Ashrafi Vs State of Haryana .

Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3279-3287 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.24704-24712 of 2007]

Ashrafi and Ors. ...Appellants Vs.

State of Haryana and Ors. ...Respondents WITH

C.A.Nos.3288-3299/2013@SLP(C)Nos.13415-13426/2008, C.A.Nos.3300-3319/2013@SLP(C)Nos.12263-12282/2008, C.A.No.3320/2013@SLP(C)No.15648/2008, C.A.Nos.3321-3323/2013@SLP(C)Nos.5392-5394/2008, C.A.Nos.3324-3325/2013@SLP(C)Nos.15485-15486/2009, C.A.Nos.3326-3330/2013@SLP(C)Nos.8592-8596/2009, C.A.Nos.3331-3333/2013@SLP(C)Nos.34118-34120/2010, C.A.Nos.3334-3337/2013@SLP(C)Nos.4176-4179/2010, C.A.Nos.3338-3340/2013@SLP(C)Nos.11156-11158/2009, C.A.No.3341/2013@SLP(C)No.28895/2008, C.A.Nos.3342-3344/2013@SLP(C)Nos.14409-14411/2013 (CC 863-865/2011), C.A.No.3345/2013@SLP(C)No.33257/2010, C.A.Nos.3346-3347/2013@SLP(C)Nos.11171-11172/2009, C.A.Nos.3348-3349/2013@SLP(C)Nos.3125-3126/2011, C.A.Nos.3350-3351/2013@SLP(C)Nos.29721-29722/2009, C.A.No.3352/2013@SLP(C)No.31281/2009, C.A. No.8719 of 2010, C.A.Nos.3353-3433/2013@SLP(C)Nos.18744-18824/2008, C.A.Nos.3434-3450/2013@SLP(C)Nos.1089-1105/2008, C.A.Nos.3451-3452/2013@SLP(C)Nos.27923-27924/2008, C.A.No.3453/2013@SLP(C)No.246/2009, C.A.Nos.3454-3455/2013@SLP(C)Nos.3367-3368/2010,

Page 2

2

C.A.Nos.3456-3458/2013@SLP(C)Nos.9268-9270/2011, C.A.Nos.3459-3488/2013@SLP(C)Nos.28613-28642/2010, C.A.Nos.3489-3495/2013@SLP(C)Nos.7233-7239/2011, C.A.Nos.3496-3516/2013@SLP(C)Nos.35673-35693/2010, C.A.Nos.3517-3521/2013@SLP(C)Nos.12083-12087/2011, C.A.Nos.3522-3523/2013@SLP(C)Nos.14389-14390/2011, C.A.No.3524/2013@SLP(C)No.13613/2011, C.A.Nos.3525-3532/2013@SLP(C)Nos.674-681/2011 C.A.No.3533/2013@SLP(C)No.33749/2010, C.A.No.3534/2013@SLP(C)No.3647/2011, C.A.Nos.3535-3576/2013@SLP(C)Nos.28644-28685/2010, C.A.No.3577/2013@SLP(C)No.31832/2010, C.A.Nos.3578-3595/2013@SLP(C)Nos.27706-27723/2010, C.A.No.3596/2013@SLP(C)No.14425/2011, C.A.No.3597/2013@SLP(C)No.28686/2010, C.A.Nos.3598-3602/2013@SLP(C)Nos.31772-31776/2011, C.A.No.3603/2013@SLP(C)No.1512/2007, C.A.Nos.3604-3610/2013@SLP(C)Nos.20144-20150/2007, C.A.No.3611/2013@SLP(C)No.21597/2006, C.A.No.3612/2013@SLP(C)No.19668/2007, C.A.No.3613/2013@SLP(C)No.16005/2006, C.A.No.3614/2013@SLP(C)No.16262/2006, C.A.No.3615/2013@SLP(C)No.16271/2006, C.A.No.3616/2013@SLP(C)No.16302/2006, C.A.No.3617/2013@SLP(C)No.16303/2006, C.A.No.3618/2013@SLP(C)No.16304/2006, C.A.No.3619/2013@SLP(C)No.16378/2006, C.A.No.3620/2013@SLP(C)No.16379/2006, C.A.No.3621/2013@SLP(C)No.16407/2006, C.A.No.3622/2013@SLP(C)No.16536/2006, C.A.No.3623/2013@SLP(C)No.16537/2006, C.A.No.3624/2013@SLP(C)No.16538/2006, C.A.No.3625/2013@SLP(C)No.19384/2006, C.A.No.3626/2013@SLP(C)No.16793/2006, C.A.No.3627/2013@SLP(C)No.16794/2006, C.A.No.3628/2013@SLP(C)No.18564/2006, C.A.No.3629/2013@SLP(C)No.19381/2006, C.A.No.3630/2013@SLP(C)No.19379/2006, C.A.No.3631/2013@SLP(C)No.19382/2006,

