Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 673 (PNJ)

Manohar Lal v. Haryana State

2000-07-06

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2000
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. - By this judgment I propse to dispose of 38 claimants appeals which are listed at Item No. 1017-A and 1017-C of the regular list of this Court. 2. The Government of State of Haryana issued two notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, of the same date i.e. 25.9.1989. Notification No. 3097 related to acquisition of 89.75 acres of land in village Patti Kaisth Seth, Had Bast No. 24 and Patti Gaddar, Had Bast No. 19, while notification No. 3096 related to acquisition of 57.26 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Patti Kaisth Seth, Had Bast No. 24, both falling in Tehsil and District Kaithal. In furtherance thereto notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 24.9.1990 in both the cases. Upon actual possession being taken, the land under notification No. 3097 was found to be 87.75 acres only. Both these lands were acquired for a public purpose, namely, development and utilisation of land as residential, commercial and institutional in Sector 19 Part-III and Sector 19, Part-II, respectively in District Kaithal which was being developed by Haryana Urban Development Authority under the provisions of HUDA Act, 1987. 3-4. The Land Acquisition Collector upon following the due process and hearing the objections of the claimants whose lands had been acquired vide his award No. 15 of 1991-92 dated 26.2.1992 and Award No. 14 of 1991-92 dated 26.2.1992, granted uniform rate of compensation irrespective of the nature of the land at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. The claimants felt dis- satisfied from the said awards and preferred references under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal. The parties led evidence and upon hearing the counsel for the parties the learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide his judgment and award dated 8.3.1996 and 10.3.1997 enhanced the compensation and awarded the following amounts to the claimants :- A. In relation to the notification No. 3097 :- Rs. 1,18,800/- per acre for lands at villages Patti Kaisth Seth, H.B. No. 24 and Patti Gaddar H.B. No. 19. B. In relation to notification No. 3096 :- Rs. 2,16,000/- per acre for lands of village Patti Kaisth Seth, H.B. No. 24. 5. 1,18,800/- per acre for lands at villages Patti Kaisth Seth, H.B. No. 24 and Patti Gaddar H.B. No. 19. B. In relation to notification No. 3096 :- Rs. 2,16,000/- per acre for lands of village Patti Kaisth Seth, H.B. No. 24. 5. As already noticed, 38 claimants have filed the above 38 regular first appeals which are being dealt together by this judgment, the lead case being RFA No. 1206 of 1996 (Manohar Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others) and RFA No. 2010 of 1997 (Smt. Krishna Bajaj and others v. State of Haryana). 6. It must be noticed at this stage that in both these bunches of appeals the State has chosen neither to file any appeals nor preferred any cross objections even after service of the appeals filed by the claimants upon them. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana, upon taking instructions; also stated that the Government of Haryana has not filed any appeals in these two cases. In other words, the Government has accepted both the awards under appeals. On the other hand, the claimants were not satisfied with the awards pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge and on the basis of the evidence produced on record they pray for further enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to them for acquisition of their respective lands. 7. The first and fore-most thing now to be seen is what evidence the parties have led on record. The claimants examined eight witnesses including Abhey Kumar PW6 to prove location and potential of the land. PW3 Nathi Ram produced letter of allotment Ex.PW3/A while PW 2 Rakesh Kumar proved the site plan Ex.P.1. Other claimants also stepped into the witness box. The claimants produced on record sale deeds Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW 6/9, Ex.P13 to Ex.P.15, Ex.P.17 to Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.40 to P.44 Awards Ex.P.16, Ex.P.45 and Ex.PW6/25 were also produced on record. Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.12 are the copies of the advertisement for sale of plots published by HUDA. The respondents only examined one witness RW1 Bishambar Patwari who tendered sale-deeds Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.9 on record and also produced award Ex.R.1 dated 28.9.1993. The learned Additional District Judge considered the above evidence in Manohar Lals case and relying upon the judgments of the High Court in R.F.A. No. 2447 of 1990 Khayali Ram, v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) R.R.R. 65. The learned Additional District Judge considered the above evidence in Manohar Lals case and relying upon the judgments of the High Court in R.F.A. No. 2447 of 1990 Khayali Ram, v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) R.R.R. 65. decided on 29.9.1993 Ex.P.16 and R.F.A. No. 1119 of 1990 Khan Chand v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) R.R.R. 739, decided on 28.9.1993, held as under :- "Perusal of order dated 29.9.1993 Ex.P.16 passed by the Honble High Court in RFA No. 2447 of 1990 titled "Khayali v. State of Haryana, 1994(2) R.R.R. 65" shows that 148 acres 6 Kanals situated in village Patti Gaddar, Dod Kheri and Narar, Tehsil Kaithal Distt. Kurukshetra (now District Kaithal) was acquired by issuance of notification on 21.9.1998 under Section 4 of the Act, for setting up Kaithal Cooperative Sugar Mills. LAC vide his award dated 14.11.1988 assessed the market value at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. On reference under section 18 of the Act, the then learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra, determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- relying upon the award dated 28.9.1993 passed by Honble High Court in RFA No., 1119 of 1990 titled Khan Chand v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) R.R.R. 739 in which case the land belonged to Patti Kaisth Seth Kaithal which was acquired for development of residential and commercial purposes vide notification dated 14.7.1982. In Khan Chands case (supra), learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra, evaluated the land of Patti Kaisth Seth Kaithal at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per acre. Land acquired in Khan Chands case was situated at a distance of 2 furlongs from Kaithal city. Honble High Court modified the award in Khan Chands case and evaluated the land at the rate of Rs. 86,400/- per acre Ex.P.45. Honble High Court held Ex.P.16 that land owners are entitled to an increase of Rs. 16,400/- per acre over and above the value which has been put by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kurukshetra, in the impugned award dated 31.8.1990. Honble High Court also considered this aspect that the land was situated at a distance of 3-4 kilometres from City Kaithal but kept in view the difference of two dates of notification and decided the case. In Khan Chands case (supra) land was acquired on 14.7.1982 whereas the land in Khayalis case was acquired on 21.9.1988. Honble High Court also considered this aspect that the land was situated at a distance of 3-4 kilometres from City Kaithal but kept in view the difference of two dates of notification and decided the case. In Khan Chands case (supra) land was acquired on 14.7.1982 whereas the land in Khayalis case was acquired on 21.9.1988. Since the increase had been given in Khan Chands case, Honble High Court observed that there is no reason to deprive the land owners in the case of Khayali to seek enhancement on the basis of award given in Khan Chands case. In one sale instance, 1 Kanal 7 marlas (land) situated in Patti Gaddar was sold for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- bringing out the sale price at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre. In view of the smallness of the area of the sale transaction, the Honble High Court applied necessary cut and granted premium for the price rise between the date of sale deed of 1 Kanal 7 marla land and the date of notification acquiring the land (in Khayalis case) which difference was of 9 months. After applying the cut and after giving necessary increase, price at the rate of Rs. 1,16,400/- per acre was allowed by the Honble High Court. Honble High Court also observed that this Court might not have felt inclined even to give an increase of Rs. 16,400/- per acre but for the fact that the notification in Khan Chands case (supra) was issued in the year 1982 whereas the notification in the present cases was issued in the year 1988 and therefore, Honble High Court evaluated the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,16,400/- per acre, just and reasonable rate (Ex.P.16)." "In my considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if an increase of Rs. 2400/- is given over and above the rate of Rs. 1,16,400/- allowed by the Honble High Court in RFA No. 2447 of 1990 titled "Khayali v. State" vide Ex. P.16. After applying the ratio of increase of Khayalis case (supra), I hold the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification i.e. 25.9.1989 Rs. 1,18,800/- per acre and I order accordingly. Hence, this issue is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent State." 8. P.16. After applying the ratio of increase of Khayalis case (supra), I hold the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification i.e. 25.9.1989 Rs. 1,18,800/- per acre and I order accordingly. Hence, this issue is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent State." 