Ram Vs. The State of Haryana; Prem<\/p>\n
Singh @ Prem Chand Vs. The State of Haryana; Tejja Vs. The State of
\n RFA No. 3071 of     1993                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
Haryana; Ranjit Singh alias Jeet (dead) through his L.Rs. Vs. The State of<\/p>\n
Haryana; Pal Singh Vs. The State of Haryana; Kehar Singh Vs. The State of<\/p>\n
Haryana and Bachan Singh alias Gurbachan Singh (dead) represented by<\/p>\n
L.Rs. Vs. The State of Haryana, respectively, as common questions of law<\/p>\n
and facts are involved in these appeals and they arise out of the common<\/p>\n
award.\n<\/p>\n
             The appellant\/land owners have challenged the award dated<\/p>\n
3.6.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala on a<\/p>\n
reference made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the<\/p>\n
Act).\n<\/p>\n
             The State of Haryana decided to acquire land measuring100-31<\/p>\n
acres in village Kundi Hadbast No.366 for public purposes, namely the<\/p>\n
development and utilization of the land for residential, commercial and<\/p>\n
industrial area for urban estate Panchkula vide Govt. Notification No.LAC<\/p>\n
(P)NTLA-80\/2675 dated 24.6.1980 under section 4 of the Act.<\/p>\n
             Notification under section 6 of the Act was also issued with<\/p>\n
respect to the land measuring 100-31 acres but the acquiring department<\/p>\n
gave demarcation for the land measuring 9.23 acres only which was the<\/p>\n
subject-matter of references before the learned Additional District Judge,<\/p>\n
Ambala. Besides raising objections against the acquisition of land the land<\/p>\n
owners had also claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1250-3000\/- per<\/p>\n
marlas but   in support thereof no documentary evidence was produced.<\/p>\n
Therefore, in order to consider the market value the rates supplied by the<\/p>\n
Deputy Commissioner, Ambala were considered and land owners were
\n RFA No. 3071 of      1993                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20640\/- (Rupees twenty thousands<\/p>\n
six hundred and forty only) per acre for Chahi\/Abi land by the learned<\/p>\n
Collector vide his award dated 17.9.1986.\n<\/p>\n
            As already referred to above, land owners sought references<\/p>\n
under section 18 of the Act on the plea that the compensation awarded by<\/p>\n
the Collector was highly inadequate and less than the market value<\/p>\n
prevailing in the locality. It was pleaded case of the land owners that the<\/p>\n
value of the land in question was not less than Rs.5 lacs per acre at the time<\/p>\n
of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act. The acquired<\/p>\n
land was said to be of good quality yielding 3 crops a year. It was also<\/p>\n
irrigated land. Water was available in plenty from kools free of costs almost<\/p>\n
throughout the year. The land was said to be having potentiality of being<\/p>\n
used for industrial purpose as number of industries were in existence<\/p>\n
adjacent to the land in question. It was also the stand of the land owners<\/p>\n
that the land was of very high potential value as it was situated near<\/p>\n
Chandigarh and Panchkula. A plea was also raised that the Government has<\/p>\n
pegged down the prices of the land in question by issuing frequent and<\/p>\n
repeated notifications.\n<\/p>\n
            The reference was contested by the State wherein the<\/p>\n
allegations made by the appellants were controverted. It was pleaded by the<\/p>\n
State that the award was passed on the basis of rates supplied by the District<\/p>\n
Collector who was proper and competent authority under the revenue law to<\/p>\n
assess such rates based on average rates of sale transactions during that<\/p>\n
particular period executed for nearby land of similar category. It was denied
\n RFA No. 3071 of     1993                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
that the award given by the Collector was unfair or below the actual market<\/p>\n
rate.\n<\/p>\n
            On the pleadings of the parties the learned reference court<\/p>\n
framed the following issues:-\n<\/p>\n
            1.     What was the market value of the acquired land on the<\/p>\n
                   date of issuance of notification under section 4 of the<\/p>\n
                   Land Acquisition Act? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2.     Whether the adequate compensation has not been<\/p>\n
                   awarded for the tube-well. If so what was the market<\/p>\n
                   value of the tube-wells installed in the acquired land?<\/p>\n
                   OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3.     Whether the adequate compensation has not been paid<\/p>\n
                   for acquisition of Kools and the passage, if so what was<\/p>\n
                   their market value? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            4.     Whether the value of the acquired land had been fridged<\/p>\n
                   as alleged, if so to what effect? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            5.     Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In support of their claim the appellants examined PW 1 Sham<\/p>\n
Lal Patwari Halqa, Amadalpur. He deposed that the village Kundi was<\/p>\n
within his circle. He also deposed that he had seen the acquired land which<\/p>\n
was being irrigated by kool and further that the kool water was available to<\/p>\n
the land owners free of costs throughout the year. He also stated that village<\/p>\n
Ralli and Fatehpur adjoin the village Kundi and the land of all the three<\/p>\n
villages is of the same quality. He further deposed that village Judian and
\n RFA No. 3071 of     1993                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
Maheshpur were also under his charge in the year 1986-87 and land of<\/p>\n
those villages was almost of the same quality. It was also in his evidence<\/p>\n
that acquired land was situated at a distance of 1 \u00bd acres from Ambala-<\/p>\n
Kalka road. It was further in his deposition that there is Industrial Area in<\/p>\n
the land of village Ralli across Ambala-Kalka road and that Sector 12-A of<\/p>\n
Panchkula was at some distance from area of village Kundi.<\/p>\n
            PW 2 Ujjagar Singh, Agriculture Inspector Fatehpur also<\/p>\n
deposed regarding quality of the acquired land and deposed that it was<\/p>\n
equivalent to the quality of land of village Maheshpur and that kool water<\/p>\n
