9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SLP (C) No. 33257/2010), Civil Appeal Nos. 3346-3347/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11171-11172/2009), Civil Appeal Nos. 3348-3349/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3125-3126/2011), Civil Appeal Nos. 3350-3351/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 29721-29722/2009), Civil Appeal No. 3352/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31281/2009), Civil Appeal No. 8719 of 2010, Civil Appeal Nos. 3353-3433/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18744-18824/2008), Civil Appeal Nos. 3434-3450/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1089-1105/2008), Civil Appeal Nos. 3451-3452/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27923-27924/2008), Civil Appeal No. 3453/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 246/2009), Civil Appeal Nos. 3454-3455/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3367-3368/2010), Civil Appeal Nos. 3456-3458/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9268-9270/2011), Civil Appeal Nos. 3459-3488/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 28613-28642/2010), Civil Appeal Nos. 3489-3495/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 7233-7239/2011), Civil Appeal Nos. 3496-3516/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 35673-35693/2010), Civil Appeal Nos. 3517-3521/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12083-12087/2011), Civil Appeal Nos. 3522-3523/2013 (Arising out o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06), Civil Appeal No. 3633/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19419/2006), Civil Appeal No. 3634/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19489/2006), Civil Appeal No. 3635/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19603/2006), Civil Appeal No. 3636/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21851/2006), Civil Appeal No. 3637/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21850/2006), Civil Appeal No. 3638/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20188/2006), Civil Appeal No. 3639/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5509/2007), Civil Appeal No. 3640/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6175/2007), Civil Appeal No. 3641/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8129/2007), Civil Appeal No. 3642/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7001/2007), Civil Appeal No. 3643/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5571/2007), Civil Appeal No. 3644/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5895/2007), Civil Appeal No. 3645/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5572/2007), Civil Appeal No. 3646/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6167/2007), Civil Appeal No. 3647/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7002/2007), Civil Appeal No. 3648/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11527/2007), Civil Appeal No. 3649/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29447/2008), Civil Appeal No. 3650/2013 (Arising out of SLP ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal No. 3700/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19676/2007), Civil Appeal Nos. 3701-3704/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19539-19542/2007), Civil Appeal No. 3705/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20667/2007), Civil Appeal Nos. 3706-3738/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16372-16404/2008), Civil Appeal Nos. 3844-3852/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14459-14467/2013), (CC 2754), Civil Appeal No. 3740/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14426/2013), (CC 9752), Civil Appeal No. 3741/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6332/2007), Civil Appeal No. 3742/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6335/2007), Civil Appeal Nos. 3743-3762/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 1678-1697/2010), Civil Appeal Nos. 3763-3783/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13529-13549/2011), Civil Appeal Nos. 3784-3787/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15508-15511/2011), Civil Appeal No. 3788/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6584/2012), (CC 2620 of 2011), Civil Appeal Nos. 8654-8661, 8642-8645, 8637, 8638 and 8646-8653/2010, Civil Appeal Nos. 319-352, 423-424, 418, 419, 354-411 and 412-417/2011, Civil Appeal Nos. 3789-3792/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 33337-33340/2010), Civil Appeal Nos. 3793-3800/2013 (Arising out of SLP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Altamas Kabir, C.J.I. 1. All these matters involve a common question relating to claims for enhancement of compensation in respect of lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act , in several States, such as, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. In some of the Special Leave Petitions, leave has already been granted and they have been listed as Civil Appeals. Leave is also granted in all other Special Leave Petitions which are being heard together in this batch of matters. 2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken up the batch matters State-wise. The major number of cases are from the States of Punjab and Haryana and, accordingly, it was decided to take up the said matters first. We have, therefore, heard the matters relating to the State of Haryana before the other matters and for the said purpose, we have also selected some specific matters, the decision wherein would also govern the rest. Since in the State of Haryana, the lands acquired were from different districts, such as Faridabad, Ambala, Fatehabad, Hisar, Sonepat and Kurukshetra and under different Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er similar appeals, lands measuring 184.66 acres in village Mewla, Maharajpur, District Faridabad, were acquired for the development of Sector 45 in Faridabad. Notification was published under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 2nd August, 1989. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre for chahi lands and Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre for other lands. On a reference made by the land owners to the learned District Judge, Faridabad, under Section 18 of the 1894 Act, the Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 45/- per sq. yard against which the parties moved the High Court in First Appeal. 5. One of the other cases which was taken up separately was that of Smt. Kamlesh Kumari v. State of Haryana and Anr., being SLP (C) No. 28613-28642 of 2010, wherein 486.61 acres of land in village Mewla, Maharajpur, were also acquired. 6. Coming back to the decision in Ashrafi's case, the High Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 220/- per sq. yard in respect of the lands situated in village Mewla, Maharajpur, acquired for the purpose of establishing Sector 45, Faridabad. 7. It was sought to be urged that the compensation assessed was extremel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in village Ajronda acquired under Notification dated 5th June, 1992, for the development of Sector 20-B, Faridabad, compensation had been awarded at Rs. 392.50 per sq. yard. Mr. Gupta submitted that, in such circumstances, the compensation should have been assessed, if not at the said rate, at least at a figure near about the said rate. Mr. Gupta submitted that in yet another case regarding lands acquired from the same village by Notification dated 30th July, 1987, for constructing a link road from Delhi-Mathura road to Sector 46, Faridabad, compensation awarded was at the rate of Rs. 337.20 per sq. yard. 10. Mr. Gupta lastly referred to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Gurbax Singh (Dead) By L.Rs. and Anr. [(2008) 11 SCC 65], in which the decision of this Court in another case, viz., Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh [(2005) 12 SCC 564] was referred to and quoted. In paragraph 15 thereof, it was indicated that the entire area was in a stage of development and the different villages were capable of being developed in the same manner, as lands situated elsewhere. Mr. Gupta submitted that in the said decision, an enhancement of compensation by adding 12% per a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... area, if the market value is not taken at Rs. 48,00,000/- per acre, the value of sale transactions during the same period could also be taken into consideration in determining the compensation. According to Mr. Kapoor, the High Court took the average value of such transactions for the period 19th September, 1980 up to 3rd June, 1983. The average sale price was found to be Rs. 6,23,997/- per acre, which would, therefore, be the market value of the land during the period in question. An added increase of 12% per annum would give a figure of Rs. 7,82,746/- per acre. Accordingly, on the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, i.e., 10th February, 1984, the market value of the land would be Rs. 7,82,746/- per acre, even if the auction price of Rs. 48,00,000/- per acre is not taken into consideration. Mr. Kapoor submitted that the lands in question fell within the Municipal limits of Talwandi Bhai and no development would be required since the lands had been acquired for constructing a new grain market only. Hence, a deduction of 40% was unjustified in the circumstances. Mr. Kapoor, therefore, prayed that even if the final figure of the market value, as determined by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lands to be Rs. 209-213/- per sq. yard. Ms. Malhotra urged that it would be evident from the above that the High Court has erred in fixing the rate of compensation at Rs. 110/- per sq. yard, without any basis whatsoever, when Sale Deeds of even previous years and years contemporaneous to the acquisition, indicated a much higher valuation in respect of the acquired lands. Ms. Malhotra submitted that the valuation of the acquired lands was liable to be enhanced in a manner which was commensurate with the value of the lands, as would be evident from the various Sale Deeds produced on behalf of the Appellants. 16. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Advocate, appeared in several of the matters relating to acquisition of the lands in Hisar, covered by various Notifications issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Mr. Swarup, firstly, referred to the case of Atam Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., being SLP (C) Nos. 33337-33340 of 2010, involving lands measuring 112 kanals and 12 marlas situated in village Basti Bhiwan, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hisar, notified for acquisition for establishing new fruit, vegetable and fodder market, under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act. Mr. Swarup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter followed by the High Court in the case of Sarwan Singh and Anr. being SLP (C) Nos. 20144-20150 of 2007. As indicated hereinbefore, the said matter involved acquisition of 429.75 acres of lands similar to the lands acquired in Atam Singh's case. However, for the purpose of assessing the value of the land, the methodology followed was to add 12% annually towards the value of the lands for a period of six years, which is also one of the methods for arriving at a valuation taking a base year and, thereafter, computing the annual increase of the value at the accepted rate of 12% per annum. 