Page 3

3

C.A.No.3632/2013@SLP(C)No.19380/2006, C.A.No.3633/2013@SLP(C)No.19419/2006, C.A.No.3634/2013@SLP(C)No.19489/2006, C.A.No.3635/2013@SLP(C)No.19603/2006, C.A.No.3636/2013@SLP(C)No.21851/2006, C.A.No.3637/2013@SLP(C)No.21850/2006, C.A.No.3638/2013@SLP(C)No.20188/2006, C.A.No.3639/2013@SLP(C)No.5509/2007, C.A.No.3640/2013@SLP(C)No.6175/2007, C.A.No.3641/2013@SLP(C)No.8129/2007, C.A.No.3642/2013@SLP(C)No.7001/2007, C.A.No.3643/2013@SLP(C)No.5571/2007, C.A.No.3644/2013@SLP(C)No.5895/2007, C.A.No.3645/2013@SLP(C)No.5572/2007, C.A.No.3646/2013@SLP(C)No.6167/2007, C.A.No.3647/2013@SLP(C)No.7002/2007, C.A.No.3648/2013@SLP(C)No.11527/2007, C.A.No.3649/2013@SLP(C)No.29447/2008, C.A.No.3650/2013@SLP(C)No.18448/2006, C.A.No.3651/2013@SLP(C)No.18876/2006, C.A.No.3652/2013@SLP(C)No.18877/2006, C.A.No.3653/2013@SLP(C)No.19133/2006, C.A.No.3654/2013@SLP(C)No.19231/2006, C.A.No.3655/2013@SLP(C)No.5487/2007, C.A.No.3656/2013@SLP(C)No.18588/2006, C.A.No.3657/2013@SLP(C)No.7601/2007, C.A.No.3658/2013@SLP(C)No.21848/2006, C.A.No.3659/2013@SLP(C)No.21846/2006, C.A.No.3660/2013@SLP(C)No.3416/2007, C.A.No.3661/2013@SLP(C)No.3468/2007, C.A.No.3662/2013@SLP(C)No.2420/2007, C.A.Nos.3663-3677/2013@SLP(C)Nos.6866-6880/2008, C.A.No.3678/2013@SLP(C)No.3356/2007, C.A.No.3679/2013@SLP(C)No.3415/2007, C.A.No.3680/2013@SLP(C)No.3411/2007, C.A.No.3681/2013@SLP(C)No.17564/2006, C.A.No.3682/2013@SLP(C)No.14642/2006, C.A.No.3683/2013@SLP(C)No.14536/2006, C.A.No.3684/2013@SLP(C)No.17361/2006,