was available to the acquired land free of costs. PW 3 Som Nath, Patwari<\/p>\n
from the office of Collector, Panchkula deposed that the land of 15 villages<\/p>\n
was notified for   acquisition for development of Panchkula town in the<\/p>\n
year 1971 and village Kundi was included in those villages. Notifications<\/p>\n
issued were proved on record as Ex.P.1 and P.2. He further deposed that the<\/p>\n
acquired land of village Kundi was situated at a distance of about 2 killas<\/p>\n
from industrial area of Panchkula and industrial area Panchkula adjoins<\/p>\n
Ambala-Kalka road and that the acquired land was about one killa away<\/p>\n
from the said road on the other side. It was also in his evidence that the land<\/p>\n
of villages Fatehpur, Ralli and Maheshpur was also acquired for<\/p>\n
development of Panchkula.\n<\/p>\n
            PW 4 Kedar Nath Sachdeva, a retired circle Head Draftsman<\/p>\n
deposed that he had visited and seen the acquired land and that he had also<\/p>\n
seen the abadi of villages Maheshpur and Fatehpur and acquired land of<\/p>\n
village   Fatehpur. He proved site plan Ex.P.3 showing the location of
\n RFA No. 3071 of     1993                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
acquired land as well as location of certain sectors of Panchkula and abadi<\/p>\n
deh of village Meheshpur and Fatehpur. PW 5 Daulat Ram deposed that his<\/p>\n
land was adjacent to the acquired land and that his land was also situated<\/p>\n
in the area of village Ralli which was adjacent to the acquired land. He<\/p>\n
deposed about the good qualities of the land as also the facility of irrigation<\/p>\n
available thereto. He deposed that three crops could be grown in the<\/p>\n
acquired land and that the       land was capable of yielding income of<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- per acre per year. He also deposed regarding location of the<\/p>\n
land to be near Ambala-Kalka road and Industrial Area of Panchkula.<\/p>\n
According to him the market value of the acquired land in the year 1980<\/p>\n
was about 4.5 lacs per acre.\n<\/p>\n
            PW 6 Kuldeep Singh also deposed on the same lines that the<\/p>\n
land situated in villages Ralli, Kundi, Fatehpur, Judian and Maheshpur was<\/p>\n
of the same quality and kool water from Ghagar river was available to the<\/p>\n
acquired land throughout the year without any charges. He also deposed<\/p>\n
that there was Pole Factory for making electric poles in the area of village<\/p>\n
Fatehpur which was at a distance of about 3 killas from the acquired land,<\/p>\n
whereas the Industrial Area of Panchkula was        at a distance of one killa<\/p>\n
from the acquired land. Similarly, Sector 12-A of Panchkula was also at a<\/p>\n
distance of one killa way from the acquired land.           Railway Station,<\/p>\n
Chandigarh was said to be at a distance of 3 Kms away from the acquired<\/p>\n
land and Grain Market Chandigarh was said to be 5 Kms away from the<\/p>\n
village. College was said to be about 2 Kms from the acquired land,<\/p>\n
whereas school was also situated in village Kundi. Nahan Kothi where the
\n RFA No. 3071 of       1993                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
office of SDM was located was at a distance of 3 Kms from the village. He<\/p>\n
also deposed about the value of the acquired land in the year 1980 to be<\/p>\n
Rs.5 lacs per acre.\n<\/p>\n
             Besides the oral evidence referred to above the land owners<\/p>\n
placed reliance on various awards announced by the various courts from<\/p>\n
time to time in support of their claim. Some sale deeds were also produced.<\/p>\n
             The respondent\/State, on the other hand, examined Dhoop<\/p>\n
Singh, Patwari as RW 1, who proved Ex.R.1 i.e. Aks Sijra of village Kundi<\/p>\n
and also copies of the sale deeds Ex.R.2 to R.4. It was also deposed by RW<\/p>\n
1 that the land mentioned in sale deeds Ex. R.3 and R.4 was at a distance<\/p>\n
of half KM from the acquired land and adjoins the land of Fatehpur,<\/p>\n
whereas the land of sale deed Ex.R.2 was situated within the acquired land.<\/p>\n
The acquired land was said to be agricultural land. He also proved on record<\/p>\n
the index of all the sale deeds as Ex.R.5. It was deposed by him that the<\/p>\n
market value of the acquired land was not more than Rs.20640\/- (Rupees<\/p>\n
twenty thousand six hundred and forty only) per acre.<\/p>\n
             Learned reference court did not accept the oral evidence of PW<\/p>\n
5 and PW 6 wherein they had claimed the market value to be Rs.5 lacs<\/p>\n
(Rupees five lacs only) per acre. This oral evidence was rejected for want of<\/p>\n
any sale deed or other reliable evidence on record. Learned reference court,<\/p>\n
therefore, took into consideration the various awards given by the different<\/p>\n
courts to determine the market value of the acquired land at the time of<\/p>\n
notification. Learned reference court, however, held that it was established<\/p>\n
on record that the land of villages Kundi, Fatehpur, Maheshpur, Ralli and
\n RFA No. 3071 of    1993                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
Judian was almost of the same quality and there was no dispute between the<\/p>\n
parties on this point. The learned reference court also found that the<\/p>\n
location of the acquired land was about 1\u00bd killa from Ambala-Kalka road<\/p>\n
and that Industrial Area of Panchkula was situated at a distance of about 2<\/p>\n
killas from the acquired land. Sector 12-A Panchkula was located at a<\/p>\n
distance of about 1.25 Killas away from the acquired land.<\/p>\n
            The appellants did not rely on Ex.P.4 for the reason that it<\/p>\n
related to village Dhillan and therefore, was not relevant to the acquired<\/p>\n
land. Ex.P.5 was an award dated 7.1.1983 passed by the learned Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, Ambala, vide which market value of the acquired land of<\/p>\n
village Ralli was assessed at Rs.23750\/- (Rupees twenty three thousand<\/p>\n
seven hundred and fifty only) per acre. This land was acquired in the year<\/p>\n
1973.\n<\/p>\n
            Ex.P.6 is the award dated 10.9.1988 passed by the learned<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, Ambala vide which market value of the acquired<\/p>\n
land of village Judian was said to be Rs.1.50 lacs (Rupees one lac and fifty<\/p>\n
thousand only) per acre. This land was acquired vide notification dated<\/p>\n