8. In this case the various sale-deeds i.e. Ex.PW 6/1 to Ex.PW 6/9, Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.23 and Ex.P40 to Ex.P.44 with the exclusion of Ex.P.16 were not admissible in evidence as vendor or vendee had not been examined by the claimants. Furthermore valid reasons were given for rejecting these sale deeds as they related to a period more than one year prior to the acquisition; they were small pieces of land and furthermore their location had not been proved either by Ex.P.1 or by examining the vendor or vendees. Thus, in accordance with the law settled by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the cases of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. P. Venkaiah and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2600 : J.T. 1997(5) SC 362 and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2625 these sale instances cannot be taken into consideration and had rightly been ignored by the learned reference Court. For the same reasons, Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.9 are also liable to rejected as they were merely tendered. 9. It will be appropriate at this stage to revert to the facts of Smt. Krishna Bajajs case. The notifications under Section 4 and 6 are of the same dates and relate to one of the two villages, subject matter of Manohar Lals case. In this case the Collector had awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for all kinds of lands but it was enhanced to Rs. 2,16,00/- per acre by the learned Additional District Judge vide his award dated 10.3.1997. The learned Judge while relying upon the judgments of the High Court in Khan Chands case (supra) as well as Khayali Rams (supra) recorded the following findings while enhancing the compensation :- "The Honble High Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 86,400/- fixed by LAC in respect of the land of sector 19 Part-I in respect of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1982, when it was only a Sub-Division. This argument of the ld. 40,000/- to Rs. 86,400/- fixed by LAC in respect of the land of sector 19 Part-I in respect of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1982, when it was only a Sub-Division. This argument of the ld. counsels for the petitioners also carries weight that when in the year 1982, the Govt. gave the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre in respect of land of sector 19 Part I, and the Govt. itself gave the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre in this case in the year 1989 of the land adjoining the land of sector 19 Part-I then they also deserve this proportional increase on Rs. 86,400/- fixed for the land of Sector 9 Part-I. The location of the land in question is a little better than the land of the sector 19 Part-I as the acquired land abuts new bypass in the east and Kaithal-Kurukshetra Road on the North and thus has better potential for the purposes of residences and commerce than the land of the sector 19 Part-I. The location of the acquired land is also certainly better than the land of Sector 19, Part-III in respect of which the rate of Rs. 1,18,000/- per acre was given by this Court vide Ex.R.1. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances viz. potentiality. Kaithal was sub-division in 1982 when the land of Sector 19-I was acquired and it had been declared Distt. headquarter in August, 1989 just before the acquisition of this land in question; the LAC himself gave the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre in 1989 against the rate of Rs. 40,000/- in 1982 given of adjoining land of Sector 19 Part-I rising trend in prices per year; I deem it just and proper to grant the ratio of increase given by LAC in 1989 over the rate given by him in 1982. He had given the rate of Rs. 40,000/- in 1982 of adjoining land of Sector 19 Part-I and has given the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- in 1989 in this case. The rate of Rs. 40,000/- has been raised to Rs. 86,400/-. Applying the ratio of this increase, the rate in present case comes to Rs. 2,16,000/- per acre. Even the Honble High Court has admittedly raised the rate of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- in 1989 in this case. The rate of Rs. 40,000/- has been raised to Rs. 86,400/-. Applying the ratio of this increase, the rate in present case comes to Rs. 2,16,000/- per acre. Even the Honble High Court has admittedly raised the rate of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 86,400/- in respect of land of Sector 19 Part-I effective from 1982. As such, I hold that the market value of the acquired land at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act in 1989 was Rs. 2,16,000/- per acre. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent(s)." 10. The evidence led by the parties in this case was very limited. The claimants examined only three witnesses including PW2 Iswar Chand and Harbans Lal who proved the sale instances and sale deeds Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-5. The claimants also produced Ex.P-7 advertisement issued by HUDA and the award granted by the Court in Ram Narains case as Ex.P-1. The respondents led no oral evidence but tendered on record Ex.R-1 the award dated 8.3.1996 in Manohar Lals case (supra). 