Page 4

4

C.A.No.3685/2013@SLP(C)No.6326/2006, C.A.No.3686/2013@SLP(C)No.7165/2006, C.A.No.3687/2013@SLP(C)No.7106/2006, C.A.No.3688/2013@SLP(C)No.14161/2006, C.A.No.3689/2013@SLP(C)No.9990/2006, C.A.No.3690/2013@SLP(C)No.18583/2006, C.A.No.3691/2013@SLP(C)No.16272/2006, C.A.No.3692/2013@SLP(C)No.17268/2006, C.A.No.3693/2013@SLP(C)No.12661/2006, C.A.No.3694/2013@SLP(C)No.16273/2006, C.A.No.3695/2013@SLP(C)No.3646/2011, C.A.No.3696/2013@SLP(C)No.3350/2007, C.A.No.3697/2013@SLP(C)No.6899/2006, C.A.No.3698/2013@SLP(C)No.7036/2006, C.A.No.3699/2013@SLP(C)No.7247/2006, C.A.No.3700/2013@SLP(C)No.19676/2007, C.A.Nos.3701-3704/2013@SLP(C)Nos.19539-19542/2007, C.A.No.3705/2013@SLP(C)No.20667/2007, C.A.Nos.3706-3738/2013@SLP(C)Nos.16372-16404/2008, C.A.Nos.3844-3852/2013@SLP(C)Nos.14459-14467/2013 (CC 2754), C.A.No.3740/2013@SLP(C)No.14426/2013 (CC 9752), C.A.No.3741/2013@SLP(C)No.6332/2007, C.A.No.3742/2013@SLP(C)No.6335/2007, C.A.Nos.3743-3762/2013@SLP(C)Nos.1678-1697/2010, C.A.Nos.3763-3783/2013@SLP(C)Nos.13529-13549/2011, C.A.Nos.3784-3787/2013@SLP(C)Nos.15508-15511/2011 C.A.No.3788/2013@SLP(C)No.6584/2012 (CC 2620 of 2011), C.A.Nos.319-352/2011, C.A.Nos.8654-8661/2010, C.A.Nos.8642-8645/2010, C.A.Nos.423-424/2011, C.A.No.418/2011, C.A.No.419/2011, C.A.No.8637/2010, C.A.No.8638/2010, C.A.Nos. 8646- 8653/2010, C.A.Nos.354-411/2011, C.A.Nos. 412- 417/2011, C.A.Nos.3789-3792/2013@SLP(C)Nos.33337-33340/2010, C.A.Nos.3793-3800/2013@SLP(C)Nos.26772-26779/2009, C.A.Nos.3801-3804/2013@SLP(C)Nos.31842-31845/2009, C.A.Nos.3805-3806/2013@SLP(C)Nos.33637-33638/2011,

Page 5

5

C.A.Nos.3388-3389/2011, C.A.No.5206/2011, C.A.No.5208/2011, C.A.No.5209/2011, C.A.No.5210/2011, C.A No.5211/2011, C.A.No.5212/2011, C.A.No.5213/2011, C.A.No.5214/2011, C.A.No.5207/2011, C.A.No.5215/2011, C.A.No.5216/2011, C.A.Nos.7179-7182/2011, C.A.Nos.3807-3808/2013@SLP(C)Nos.14427-14428/2013 (CC 14220-14221) C.A.No.3853-3854/2013@SLP(C)No.14468-14469/2013 (CC 14164) C.A.Nos.3810-3817/2013@SLP(C)Nos.21344-21351/2011, C.A.Nos.3818-3819/2013@SLP(C)Nos.32764-32765/2011, C.A.Nos.3820-3821/2013@SLP(C)Nos.32766-32767/2011, C.A.Nos.3822-3823/2013@SLP(C)Nos.32770-32771/2011, C.A.Nos.3824-3825/2013@SLP(C)Nos.32772-32773/2011, C.A.Nos.3826-3827/2013@SLP(C)Nos.32790-32791/2011, C.A.Nos.3828-3829/2013@SLP(C)Nos.32792-32793/2011, C.A.Nos.3830-3831/2013@SLP(C)Nos.32796-32797/2011, C.A.Nos.3832-3833/2013@SLP(C)Nos.32798-32799/2011, C.A.Nos.3834-3835/2013@SLP(C)Nos.32801-32802/2011, & C.A.Nos.3836-3837/2013@SLP(C)Nos.32806- 32807/2011.

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.

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,

Page 6

6

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

Page 7

7

different Notifications published under Section 4

of the 1894 Act, we took up the individual cases of

Ashrafi and Others vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Others, being SLP(C)Nos.24704-24712 of 2007,

relating to the Notification dated 2nd August,

2009, and Sailak Ram (D) Tr. LRs. & Ors. vs. State

of Haryana & Ors., being SLP(C)No.28686 of 2010,

relating to the Notification dated 7th September,

1992, in respect of the lands situated in

Faridabad. In addition, we also took up

SLP(C)No.18588 of 2006 filed by the State of

Haryana against Surinder Kumar and Others, in

respect of the Notification dated 26th May, 1981,

relating to the lands situated within the District

of Ambala. Another matter relating to the District

of Ambala, namely, State of Haryana vs. Manohar Lal

Khurana, being SLP(C)No.11527 of 2007, relating to

the Notification dated 2nd February, 1989, was also

taken up separately. As far as the lands relating

to the District of Hisar are concerned, the Special

Page 8

8

Leave Petition filed by the State of Haryana

against Partap Singh and Another, being SLP(C)

No.21597 of 2006, relating to the Notification

dated 21st March, 1991, was taken up for separate

hearing as also some of the cases involving lands

in Sonepat, Kurukshetra Districts, in respect of

the Notifications published under Section 4 of the

1894 Act, dated 20th April, 1982 and 17th September,

1993, respectively.