27.8.1981. Ex.P.7 was award vide which the market value of the acquired<\/p>\n
land of village Maheshpur was assessed at Rs.1.50 lacs (Rupees one lac and<\/p>\n
fifty thousand only) with respect to the notification published in the year<\/p>\n
1983, whereas Ex.P.8 was copy of award dated 18.5.1991 qua notification<\/p>\n
of the year 1983 qua land of village Maheshpur wherein the market value of<\/p>\n
the land was assessed at Rs.1.50 lacs (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand<\/p>\n
only).\n<\/p>\n
 RFA No. 3071 of     1993                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
            Ex.P.9 was award dated 2.3.1985         passed by the learned<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, Ambala qua the land of village Fatehpur with<\/p>\n
regard to notification of the year 1973 vide which the market value of the<\/p>\n
acquired land was assessed at Rs.23,750\/- (Rupees twenty three thousand<\/p>\n
seven hundred and fifty only). Ex.P.12 was copy of award dated 1.9.1982<\/p>\n
qua the land of village Maheshpur which was acquired vide notification of<\/p>\n
the year 1973 wherein again value of the land was            determined at<\/p>\n
Rs.23,750\/- (Rupees twenty three thousand seven hundred and fifty only)<\/p>\n
per acre. Ex.P.14 was copy of award dated 17.4.1993 passed by the learned<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge Ambala qua the land of village Fatehpur with<\/p>\n
regard to the notification of the year 1983 vide which market value of the<\/p>\n
land was determined at Rs.2.25 lacs (Rupees two lacs twenty five thousand<\/p>\n
only) per acre. Ex.P.15 was the copy of the sale deed dated 16.12.1977 vide<\/p>\n
which 2 marlas of land situated in village Kundi was sold for Rs.900\/-<\/p>\n
(Rupees nine hundred only), whereas Ex.P.16 was copy of the sale deed<\/p>\n
dated 6.10.1978 vide which 5 marlas of agricultural land of village Kundi<\/p>\n
was sold for Rs.1500\/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only).<\/p>\n
            On the basis of evidence referred to above the contention raised<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for the appellants before the learned reference court<\/p>\n
was that the different awards showed that there was increase of Rs.20,000\/-<\/p>\n
(Rupees twenty thousand only) per year and therefore, the value of acquired<\/p>\n
land was assessed at Rs.1,63,750\/- (Rupees one lac sixty three thousand<\/p>\n
seven hundred and fifty only) per acre.\n<\/p>\n
            This plea was not accepted for the reasons that the court found
\n RFA No. 3071 of     1993                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
that valuation is to be done on the basis of the location of the acquired land<\/p>\n
in a particular case. The learned Reference court found that the land of<\/p>\n
village Fatehpur which was acquired in 1983 for which award Ex.P.14 was<\/p>\n
passed on 17.4.1993 was situated on the road leading to Ambala-Kalka road<\/p>\n
i.e. on the main road      leading to Nahan Kothi to Nahan whereas the<\/p>\n
acquired land was not situated on the main road but at a distance of 1\/1\u00bd<\/p>\n
killas away from the main Ambala-Kalka road. Therefore, the learned<\/p>\n
reference court found that Ex.P.14 could not be applied to determine the<\/p>\n
market value of the land in question. The learned reference court found that<\/p>\n
the award Ex.P.7 also could not be the basis and it was with respect to the<\/p>\n
land acquired in the year 1983 vide which the value of the land was<\/p>\n
determined at Rs.1.50 lacs. The learned court held that the market value of<\/p>\n
the acquired land was to be less than the one determined vide Ex.P.7 as the<\/p>\n
same was acquired in the year 1980 i.e. 3 years prior to the land falling in<\/p>\n
Ex.P.7. The learned reference court, therefore, held that if Rs.20,000\/-<\/p>\n
(Rupees twenty thousand only) cut per year is applied to this then the<\/p>\n
market value would be Rs.1 lac (Rupees one lac only) per acre . Learned<\/p>\n
reference court also recorded a finding that the award Ex.P.6 was with<\/p>\n
regard to the land acquired in the year 1981 i.e. one year after the<\/p>\n
acquisition of the land in the present case. The learned reference court also<\/p>\n
found that the award Ex.P.6 related to village Judian which was situated<\/p>\n
near Dhillon theater and     Motor Market Mani Majra and         other urban<\/p>\n
complexes.\n<\/p>\n
             In the said case the market value was assessed at Rs.1.50 lacs
\n RFA No. 3071 of     1993                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
per acre. The learned reference court, therefore, held that market price of<\/p>\n
the present land would be less because acquisition in this case was of one<\/p>\n
year prior to the year under consideration in Ex.P.6. The learned reference<\/p>\n
court found that even if the sale deeds produced on record are taken into<\/p>\n
consideration, in that event also the value of the land comes to Rs.1 lac per<\/p>\n
acre. The learned reference court further did not rely upon the sale deeds<\/p>\n
produced on record by the respondent which represented the value of the<\/p>\n
land to Rs.29,000\/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand only). Thus, on over all<\/p>\n
assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, learned reference court<\/p>\n
after taking into consideration the potentiality and location of the acquired<\/p>\n
land assessed the market value at Rs.1 lac per acre. Land owners were also<\/p>\n
held to be entitled to statutory benefits under the Act on assessed value of<\/p>\n
land.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr.M.L.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
appellants challenged the impugned award on the plea that the learned<\/p>\n
reference court had not applied the settled principles of law for determining<\/p>\n
the market value of the acquired land. The contention of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
was that on the facts and circumstances of each case one of the following<\/p>\n
principles can be applied to determine the market value:-<\/p>\n
            1.      The transaction prior to the notification under section 4<\/p>\n
            of the Act including similar transaction can be taken into<\/p>\n
            consideration and under the given facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
            even average of transactions prior to the notification can be<\/p>\n