19. The question which was raised was whether the same should be on the basis of a flat rate annually or by adding to the value at the rate of 12% per annum at a flat rate from the date of notification till the award. In these matters, a connected question arose as to whether instead of flat rate the interest should be added cumulatively, which, according to Mr. Swarup, had been considered and decided in the affirmative by this Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. [(2008) 14 SCC 745]. Mr. Swarup, therefore, urged that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... depends on four factors: (i) situation of the land, (ii) nature of development in surrounding area, (iii) availability of land for development in the area, and (iv) the demand for land in the area. It was observed that in rural areas, unless there was any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster and the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas and in some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalation in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year during the nineties. 23. In the light of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Swarup submitted that although, the High Court had allowed yearly increase of 12%, taking 1983 as the base year, such increase was not commensurate with the yearly escalation of prices and the same was required to be calculated on a cumulative basis, as indicated in Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel's case (supra). 24. In regard to the 157.20 acres of land situated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners in four of the matters relating to the lands in question, submitted that if all the valuation available were taken together and an average was drawn, the valuation of the land would come to Rs. 4572/- per square yard. Furthermore, deduction of 40% from the market value towards development charges was excessive and where the acquired land falls in the midst of already developed land, the reasonable deduction would be not more than 1/3rd of the assessed value of the land. 27. In this regard, reference was firstly made to the decision of this Court in Charan Dass v. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority [(2010) 13 SCC 398], wherein quoting from the decision of this Court in Triveni Devi's case, this Court had observed that it had to be noted that in the Building Regulations, setting apart lands for development of roads, drainage and other amenities like electricity, etc., are condition precedent for approval of a layout for building colonies. Therefore, any deduction made should be based upon the situation of the land and the need for development. Where acquired land is in the midst of already developed land with amenities of roads, drainage, electricity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re acquired land was not a developed block. Even alongside the roads the development was not symmetrical or systematic, but at the same time, it also had to be recognised that the acquired land had potential for being developed for residential, commercial and/or industrial purposes as on the date of the Notification. 30. Referring to the decision of this Court in Subh Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. [2010) 1 SCC 444], Ms. Agarwal pointed out that the factors determining percentage of deduction had nothing to do with the purpose for which the land was acquired, nor could the purpose of acquisition be used to increase the compensation awardable with reference to expected profits from future user. In the said judgment it was pointed out that Section 24 of the 1984 Act prohibits Courts from taking into consideration any increase in value of land acquired, or likely to accrue from use to which it is put when required. Ms. Agarwal submitted that it had also been indicated in the judgment that deduction of development cost is a concept used to derive the wholesale price of a large undeveloped plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of this Court in Saibanna (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer [(2009) 9 SCC 409], wherein the same question, as was considered earlier, once again fell for examination. Relying on the earlier judgments of this Court, the learned Judges reiterated the factors which led to higher rates of deduction in respect of lands within the municipal limits of a city. Their Lordships held that the deduction of 53% as imposed was on the higher side and should not have been more than 1/3rd. Their Lordships observed that though no hard and fast or rigid rule can be laid down, and each case had to be decided on its individual facts, in the case before Their Lordships the deduction of 33 1/3 per cent towards development charges, was justifiable. Mr. Chandhiok urged that the quantum of compensation, as decided by the High Court in the various cases under consideration, was based on the above-mentioned principles and did not warrant the interference of this Court. 34. As indicated hereinbefore, a common question is involved in all these matters in respect of the lands acquired in the States of Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and the Union T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt had fixed the market value at Rs. 328.50 per sq. yard and also at Rs. 337/- per sq. yard, in respect of the lands acquired under a Notification issued in July, 1987. In Smt. Kamlesh Kumari's case, in which the facts were the same, as that in Smt. Ashrafi's case, the Collector had awarded Rs. 1,96,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired lands which figure had been enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs. 325/- per sq. yard, which would be equivalent to Rs. 15,73,000/- per acre. The High Court reduced the rate from Rs. 325/- per sq. yard to Rs. 90/- per sq. yard, but ultimately the compensation was assessed at Rs. 238/- per sq. yard. In appeal, the said amount was increased to Rs. 280/- per sq. yard. 36. Even the aforesaid enhancement does not appear to have reflected the proper valuation of the lands acquired since soon, thereafter, in Pritam Singh's case (supra), compensation was awarded at Rs. 435/- per sq. yard and also at the rate of Rs. 392.50 per sq. yard in respect of the lands acquired under Notification dated 5th June, 1992, in village Ajronda. 