3. Some of the Special Leave Petitions (now

Appeals) have been filed by the State of Haryana,

which is equally aggrieved by the enhancement of

the compensation assessed in reference under

Section 18 of the 1894 Act. As would be evident

shortly, the High Court almost on a uniform basis

awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.235/- per

sq. yard notwithstanding the type of land involved.

Although a distinction had been made between

"chahi" lands, "pahar gair mumkin" lands and "gair

Page 9

9

mumkin" lands while assessing compensation,

ultimately, a uniform rate was awarded in respect

of the different types of lands which had been

acquired. Different reasons have been given by the

High Court in arriving at the uniform figure of

Rs.235/- per sq. yard, but what is important is

that ultimately by applying different methods, the

compensation worked out to be same.

4. In the case of Smt. Ashrafi & Ors., arising out

of RFA No.99 of 1997 decided by the Punjab and

Haryana High Court on 21st May, 2007, along with

several other 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

Page 10

10

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 vs.

State of Haryana & 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 extremely low in comparison to the

Page 11

11

compensation awarded in respect of the lands

acquired in the same area and under the same

Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. It

was urged that the learned Single Judge in the High

Court had wrongly assessed compensation at Rs.220/-

per sq. yard, when in respect of the lands acquired

under the same Notification dated 28th August, 1989,

the learned District Judge 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.

8. In Smt. Kamlesh Kumari's case, it was urged by

Mr. J.L. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, that while

the Collector had awarded Rs.1,96,000/- per acre in

respect of the acquired lands, the Reference Court

enhanced the same to Rs.325/- per sq. yard, which

would be equivalent to Rs.15,73,000/- per acre.

The High Court, however, reduced the rate from

Rs.325/- per sq. yard to Rs.90/- per sq. yard,

Page 12

12

which would be equivalent to approximately

Rs.4,35,000/- per acre. Letters Patent Appeals

filed against the said decision of the learned

Single Judge were dismissed and the matter

ultimately came up to this Court in Civil Appeal

No. 9808 of 2003, and the case was remanded to the

Reference Court for a fresh determination. After

remand, the Reference Court, by its Order dated 12th

January, 2008, assessed the compensation at

Rs.238/- per sq. yard. In appeal, after considering

the decision of a learned Single Judge of the same

Court in Sailak Ram's case, referred to

hereinabove, the learned Judge determined the

compensation at Rs.280/- per sq. yard. In fact, it

was pointed out by Mr. Gupta that in Sailak Ram's

case, different amounts were awarded as

compensation in respect of lands comprised in

village Mewla, Maharajpur, acquired under the

Notification dated 2nd August, 1989. It was

finally held that the market rate for the acquired

Page 13

13

properties would be Rs.280/- per sq. yard, along

with all statutory benefits, as per the provisions

of the 1894 Act.

9. Mr. Gupta urged that even the enhancement made

by the High Court was not adequate in view of the

compensation awarded in other cases, in respect of

the lands comprised in the same village. It was

highlighted that in Pritam Singh's case,

compensation had been awarded at the rate of

Rs.435/- per sq. yard. Even in the case of lands

situated 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

Page 14

14

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 vs. Gurbax Singh

(Dead) By LRs. & Anr. [(2008) 11 SCC 65], in which

the decision of this Court in another case, viz.,

Union of India vs. 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 annum

for a period of two years, was duly accepted by

this Court. It was, therefore, submitted that the

compensation awarded by the High Court was required

Page 15

15

to be revised in parity with the compensation

awarded in respect of the other lands comprised in

the same village, in line with the observations

made by this Court in Sailak Ram's case and also in

Smt. Kamlesh Kumari's case.