            taken into consideration for determining the market value.
\n RFA No. 3071 of        1993                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             2.    In case there are no transactions available        in close<\/p>\n
             proximity prior to the notification then the award passed by<\/p>\n
             the court with respect to the land acquired in the vicinity can<\/p>\n
             be taken into consideration by giving increase by 12 per cent<\/p>\n
             per annum with respect to the acquisition for the previous<\/p>\n
             period.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3.    The market value of the small transactions can also be<\/p>\n
             formed the basis of fixation of market value by imposing a cut<\/p>\n
             of 33 per cent thereon for the chunk of land acquired.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             4.    In case of availability of transactions in the same village<\/p>\n
             then these can be taken into consideration but in the absence of<\/p>\n
             any transaction of the village then the transactions qua the<\/p>\n
             adjoining villages can also be taken into consideration or<\/p>\n
             reasonable cut or increase can be applied keeping in view the<\/p>\n
             location of the acquired land, and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             5.    Finally it is open to the court to fix the market value by<\/p>\n
             guess work on the available material.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            On the basis of principles referred to above, Mr.M.L.Sharma,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellants contented that there is no bar to taking<\/p>\n
into consideration post notification sale transactions or awards to determine<\/p>\n
the market value. In support of this contention learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the<\/p>\n
case of Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai through his heirs and Legal<\/p>\n
Representatives and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat 1989 (2) RRR 243,
\n RFA No. 3071 of    1993                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
wherein Hon’ble Supreme court was pleased to lay down as under:-<\/p>\n
            “4.   We do not feel called upon to enter into a detailed<\/p>\n
            scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties before the learned<\/p>\n
            Civil Judge. The main instance relied upon by the claimants<\/p>\n
            was by way of an agreement to sell dated January 21, 1957 and<\/p>\n
            a sale deed dated April 2, 1957 in respect of the sale of 42552<\/p>\n
            square yards of land but of survey No.233\/2 which is adjoining<\/p>\n
            the land with which we are concerned which forms part of<\/p>\n
            survey No.331. The land sold under this instance was known<\/p>\n
            as “Kesarbagh” and was sold to Mahalaxmi Mills Limited by<\/p>\n
            Prince Nirmalkumarsinghji. The rate at which it sold works out<\/p>\n
            to Rs.3 per square yard. On the basis of this instance, the<\/p>\n
            claimants had made their claim at Rs.3 per square yard before<\/p>\n
            the Land Acquisition Officer. The High Court inter alia<\/p>\n
            rejected this instance on the basis that the contents of the sale<\/p>\n
            deed were not property proved. However, after an order for<\/p>\n
            remand made by this Court on August 25, 1981 evidence has<\/p>\n
            been led regarding the sale and the sale deed has been duly<\/p>\n
            proved by the evidence of one Dharamdas, a director of<\/p>\n
            Mahalaksmi Mills Limited, the       purchaser, and the vendor<\/p>\n
            Prince Nirmalkumarsinghji. It was marked originally as Exhibit<\/p>\n
            87 and after the evidence on remand as Exhibit 152. The<\/p>\n
            evidence shows that this land was just adjacent to the land of<\/p>\n
            the purchaser, Mahalaksmi Mills Limited. The agreement of
\n RFA No. 3071 of   1993                                      14<\/span><\/p>\n
          sale is dated January 21, 1957 and the conveyance or sale deed<\/p>\n
          is dated April 2, 1957 as aforestated. The price has been fixed<\/p>\n
          under the agreement of sale. This agreement of sale was<\/p>\n
          entered into about five months after the publication of section 4<\/p>\n
          notification in the case before us. The High Court rejected the<\/p>\n
          said instance on the ground that the contents of the sale deed<\/p>\n
          were not proved although the execution thereof was duly<\/p>\n
          proved. In view of the evidence led after remand, it cannot be<\/p>\n
          disputed that this agreement of sale as well as the sale deed<\/p>\n
          have been duly proved and they have been duly marked as<\/p>\n
          exhibits. The High Court further took the view that in any event<\/p>\n
          no reliance could be placed on this instance of sale because the<\/p>\n
          acquisition of the land in question before us was for the<\/p>\n
          construction of an industrial estate as Bhavnagar and such<\/p>\n
          construction was bound to have pushed up the price of land in<\/p>\n
          the surrounding area. There is, however, nothing in the<\/p>\n
          evidence to show that there was any sharp or speculative rise in<\/p>\n
          the price of the land after the acquisition and this has been<\/p>\n
          noticed by the High Court. It appears that under these<\/p>\n
          circumstances, the High Court was not justified in not taking<\/p>\n
          this instance into account at all as it has done on the ground<\/p>\n
          that it was a post-acquisition sale and could not be regarded as<\/p>\n
          a comparable instance at all. The market value of a piece of<\/p>\n
          property for purposes of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act
\n RFA No. 3071 of     1993                                      15<\/span><\/p>\n
          is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands<\/p>\n
          from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer,<\/p>\n
          dealing at arm’s length; Prices fetched for similar lands with<\/p>\n
          similar    advantages   and   potentialities   under     bona fide<\/p>\n
          transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary<\/p>\n
          notification are the usual and, indeed the best, evidence of<\/p>\n
          market value (See. Administrator General of west Bengal Vs.<\/p>\n
          Collector, Varansi (1988) 2 SCC 150.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                 5.      Keeping       these<\/p>\n
          factors in mind we feel that although the instance reflected in<\/p>\n
          the sale deed (Ex.152) and the agreement for sale in connection<\/p>\n
          with that land, pertains to a sale after the acquisition, it can be<\/p>\n
          fairly regarded as reasonably proximate to the acquisition and,<\/p>\n
          in the absence of any evidence to show that there was any<\/p>\n
          speculative or sharp rise in the prices after the acquisition, the<\/p>\n
          agreement to sell dated January 21, 1957 must be regarded as<\/p>\n
          furnishing some light on the market value of the land on the<\/p>\n
          date of publication of section 4 notification. However, certain<\/p>\n
          factors have to be taken         into account and appropriate<\/p>\n
          deductions made from the rate disclosed in the said agreement<\/p>\n
          to sell in estimating the market value of the land with which we<\/p>\n
          are concerned at the date of the acquisition. One of these<\/p>\n
          factors is that there seems to have been some rise in the price of<\/p>\n
          land on account of the acquisition of the land in question before
\n RFA No. 3071 of      1993                                      16<\/span><\/p>\n
             us for purposes of constructing an industrial estate. Another<\/p>\n
             factor is that the land proposed to be purchased under the said<\/p>\n
             agreement to sell was adjoining the land of the purchaser and<\/p>\n
             purchaser might have paid some extra amount for the<\/p>\n
             convenience of getting the neighbouring land.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in the case of Administrative General of West Bengal Vs.<\/p>\n
Collector, Varansi 1988 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 480, wherein again<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that the subsequent sale<\/p>\n
transaction in the area can be looked into to see whether there was upper<\/p>\n
trend of the price of the land.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
judgment of this court in the case of Union of India Vs. Jaswant Singh<\/p>\n
1992 (1) Recent Revenue Reports 300, wherein this court was pleased to<\/p>\n
lay down that post dated sale transaction within one year of the relevant<\/p>\n
date can also be relied upon to assess the market value of the acquired land,<\/p>\n
and finally reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land acquisition<\/p>\n
Officer, Poona and anr. 1988 (2) Recent Revenue Reports 136 wherein<\/p>\n
again Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under:-<\/p>\n
             \"(1) A reference under         section      18 of the Land\n\n             Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award       and the\n\n             Court cannot take into account        the     material     relied\n\n             upon by the Land         Acquisition officer in his Award\n RFA No. 3071 of    1993                                          17<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
          unless the same material is produced and proved before the<\/p>\n
          Court.\n<\/p>\n
              (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is<\/p>\n
          not to be       treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or<\/p>\n
          exposed to challenge       before          the   Court hearing the<\/p>\n
          Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
          officer and the        material utilised by him for making his<\/p>\n
          valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced<\/p>\n
          and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to sit in<\/p>\n
          appeal       against the Award,           approve     or    disapprove<\/p>\n
          its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse<\/p>\n
          the conclusion       reached by the Land Acquisition officer, as<\/p>\n
          if it were an appellate court.\n<\/p>\n
             (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original<\/p>\n
          proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh<\/p>\n
          on the basis of the material produced before it.\n<\/p>\n
             (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to<\/p>\n
          show that the price offered for his land in           the award     is<\/p>\n
          inadequate on        the basis of         the    materials produced<\/p>\n
          in the Court. Of     course         the    materials placed       and<\/p>\n
          proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this<\/p>\n
          purpose.\n<\/p>\n
              (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be<\/p>\n
          determined as on the crucial date                of        publication
\n RFA No. 3071 of        1993                                        18<\/span><\/p>\n
          of the notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act<\/p>\n
          (dates of Notifications under secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).<\/p>\n
               (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date<\/p>\n
          line of valuation (date of publication of notification under<\/p>\n
          sec. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to<\/p>\n
          purchase land from the open market and is                prepared      to<\/p>\n
          pay      a    reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be<\/p>\n
          assumed that            the vendor is willing     to sell the        land<\/p>\n
          at a reasonable price.\n<\/p>\n
                (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to<\/p>\n
          correlate       the market value reflected in           the         most<\/p>\n
          comparable          instance which provides the index           of market<\/p>\n
          value.\n<\/p>\n
          (8) Only genuine instances have to be             taken into account.<\/p>\n