11. Out of all the sale instances produced on record, the claimants had proved Ex.P-2 the sale deed dated 23.12.1986 where land measuring about 4 Kanals 12 marlas was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/-. Ex.P-5 was proved by PW-3 wherein vide sale deed dated 2.7.1990 the land measuring about 15 kanals 12 marlas was sold for Rs. 11,26,000/-. Other sale deeds are not admissible in evidence as they were not proved in accordance with law as neither vendee nor vendor was examined. The claimants did not bother to even examine any other witness to prove the contents and consideration passed there-under. Ex.P-5 can also be not taken into consideration by the Court while determining the fair market value of the land in question as the notification is nearly one year after the land in question was acquired. As such this sale deed can also be not considered. In other words all sale-deeds except Ex.P-2 are liable to be rejected. 12. Ex.P-5 can also be not taken into consideration by the Court while determining the fair market value of the land in question as the notification is nearly one year after the land in question was acquired. As such this sale deed can also be not considered. In other words all sale-deeds except Ex.P-2 are liable to be rejected. 12. Location and potential of the land :- Location and potential of the lands in both these cases can be discussed together as they are adjacent to each other and have been acquired for a common purpose namely for the development and construction of residential, commercial and institutional area of Sector 19 Part-II and Part- III respectively. PW1, PW2 and PW3 in the case of Manohar Lal have specifically stated in regard to location and potential of the land in question. It is even stated that the acquired land is just 1.5 kilometres away from the main bus stand. Ex.P-1 is the site plan in Manohar Lals case while Ex.PW6/1 is the site plan in Krishna Bajajs case. According to these documents Sector 19 Part 1 has already developed and abuts on the one side with Keodak minor canal, while on the other side there is a metalled road known as Kaithal- Kurukshetra road and still on the other side is metalled bye-pass road ultimately joining Kaithal-Ambala Road. The land acquired for Sector-19 Part-III is abutting the railway track and Kaithal-Karnal Road and is just across the minor canal and oppsite to the land acquired for Sector 19 Part-II. Nehar Colony is an developed area. There is police station and other buildings at some distance. The major part of the acquired land under these two notifications is stated to be within the municipal limits of Kaithal city. In other words, the land acquired has a good potential but the land acquired for development of Sector 19 Part-III is at some distance and major part of the acquired land abuts the railway track, while the land acquired for Sector 19 Part-II is better located and two sides surrounded by metalled roads and State Highways and minor canal on the other. PW-5 in Manohar Lals case has also given details in this regard and nothing was suggested to him in his cross examination which could destroy his testimony in this regard. PW-5 in Manohar Lals case has also given details in this regard and nothing was suggested to him in his cross examination which could destroy his testimony in this regard. Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12 are the brochures and advertisements issued by HUDA in the year 1985 which show that the areas around the town had developed and it gave an indication for allotment of plots etc. showing the acquired lay-out plan of Sector-19 Part-I. 13. Learned counsel for the claimants have heavily relied upon Ex.PW-3/A and read in the light of Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 afore referred to contend that as HUDA was selling the developed plots at the rate of Rs. 675/- to Rs. 825/- per sq. metre, even after applying the principle of deduction, the claimants would be entitled to get much higher compensation than the one which had been awarded to them by the learned Courts below. Ex.PW3/A, a plot of 300 square metres, was sold for a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- as on 21.4.1989. Whether this document can be made the basis of determination by this Court of fair market value of the land in question is the real controversy, but however as far as this Court is concerned, it is no more res integra and stands decided by a detailed judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 1488 of 1994, decided on 25.5.2000 where it was held that it is not a safe guide for determining the market value. As such I have no hesitation in excluding this document from the zone of consideration of evidence. 