11. One of the other sets of cases, viz., Sucha

Singh & Ors. vs. Collector, Land Acquisition &

Ors., being SLP(C)Nos.1678-1697 of 2010, were taken

up separately, at the instance of Mr. R.K. Kapoor,

learned Advocate, appearing for the Appellants-

Claimants. According to Mr. Kapoor, the submissions

made on behalf of the Appellant, Sucha Singh, would

also cover SLP(C)Nos.13529-13549 of 2011, Surjit

Kaur & Ors. vs. Collector, Land Acquisition and

Colonisation & Ors., SLP(C)Nos. 15508-15511 of

2011, Joginder Singh & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition

Collector & Ors., and SLP(C)..CC 2620 of 2011,

Mehar Singh (D) Tr. LRs. & Ors. vs. Collector, Land

Acquisition and Colonisation Department.

Page 16

16

12. Mr. Kapoor contended that the Notification

under Section 4 was issued on 10th February, 1984,

for acquisition of 79 acres and 5 kanals of land in

village Talwandi Bhai, District Ferozepur, for the

purpose of construction of a new grain market. In

respect of such acquisition, the Land Acquisition

Collector awarded compensation to the land owners

at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre, which was

enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.4,60,000/- up

to 1 killa and to Rs.4,00,000/- beyond one killa.

On appeal to the High Court, the amounts were

reduced. Special Leave Petitions were, thereafter,

filed against the said Order in this Court. While

issuing notice on 5th January, 2010, confined to the

question of deduction, this Court directed stay of

recovery of the amounts already paid by way of

compensation to the Petitioners therein.

13. Mr. Kapoor contended that having regard to

certain plots which were auctioned by the Municipal

Page 17

17

Committee before acquiring the lands in question,

the average rate in respect of various plots was

Rs.30,000/- per marla and Rs.6,00,000/- per kanal,

which would mean that the value of the land would

be Rs.48,00,000/- per acre. Mr. Kapoor submitted

that, since apart from the above, sale deeds are

also a reliable indicator of the land value in a

particular 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

Page 18

18

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 the High Court,

i.e., Rs.6,23,997/-, is taken into consideration,

then also by adding 12% per annum to the said

figure, the compensation would amount to

Rs.7,82,746/- per acre.

14. In one of the other matters, Surinder Kumar vs.

State of Haryana, being SLP(C) Nos.16372-16404 of

2008, 250.51 acres of land situated in village

Page 19

19

Patti Mehar, Saunda and Jandli in Ambala District,

covered by Notification dated 26th May, 1981, were

intended to be acquired for development and

utilisation of residential areas for an Urban

Estate in Ambala. Three Awards were made by the

Land Acquisition Collector. When Award No. 4 was

pronounced on 27th June, 1984, the market value of

the acquired lands was assessed at Rs.52,000/- per

acre, thereafter, two further awards were

pronounced wherein some other chahi lands were

assessed at Rs.34,500/- per acre, barani land was

assessed at Rs.27,520/- per acre and banjar and

gair mumkin land was assessed at Rs.13,760/- per

acre. On reference, the Reference Court enhanced

the market value of the acquired lands to

Rs.57,000/- per acre. Subsequently, however,

another Reference Court assessed the market value

of the acquired lands at Rs.3,38,800/- per acre.

Being dissatisfied with the orders of the Reference

Courts, the parties approached the High Court. The

Page 20

20

State of Haryana also filed appeals relating to the

judgment of 6th May, 1992. In the appeals filed by

the claimants, they claimed that the acquired land

was liable to be assessed at Rs.300/- per sq. yard.

The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High

Court accepted the contention of the land owners

and directed that they would be entitled to the

market rate at Rs.110/- per sq. yard for the

acquired land, together with all statutory

benefits, as per the amended provisions of the Act.

The appeals filed by the State of Haryana were

dismissed.