          (Some times instances are rigged up in                anticipation of<\/p>\n
          Acquisition of land).\n<\/p>\n
                  (9) Even post notification instances can be taken into<\/p>\n
          account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3) the<\/p>\n
          acquisition itself has not motivated          the purchaser        to pay<\/p>\n
          a higher price on account of         the resultant          improvement<\/p>\n
          in       development prospects.\n<\/p>\n
               (l0) The most comparable instances out of the genuine<\/p>\n
          instances have to be             identified     on    the       following<\/p>\n
          considerations:\n<\/p>\n
 RFA No. 3071 of    1993                                         19<\/span><\/p>\n
                  (i) proximity from time angle,<\/p>\n
                  (ii) proximity from situation angle.\n<\/p>\n
          (11) Having identified the instances which provide the        index<\/p>\n
          of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as<\/p>\n
          the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition<\/p>\n
          may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus<\/p>\n
          and minus factors vis-a-vis         land under      acquisition by<\/p>\n
          placing the two in juxtaposition.\n<\/p>\n
              (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be<\/p>\n
          drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be<\/p>\n
          evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser<\/p>\n
          would do.\n<\/p>\n
               (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has<\/p>\n
          thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the<\/p>\n
          instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for<\/p>\n
          minus factors.\n<\/p>\n
             (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be<\/p>\n
                  undertaken in      a common sense manner as a prudent<\/p>\n
          man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate<\/p>\n
          some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:<\/p>\n
            Plus factors                Minus factors\n\n          1. smallness of size.               1. largeness of area.\n\n          2. proximity to a road.           2. situation in the interior at a\n                                           distance from the Road.\n RFA No. 3071 of   1993                                          20<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n          3. frontage on a road.              3. narrow strip of land with\n                                              very small frontage compared\n                                              to depth.\n\n          4. nearness to developed area.       4. lower level requiring the\n                                             depressed portion to be\n                                             filled up.\n\n          5. regular shape.          5. remoteness from developed\n                                       locality.\n\n          6. level vis-a-vis land       6. some special disadvantageous\n          under acquisition.            factor which would deter a\n                                        purchaser.\n\n          7. special value for an owner\n            of an adjoining property\n            to whom it may have some\n            very special advantage.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
              (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on<\/p>\n
          the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or<\/p>\n
          rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide.<\/p>\n
          For instance, take    the factor regarding the size. A building<\/p>\n
          plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared<\/p>\n
          with a large tract or block        of land of say l0000 sq. yds or<\/p>\n
          more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many,<\/p>\n
          a       large block of land      will have     to be developed by<\/p>\n
          preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space,<\/p>\n
          plotting out smaller      plots,          waiting for purchasers<\/p>\n
          (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the<\/p>\n
          hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by<\/p>\n
          making a deduction by way of an allowance at          an
\n RFA No. 3071 of        1993                                           21<\/span><\/p>\n
            appropriate rate ranging approx.        between 20% to 50% to<\/p>\n
            account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands<\/p>\n
            and plotting out small plots. The           discounting will to<\/p>\n
            some       extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or<\/p>\n
            urban area, whether building            activity     is    picking up,<\/p>\n
            and whether waiting period during which the capital of<\/p>\n
            the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or<\/p>\n
            shorter and the        attendant hazards.\n<\/p>\n
               (16) Every          case must be dealt with on its own fact<\/p>\n
            pattern bearing       in mind   all these     factors as       a   prudent<\/p>\n
            purchaser of land in which        position the     Judge must place<\/p>\n
            himself.\n<\/p>\n
               (17) These          are general guidelines to be applied with<\/p>\n
            understanding informed with common sense.”\n<\/p>\n
            On the basis of the above settled law learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants contended that the learned reference court should have relied<\/p>\n
upon Ex.P.14 i.e. the award passed qua the land acquired in village Fatehpur<\/p>\n
with respect to the notification issued on 19.9.1983, wherein the market<\/p>\n
value was assessed at Rs.2,25,000\/- lacs (Rupees two lacs twenty five<\/p>\n
thousand only) per acre, especially when it was not disputed that the quality<\/p>\n
of the land in village Fatehpur was similar to the one under acquisition.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, contended that even if<\/p>\n
reasonable cut of 33          percent was imposed thereon the market value<\/p>\n
assessed by the learned reference court deserves to be enhanced. Learned