37. In our view, the enhancement of the compensation from Rs. 280/- per sq. yard to Rs. 435/- per sq. yard and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,25,000/- per acre. 40. As far as the lands within the District of Ambala are concerned, in respect of one set of lands, the Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired lands to be Rs. 57,000/- per acre. However, another Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 3,38,800/- per acre. In our view, the claim of the land owners, assessed at Rs. 300/- per sq. yard is on the high side but Rs. 110/- per sq. yard, as had been held by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, is on the low side. On a comparison of the price of lands sold during 1981, or by adding 12% per annum on Rs. 70/- per sq. yard on annual compounded basis, the value of the lands is assessed at Rs. 180/- per sq. yard on a uniform basis for all lands, as also submitted by Ms. Malhotra. 41. In the lands covered in Atam Singh's case, the Collector had initially assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 54.75 per sq. yard. Having regard to Mr. Manoj Swarup's submissions that the lands acquired in 1987 were adjacent to the lands acquired subsequently in 1993, the value of the lands in 1989 would be about Rs. 200/- per sq. yard, the prices had, in fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of compensation for the lands under consideration should be definitely higher than awarded in respect of the lands covered in Atam Prakash's case. Accordingly, we re-assess the compensation assessed in respect of the lands covered by these cases by applying the cumulative rate of interest, taking the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as the base year for such calculation at Rs. 325/- per sq. yard. The said valuation will also be applicable in Mahabir and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. [SLP (C) No. 1512 of 2007], Sarwan Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. [SLP (C) Nos. 20144-20150 of 2007] and State of Haryana and Anr. v. Partap Singh and Anr. [SLP (C) No. 21597 of 2006]. As far as the lands in village Patti Mehar, Saunda and Jandli in Ambala District and forming the subject matter in Surinder Kumar's case [SLP (C) Nos. 16372-16404 of 2008], in Manohar Lal Khurana's case and in other cases falling in the same category are concerned, the compensation will be at the above rate on a uniform basis. 43. There is yet another set of lands forming the subject matter of the appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 33637 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich has made it impossible for the lands to retain their original character. 47. Accordingly, we direct that except where we have provided otherwise, wherever a deduction of 40% had been made, the same should be altered to 33 1/3 per cent and the compensation awarded is to be modified accordingly. 48. In regard to the 157.20 acres of land situated in Fatehabad, District Hisar, Haryana, acquired for utilisation and development of residential and commercial purposes in Sector-3, Fatehabad, the compensation in respect thereof has been questioned in Civil Appeal Nos. 319-352 of 2011 by one Mukesh and a number of appeals have been tagged with the said matter, including the one filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, being SLP (C) Nos. 26772-26779 of 2009 (now appeals). As indicated hereinbefore, in paragraph 24, the Collector had awarded compensation at a uniform rate of Rs. 1,81,200/- per acre along with statutory benefits. The Reference Court determined the compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 206/- per sq. yard. The High Court modified the said award and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 260/- per sq. yard for the land acquired up to the depth of 100 meters a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 693 of 2010, SLP (C) Nos. 12083-12087 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. 14389-14390 of 2011, SLP (C) No. 13613 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. 674-681 of 2011, SLP (C) No. 33749 of 2010, SLP (C) No. 3647 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. 28644-28685 of 2010, SLP (C) No. 31832 of 2010, SLP (C) Nos. 27706-27723 of 2010, SLP (C) No. 14425 of 2011 and SLP (C) Nos. 31772-31776 of 2011. The decision rendered in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 19668 of 2007 (Mukesh Kumar v. State of Haryana) will govern the appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 16005 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16262 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16271 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16302 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16303 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16304 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16378 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16379 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16407 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16536 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16537 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16538 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 19384 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16793 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 16794 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 18564 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 19381 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 19379 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 19382 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 19380 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 19419 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 19489 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 19603 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 21851 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 21850 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 20188 of 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