15. Appearing for the Appellants, Ms. Indu

Malhotra, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that

though the compensation was enhanced by the

Division Bench from Rs.70/- per sq. yard to

Rs.110/- per sq. yard, there was no basis for

fixing the value at the said rate. Ms. Malhotra

urged that the said rate was fixed despite the fact

Page 21

21

that a Conveyance of the year 1973 i.e. earlier

than the date of acquisition (26.5.1981), had been

produced by the Appellants. Apart from the above,

Sale Deeds of 1981 were also produced which showed

the value of the 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

Page 22

22

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 & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & 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 also

referred to the case of Sarwan Singh vs. State of

Haryana & Anr., being SLP(C)Nos.20144-20150 of

2007, involving lands measuring 429.75 acres of

land, which is the subject matter of a Notification

dated 21.03.1991, under Section 4 of the above Act

for the development of a part of Sectors 11, 13,

15, 16 and 17, Hisar, Haryana. Reference was also

made to the case of Mukesh Kumar vs. State of

Haryana & Ors., being SLP(C)No.19668 of 2006,

involving lands measuring 227.44 acres in Hisar,

Page 23

23

which was the subject matter of Notification dated

20.08.1992, under Section 4 of the above Act for

use as a residential sector by Haryana Urban

Development Authority (HUDA). Mr. Swarup, lastly,

referred to the case of Mukesh vs. State of Haryana

& Anr., being Civil Appeal Nos. 319-352 of 2011,

involving lands measuring 157.20 acres situated in

Fatehabad, District Hisar, under Notification dated

21.07.1993, also for residential and commercial

purposes in Sector 3, Fatehabad.

17. In Atam Singh's case, Mr. Swarup, pointed out

that the lands had been notified on 15.10.1987 for

establishing a new fruit, vegetable and fodder

market and that initially compensation was awarded

at the rate of Rs.54.75 per sq. yard. Mr. Swarup

pointed out that the land acquired in 1987 is

adjacent to the land acquired subsequently in 1993.

It was urged that the Reference Court had in its

judgment found the potentiality of the suit land to

Page 24

24

be high having regard to the various developments,

which had occurred in the said area and also for

future development relating to a proposal for a

truck union and auto market. Certain

contemporaneous private sales, for the purpose of

comparison, had been filed, which were accepted by

the High Court, which had been held to be genuine,

from which it would appear that there has been a

steady increase in the valuation of the lands and

the chart indicates that the price of land in the

year 1989 was about Rs.200/- per sq. yard. The

chart also demonstrates that two years later, the

prices had doubled to about Rs.400/- per sq. yard.

Taking the same to be a yardstick, Mr. Swarup

submitted that the value of the land acquired in

1987 should be taken as the comparative unit and

that the value of the land acquired in 1987 should,

therefore, be assessed at Rs.100/- per sq. yard.

Page 25

25

18. Mr. Swarup pointed out that the decision in

Atam Singh's case was thereafter followed by the

High Court in the case of Sarwan Singh & 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

Page 26

26

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

vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. [(2008) 14

SCC 745]. Mr. Swarup, therefore, urged that the

compensation assessed at Rs.235/- per sq. yard on

the basis of an annual increase of 12% was

inadequate and the yearly escalation is required to

be calculated on a cumulative basis.

20. In the case filed by Mukesh Kumar, being

SLP(C)No.19668 of 2007, relating to acquisition of

227.44 acres under Notification dated 20.08.1992,

Mr. Swarup pointed out that the decision had been

arrived at on the reasoning in Sarwan Singh's case

(supra) and Atam Singh's case, referred to

hereinabove. Mr. Swarup urged that in Sarwan

Singh's case, the High Court considered the

Page 27

27

location of the acquired lands and upon observing

that they were situated next to prominent

localities to the north of the acquired lands, it

had no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion

that the entire acquired land fell within the

municipal limits of the District of Hisar with

substantial potential for its development for

residential and commercial purposes. Even the

Division Bench in appeal, while rejecting the

submissions made on behalf of the State, observed

that having regard to the nature of the development

of the surrounding areas, it would be improper to

resort to the belting system and to award one set

of compensation for the entire land.

21. Mr. Swarup then urged that in the case of Udho

Dass Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(2010) 12 SCC

51], this Court had the occasion to observe that

although, in the 1894 Act provision has been made

for the payment of solatium, interest and an

Page 28

28

additional amount, the same had not kept pace with

the astronomical rise in land prices in many parts

of India, and most certainly in North India, and

the compensation awarded could not fully compensate

for the acquisition of the land. This Court

further observed that the 12% per annum increase

which had often been found to be adequate in

matters relating to compensation, hardly did

justice to those land owners whose lands had been

taken away and the increase was even at times up to

100% a year for land which had the potential of

being urbanised and commercialised, such as in the

present case.