14. Now I would revert to discussion on determination of fair market value of the land on the basis of admissible evidence. The learned Additional District Judge vide two different awards in relation to the acquisition of the land from the same village or adjacent village and for the same purpose for a notification of the same date has awarded different compensation. As is clear from the above conclusions arrived at the learned Judge has mainly adopted a different method of computation based on the same judgments and has given appropriate increase for the period in question. I have serious doubts whether the method of computation for determination of compensation adopted by the learned reference Court was valid and was called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. I have serious doubts whether the method of computation for determination of compensation adopted by the learned reference Court was valid and was called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. In the case of Krishna Bajaj, Ex.P.2 is the sale deed which has been proved in accordance with law. As per Ex.P.2 the value of the land would come to Rs. 3.39,130/- because this sale instance has been rejected by the learned reference Court for the reason that it relates to a very small piece of land. I do not think that it is a correct view. Sale of 4 kanals 12 marlas cannot be said to be sale of such a small piece of land that it may call for the rejection solely on the ground that it is a small piece of land and hence it is not relevant for determination of controversy in issue. Ex.P.2 has been clearly shown on Ex.PW6/A (Krishna Bajajs case) and has been proved by PW.2. The location of Ex.P.2 is just close to the land acquired for Sector 19 Part-I and at some distance from the Kaithal-Kurukshetra Road. Thus, this sale instance on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence and keeping in view the size of the land sold cannot be considered as irrelevant or inadmissible. Admittedly, the land of Ex.P.2 falls in the same revenue estate. 16. Ex.PW-6/25 is the same award as Ex.P.1 in Krishna Bajajs case. This is an award passed by the learned reference Court in the case of Ram Narain v. State of Haryana (RFA No. 1645 of 1995) on 25.9.1989 granting compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs, 2,70,000/- per acre in and around the land acquired for Sector 20. This document is under appeal before this Court and the appeals of the claimants as well as the State are listed at regular No. 1017. Similary, Ex.R.1 again an award dated 25.9.1989 is under appeal in Manohar Lals case. As such all these awards cannot form basis of determination of compensation as they are under challenge themselves. Resultantly, it will be appropriate at this stage of the proceedings to exclude these exhibits from the zone of consideration in so far as they should form basis of final determination of fair market value of the land in question. As such all these awards cannot form basis of determination of compensation as they are under challenge themselves. Resultantly, it will be appropriate at this stage of the proceedings to exclude these exhibits from the zone of consideration in so far as they should form basis of final determination of fair market value of the land in question. As far as Manohar Lals case is concerned, the entire evidence has already been discussed in great detail above. 17. In Krishna Bajajs case there is other admissible and relevant evidence while in the case of Manohar Lal, Ex.P.45 which is an award of the High Court for acquisition of the land in village Patti Kaisth Seth District Kaithal dated 14.7.1982 and where the compensation was awarded by the High Court vide its judgment dated 28.9.1993 at the rate of Rs. 86,000/- per acre. In this very case Ex.P.16 is another award given in the case of Khayali v. State of Haryana where the High Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,16,400/- per acre in village Patti Gaddar and Dedkheri, District Kithal vide notification dated 21.9.1998. The lands subject matter of the present appeals in both the above cases are from the revenue estates of village Patti Kaisth Seth and Patti Gaddar. 18. Out of the above two relevant judicial instances Ex.P.16 is nearer in point of time and also involves land of one of the villages, subject matter of the present acquisition. In the present cases notification under Section 4 was issued on 25.9.1989 and as such the claimants would be entitled to some enhancement on the strength of the judicial precedents for the intervening period of nearly 1 year and 4 days. For giving increase to the claimants the Court must satisfy itself that there was increasing trend in the price of the land, subject matter of acquisition. May be the sale deeds have been produced on record and some of which have even been proved, clearly show an increasing trend in the price of the land, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P5 are the predominant examples of such increase. 19. As for as Ex.P.16 is concerned, the High Court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,16,400/- per acre for an acquisition of 1988 only while relying upon the judgment tendered in that case Ex.P.12 (Khem Chand v. State of Haryana). 