\n RFA No. 3071 of     1993                                       22<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants contended that even if other transactions were<\/p>\n
taken into consideration i.e. the award qua the land acquired in the year<\/p>\n
1973 and increase of Rs.20,000\/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per year<\/p>\n
was added to it as proved on record still the market value could not be<\/p>\n
assessed at less than Rs.1.66 lacs (Rupees one lac sixty six thousand only)<\/p>\n
per acre. Learned counsel for the appellants, thus, contended that the appeals<\/p>\n
deserve to be accepted and the market value of the land be enhanced to<\/p>\n
Rs.1.66,000\/- (Rupees one lac sixty six thousand only) lacs per acre.<\/p>\n
            Mr. Rajiv Kawatra, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General,<\/p>\n
Haryana supported     the award of the learned reference court by raising the<\/p>\n
plea that post notification sale instances are not to be taken into<\/p>\n
consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land.<\/p>\n
            In support of this contention reliance was placed on the<\/p>\n
judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in the case of Zile Singh<\/p>\n
and others Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2004 (4) PLR 746 wherein this<\/p>\n
court was pleased to lay down as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “14. The argument of learned counsel representing the<\/p>\n
             appellants prima facie     appears to be attractive but when<\/p>\n
             examined in detail, the same is found to be of no substance,<\/p>\n
             whatsoever. Insofar as Ex.P.18 is concerned, the same is a post<\/p>\n
             notification transaction and thus, cannot be taken into<\/p>\n
             consideration. Insofar as sale instances, Ex.P.15 and P.17 are<\/p>\n
             concerned the counsel has not shown to us as in which village<\/p>\n
             the lands pertaining to these transactions. Assuming that the
\n RFA No. 3071 of    1993                                        23<\/span><\/p>\n
            sale instances pertain to village Alipur itself, price of the same<\/p>\n
            would not work out to more than Rs.56,959\/- per acre. After<\/p>\n
            excluding registration charges, the same would come to<\/p>\n
            Rs.48,500\/- per acre and even if a cut of 10 to 12% is applied<\/p>\n
            on the said sale instances, being small in nature, by and large,<\/p>\n
            the market value would be the same, which has been assessed<\/p>\n
            by the learned Single Judge and rather it may come to even<\/p>\n
            less than one assessed by learned Single Judge.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in the case of V.G.Kulkarni Vs. SPL Land Acquisition Officer<\/p>\n
(1996) 8 SCC 301 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to<\/p>\n
uphold the order of the High Court vide which post notification sale<\/p>\n
transactions were rejected by the High Court. The order passed by Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “3.   The question, therefore, is: whether the High Court has<\/p>\n
            committed any error of law or applied wrong principle of law<\/p>\n
            in determining     the compensation? The High Court in para<\/p>\n
            37 found that the sale deeds Exs.P-2 to P-7 being of the year<\/p>\n
            1985, i.e., 3-1\/2 years after the notification published under<\/p>\n
            Section 4(1), were not comparable       sales   Moreover. those<\/p>\n
            sale deeds related to     small       corner       plots   in   a<\/p>\n
            developed area.     Therefore, they do not offer any comparable<\/p>\n
            sales. The High Court    also found that though the lands are<\/p>\n
            situated towards the University area which is developing,
\n RFA No. 3071 of   1993                                       24<\/span><\/p>\n
          actual development would take         some more years. There<\/p>\n
          is no evidence of actual development taking place near the land<\/p>\n
          in question. Under        those circumstances, in the absence<\/p>\n
          of any comparable sale instances, the High          Court relied<\/p>\n
          upon determination of the market price at Rs.56,000\/- per acre<\/p>\n
          in respect of nearby lands which were the subject-matter of<\/p>\n
          MFANos.678 to 681 of 1989 and which were also disposed<\/p>\n
          of by the High Court on that day, viz., September 25, 1992<\/p>\n
          and added 20% more as the notification in those cases was<\/p>\n
          published on 30.10.1981 while the notification in this case<\/p>\n
          is of   January 1982. Thus the High Court determined the<\/p>\n
          compensation in this case at the rate of Rs.67,200\/- per acre. It<\/p>\n
          can be seen from the evidence on record that as on the date of<\/p>\n
          the notification the acquired lands did not possess building<\/p>\n
          potentiality. In view of the evidence on record that it would<\/p>\n
          have taken 3 to 4 years for actual development of area, the<\/p>\n
          finding recorded by the Reference Court       that the      lands<\/p>\n
          possessed building potentiality was not correct. It       appears<\/p>\n
          that the learned District Judge did not correctly appreciate<\/p>\n
          the legal position. Therefore, determination of    the<\/p>\n
          compensation by the Reference Court on the basis that the<\/p>\n
          lands had already acquired building potentiality was not at all<\/p>\n
          proper. No willing purchaser would have purchased the land<\/p>\n
          at the rate of Rs.3,90,000\/- per acre., The acid   test   of the
\n RFA No. 3071 of       1993                                       25<\/span><\/p>\n
            court sitting in the arm chair of a willing prudent purchaser in<\/p>\n
            open market is whether he would be prepared to purchase the<\/p>\n
            land at          the rate about to be determined by the court. The<\/p>\n
            sale deeds, Exs.P-2 and P-3 relied upon by the claimants<\/p>\n
            were not comparable sales as found by the High Court. The<\/p>\n
            lands were sold in plots near      the acquired lands in 1985,<\/p>\n
            only after further development had taken place in that area.<\/p>\n