22. Mr. Swarup pointed out that similar

observations had been made by this Court in General

Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs.

Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel [(2008) 14 SCC 745],

wherein similar views were expressed in a similar

vein as in the earlier case that primarily the

Page 29

29

increase in land prices 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

Page 30

30

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

in Fatehabad, District Hisar, Haryana, acquired for

utilisation and development of residential and

commercial purposes in Sector-3, Fatehabad, by the

Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), the

Collector had awarded compensation at a uniform

rate of Rs.1,81,200/- per acre along with statutory

benefits. As against the claim of the land owners

that the market value was Rs.1000/- per square

yard, the Reference Court determined the

compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.206/- per

square yard. The High Court modified the said

award and awarded compensation at the rate of

Page 31

31

Rs.260/- per square yard for the land acquired up

to the depth of 100 meters abutting National High

Way No.10. The value of the rest of the acquired

land was maintained at Rs.206/- per square yard.

Mr. Swarup submitted that having regard to the sale

instances for the years 1989 and 1991, wherein the

prices had doubled, by the same equation the price

of the land in 1993 should have been Rs.800/- per

square yard. Urging that the High Court had erred

in imposing a cut of 50% on the value, it was

submitted that no cut was required to be imposed

since the lands forming the subject matter of the

sale instances formed part of the acquired land and

was comprised in identically situated lands to the

rest of the acquired land. Mr. Swarup submitted

that at best the standard cut of 1/3rd would have

been sufficient to balance the smallness of the

exhibits and, in any event, the belting system

resorted to by the High Court was erroneous in the

light of the observations made by the High Court

Page 32

32

itself in Udho Dass and Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel

(supra).

25. In regard to the lands forming the subject

matter of C.A.Nos.3381-89 of 2011 and other

connected matters (Smt. Jamna Bai & Ors. Vs. State

of Haryana), Mr. Anoop G. Choudhary, learned Senior

Advocate, appearing for the Appellants, submitted

that the price of the plots to be sold by auction

by the municipality required an average of four

sale transactions to be taken as a sale indice

price of the lands in question. Mr. Choudhary

urged that out of the four sale transactions taken

into consideration the High Court erroneously chose

the value of Rs.200/- per square yard, which ought

not to have been taken for the purpose of

determining the value of the lands acquired.

26. Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate, who

appeared for the Petitioners in four of the matters

relating to the lands in question, submitted that

Page 33

33

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 Vs.

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

Page 34

34

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, etc. then deduction

of 1/3rd would not be justified. Reference was

also made to the decision of this Court in Haridwar

Development Authority Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors.

[(2010) 11 SCC 581], wherein also, taking into

consideration the various stages of development,

this Court observed that appropriate deduction

towards development costs could vary between 20% to

75% depending upon various factors, but that in the

said case the deduction of 25% towards development

cost was appropriate. Mr. Upadhyay also referred

to the decision of this Court in Kasturi & Ors. Vs.

State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 354], wherein also,

as against the normal cut of 1/3rd from the amount

of compensation, it was held that a cut of 20%

towards development charges was justified.

Page 35

35

28. Appearing for the State of Haryana in

SLP(C)Nos.32764-32765 of 2011, Ms. Anubha Agarwal,

learned Advocate, submitted that the disparity in

the sale price of the different sale transactions

was mainly on account of the different areas where

the said lands were located. Furthermore, the sale

transactions relied upon by the Petitioners/

Appellants related to only plots measuring about 60

square yards or so. On account of the above, the

sale price of such transactions could not be taken

to be an accurate assessment of the valuation of

the lands which were acquired in bulk. What was

also important was the level of development of the

lands acquired. According to Ms. Agarwal, most of

the lands forming the subject matter of the

acquisition proceedings under different

Notifications published under Section 4 of the 1894

Act, at different points of time, were agricultural

in nature and comprised the interior portion of

lands acquired which were not developed at all.

Page 36

36

The valuation of the said lands could not, in any

way, be compared with the lands which were closer

to the main roads and the developed zones and as

such the High Court had wrongly relied upon the

same in assessing the value of the extent of

compensation for the lands forming the subject

matter of the present proceedings.