19. As for as Ex.P.16 is concerned, the High Court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,16,400/- per acre for an acquisition of 1988 only while relying upon the judgment tendered in that case Ex.P.12 (Khem Chand v. State of Haryana). In other words, the Court has to consider the evidence on record in the case of Khan Chand which is Ex.P.45 in the case of Manohar Lal. In Ex.P.45 the High Court had relied upon Ex.P.1 in that case which was a sale- deed of 18.12.1980, where the land measuring 1 Kanal was sold at the rate of Rs. 1,44,000/- per acre. Applying the deduction of 40% compensation of Rs. 86,400/- per acre was awarded by the High Court. 20. In other words, the principle followed by the High Court in both the afore-stated cases which are judicial precedents relevant and admissible, taking the highest sale-deed, which itself was relevant and admissible (it applied 40% cut and granted compensation in consonance with the two judgments of the High Court), I would apply the same principle as has been adopted and followed in the above cases to the relevant and admissible evidence on record in the present case. This would bring the Court back to Ex.P.2 which is the most material relevant piece of evidence keeping in view the point of time, area, location and potential in relation to the acquired land. As already noticed, vide Ex.P.2, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 3,39,130/- per acre and applying 40% cut the claimants would be entitled to receive a compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,03,478/-. 21. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the claimants that the acquired land is surrounded by developed areas; is abutting the State Highway/main roads and is within the municipal limits, as such the land abutting the roads should be granted higher compensation. Keeping in view the principles of law settled by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basant Kaur and others v. Union of India and others, 1997 L.A.C.C. 17, I consider it appropriate to grant different compensation to the claimants whose lands are contiguous to and are adjoining the main roads. Keeping in view the principles of law settled by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basant Kaur and others v. Union of India and others, 1997 L.A.C.C. 17, I consider it appropriate to grant different compensation to the claimants whose lands are contiguous to and are adjoining the main roads. The lands which are located within 100 metres (beyond the land falling under the scheduled roads area) of the main roads metalled Kaithal-Kurukshetra, new bye-pass and Kaithal-Karnal roads, would be granted higher compensation their lands being termed as group A lands. While, all other lands would be categorised as group B lands. It is clear from the record that the lands were acquired for common purpose namely, development of Sector 19 Part II and Part-III of Kaithal town, vide notification of the same date. Thus, to divide the lands on sector basis will not be reasonable or fair. It is a known fact that the lands which abut the main roads or the State highways fetch a higher price than the lands which are inside even in the developed area. Another factor which has weighed with the Court in granting different compensation to the claimants of group B lands is that major part of the lands for Sector 19 Part-III abuts the railways line as well as the minor canal in Sector 19 Part-II. The lands which are away from the Highway or the main roads, thus, cannot command the same price. Various sale deeds produced on record, though may not be admissible otherwise also indicate different value in various parts of the acquired land or the lands adjacent thereto. By applying the principles of permissible and reasonable guess work, the lands falling in group B would receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- less than the one awarded to group A land i.e. Rs. 1,83,478/- per acre. 22. In view of the above detailed discussion, I am of the considered view that appeals of the claimants in the case of Manohar Lal are partly allowed. The claimants of group A would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,03,478/- per acre, while the claimants whose lands fall in group B, would receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,83,378/- per acre. All the claimants would also be entitled to statutory benefits provided under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The claimants of group A would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,03,478/- per acre, while the claimants whose lands fall in group B, would receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,83,378/- per acre. All the claimants would also be entitled to statutory benefits provided under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. 23. In the case of Krishna Bajaj, the claimants have already been granted higher compensation than the one determined by this Court in the judgment (supra), but as there are no appeals or cross objections filed by the State of Haryana, the appeals of the claimants can at best be dismissed, which are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeals partly allowed.