2016 (5) TMI 1614 - HC - Indian Laws

Enhancement of compensation of acquired land - HELD THAT - In its recent judgment in the case of ASHOK KUMAR ANR. ETC VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA 2016 (2) TMI 1376 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the scope of Section 25 of the Act and duty cast on the courts to grant just and reasonable compensation of the acquired land, even more than what was claimed by the landowners, observed The pre-amended provision put a cap on the maximum; the compensation by court should not be beyond the amount claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, put a cap on the minimum; compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner. Although it is a matter of record that revenue estate of villages Dhankot and Budhera were adjoining with each other, yet, even if it is presumed, however, for the sake of argument only, that there is some distance between two pieces of land acquired out of the revenue estate of village Dhankot and the acquired land in the present cases, then the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashrafi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 2013 (4) TMI 1000 - SUPREME COURT , Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2013 (12) TMI 1745 - SUPREME COURT and Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer and another, 2001 (1) TMI 1024 - SUPREME COURT clearly supports the claim of the landowners. The landowners are held entitled to receive the compensation for their acquired land at the uniform rate of ₹ 2,80,00,000/- per acre, from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Besides this, the landowners shall be entitled for all the statutory benefits available to them under the relevant provisions of the Act. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Market value assessment.
2. Potentiality and location of the acquired land.
3. Evidence produced by the respondent-State.
4. Additional evidence and judicial precedents.
5. Entitlement to enhanced compensation.
6. Statutory benefits and procedural directions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Market Value Assessment:
The primary issue was the assessment of the market value of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) initially assessed the market value at ?25 lakhs per acre, which was later increased by the reference court to ?41,81,500 per acre. The landowners sought further enhancement, resulting in the High Court's decision to partly allow the appeals and enhance the compensation to ?2,80,00,000 per acre, considering the market value of adjoining village Dhankot.

2. Potentiality and Location of the Acquired Land:
The court noted the prime location and immense potentiality of the acquired land, situated on Delhi-Badli road, close to Delhi Border, and within the vicinity of NCR. The land was also near the Urban areas of Gurgaon City and KMP Expressway. The court emphasized the high potential value of the land for private builders and its proximity to fully developed residential sectors and essential facilities like hospitals and educational institutions.

3. Evidence Produced by the Respondent-State:
The evidence presented by the State, including sale deeds Ex. R1 to R3, was found to be less than the amount awarded by LAC and deemed undervalued or distress sales. The court excluded these sale deeds from consideration based on the Supreme Court's observations in Lal Chand vs. Union of India, which stated that undervalued or distress sales should be excluded from assessing the market value.

4. Additional Evidence and Judicial Precedents:
The court allowed additional evidence, including an award dated 29.9.2012 (Annexure A-1) and site plans (Annexure A-2 and A-3), which were not available at the time of the reference court's decision. The court also considered the notification dated 12.5.1995, declaring the land as a controlled area, and the Final Development Plan 2021 A.D. The court relied on judicial precedents like State of Goa vs. Gopal Baburao Gaudo and others, and the Supreme Court's judgment in Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana, emphasizing the entitlement to the best price for acquired land.

5. Entitlement to Enhanced Compensation:
The court concluded that the landowners were entitled to the benefit of the judicial precedent in Ram Chander's case, which assessed the market value of adjoining village Dhankot at ?2,80,00,000 per acre. The court rejected the State's argument that only the time gap increase should be considered, stating that denying the benefit of a judicial precedent would be unjustified.

6. Statutory Benefits and Procedural Directions:
The court directed that the landowners should receive compensation at the uniform rate of ?2,80,00,000 per acre from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The court also issued procedural directions for the Land Acquisition Collector to inform landowners about their entitlement, instruct them to open savings bank accounts, and deposit the compensation cheques in these accounts, following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Pran Sukh and others.

Conclusion:
The court's judgment comprehensively addressed the issues of market value assessment, potentiality and location of the land, evidence evaluation, entitlement to enhanced compensation, and procedural directions, ensuring that the landowners received fair and just compensation for their acquired land.