            Therefore, those two instances of sale could not have afforded<\/p>\n
            a reasonable basis for             determination                 of<\/p>\n
            compensation. The High Court,           therefore,    has     not<\/p>\n
            committed any error of law in rejecting those sale instances.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that no<\/p>\n
comparison of the price of the land in the developed areas can be the basis<\/p>\n
for assessment of the market value of the acquisition of agricultural land as<\/p>\n
in that eventuality deduction up to 86 per cent is required to be made as<\/p>\n
held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S.Shivadevamma and<\/p>\n
Ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and<\/p>\n
Anr. 1996 LACC 326.\n<\/p>\n
            On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions<\/p>\n
raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. No reliance can be placed<\/p>\n
on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mehta Ravindrarai<\/p>\n
Ajitrai through his heirs and Legal Representatives and Ors. Vs. State<\/p>\n
of Gujarat (supra); judgment in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas<\/p>\n
Vs. Special Land acquisition Officer, Poona and anr. (supra) or the
\n RFA No. 3071 of      1993                                            26<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment of this court in the case of Shri Tara Singh (deceased) Vs. The<\/p>\n
State of Punjab (supra) and Union of India Vs. Jaswant Singh (supra)<\/p>\n
for the reason that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.G.Kulkarni<\/p>\n
Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) has been pleased to lay<\/p>\n
down that the post notification transactions cannot be taken into<\/p>\n
consideration for determining the market value.\n<\/p>\n
             It is settled principle of law that under Article 141 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court creates a binding<\/p>\n
precedent on all the courts in the country. However, in the event of conflict<\/p>\n
between the two judgments on any question of law or interpretation of<\/p>\n
statute it is the later view which needs to be followed provided both the<\/p>\n
decisions are of the Bench of equal strength. In the event, the conflict is<\/p>\n
between the judgment of a Constitution Bench rendered earlier and an<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Division Bench delivered later in time the Constitution Bench<\/p>\n
judgment is to be followed under the doctrine of stair decisis. Otherwise<\/p>\n
where conflict is between a larger Bench judgment and a Bench of lesser<\/p>\n
strength, the opinion of the larger Bench is to be followed notwithstanding<\/p>\n
the fact that the decision of the larger Bench is earlier in time.<\/p>\n
             Similarly, the judgments of this court relied upon by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant are of Single Bench, whereas Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this court has taken the contrary view. Once the post sale<\/p>\n
transaction\/awards are not taken into consideration then it would be seen<\/p>\n
that the court below has rightly assessed the market value by relying upon<\/p>\n
the award passed with respect of acquisition of land                  under prior
\n RFA No. 3071 of      1993                                       27<\/span><\/p>\n
notification by giving reasonable increase in view of the potentiality.<\/p>\n
             The learned court has also taken into consideration the sale<\/p>\n
transaction though representing the      small pieces of land in order to<\/p>\n
determine the market value of the land, therefore, the assessment of the<\/p>\n
market value by the learned reference court does not call for any<\/p>\n
interference or enhancement in compensation as contended by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
             The post notification instances can only be taken into<\/p>\n
consideration if there is no other material with the court, or to assess the<\/p>\n
potentiality of land, but in case    prior instances are available, then the<\/p>\n
market value cannot be assessed by placing reliance on post notification<\/p>\n
sale instances.\n<\/p>\n
             It may be noticed that the award passed by the learned<\/p>\n
reference court is based on the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in     the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land<\/p>\n
acquisition Officer, Poona and anr. (supra) except that post notifications<\/p>\n
cannot be the basis for determining the market value except to assess the<\/p>\n
potentiality of the land.\n<\/p>\n
             Finding no merit in these appeals, are ordered to be dismissed,<\/p>\n
but with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.11.2009                                         (Vinod K.Sharma)\nrp                                                      Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009 RFA No. 3071 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No. 3071 of 1993 Date of Decision: 20.11.2009 Siria ..Appellant Vs. The State of Haryana ..Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.M.L.Sharma & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18525","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSiria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-03T03:45:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-03T03:45:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":6519,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-03T03:45:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-03T03:45:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-03T03:45:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009"},"wordCount":6519,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009","name":"Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-03T03:45:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/siria-vs-the-state-of-haryana-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Siria vs The State Of Haryana on 20 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18525","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18525"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18525\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18525"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18525"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18525"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}