29. Referring to the decision of the Reference

Court, Ms. Agarwal pointed out that development

work and/or construction had taken place alongside

the roads, such as the National Highway, Tosham

Road and Bhiwani Road and it was more or less

established that the development in the acquired

land was along the roads only and the entire

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,

Page 37

37

commercial and/or industrial purposes as on the

date of the Notification.

30. Referring to the decision of this Court in Subh

Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & 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

Page 38

38

of a small developed plot and the value of a large

undeveloped land is the "development cost".

Reference was also made to the decision in Kanta

Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [(2008) 15

SCC 201], where it had been held that to determine

the market value for purposes of compensation,

deduction of development charges was normally 1/3rd

of the market value which also required the nature

of land to be acquired to be taken into

consideration. In the said case, relying upon the

sale price of a small plot, the High Court had

fixed the market value of the acquired land, but

deducted 70% therefrom towards development charges

to make the land suitable for the purpose for which

the land had been acquired. This Court held that

since the land was adjacent to the village Abadi

which was already developed, the deduction at the

rate of 70% was on the high side and a deduction of

60% of the market value would be reasonable.

Various other decisions were also cited on the same

Page 39

39

lines and referring to the same would only amount

to repetition.

31. Ms. Agarwal submitted that the deduction

towards development cost depended mainly on the

area in which the land was located and their

potentiality for development and in the instant

case, the deduction of 40%, as suggested, was quite

apposite and did not require any interference.

32. Mr. R.S. Badharan, learned Advocate for HUDA,

in Civil Appeal Nos.3388-89 of 2011, urged that the

lands in question could not be compared with the

lands under consideration in a review. While

referring to other decisions, Mr. Badharan also

referred to the decision of this Court in Kasturi &

Ors. Vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 354],

wherein a question had arisen as to whether the

deduction of development charges at the rate of 70%

in regard to the acquired lands was justified or

not. Ultimately, after taking the various factors

Page 40

40

into consideration, the said Court agreed that a

cut of 20% towards the development charges, which

was lower than the normal 1/3rd, was understandable

and could be justified. However, the same

principle as has been relied upon in all the above-

mentioned decisions, has also been dealt with in

Kasturi's case (supra) and Courts have relied

basically on the normal deduction of 1/3rd of the

value.

33. Responding to the submissions made on behalf of

the respective parties, the learned Additional

Solicitor General, Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, referred to

the decision of this Court in Saibanna (Dead) by

Lrs. Vs. 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

Page 41

41

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 331/3 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

Territory of Chandigarh. Since the acquired lands

Page 42

42

are situated in different areas even within the

different States, different quantums of

compensation have been awarded for the lands so

acquired. The general principles which have been

followed in assessing the compensation payable in

all these matters are the location of the lands

sought to be acquired, their potential for

development, their proximity to areas which are

already developed and the exorbitant rise in the

value of the lands over the years. In some of the

cases, the authorities have taken recourse to the

comparison method in regard to sale transactions

effected in respect of similar plots of land in the

area under notifications close to the date of

notification by which the lands of the Appellants

were acquired. The Courts have also taken recourse

to assessing the value of the lands for the

purposes of compensation on a uniform rate in

respect of the lands acquired, making a special

concession in respect of the lands which are close

Page 43

43

to the roads and National Highways where a certain

amount of development had already taken place.

35. Having resorted to the aforesaid methods, the

Collectors of the different areas arrived at

different valuations in respect of the lands

situated within their respective jurisdictions. In

most of the cases, the High Court almost on a

uniform basis awarded compensation at the rate of

Rs.235/- per sq. yard on a flat rate

notwithstanding the type of land involved. In Smt.

Ashrafi's case arising out of RFA No.99 of 1997

decided by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 21st

May, 2007, along with several other similar

appeals, 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. The Reference Court fixed the

compensation at Rs.45/- per sq. yard as against the

rate of compensation awarded by the Land

Page 44

44

Acquisition Collector. In respect of similar

lands, the High Court fixed the compensation at

Rs.220/- per sq. yard in respect of the lands

situated in village Mewla and Maharajpur for

establishing Sector 34, Faridabad. It has been

agitated on behalf of the Appellants that the said

assessment of compensation fixed by the High Court

was on the lower side in view of the fact that in

respect of lands acquired under the same

Notification dated 20th August, 1989, the District

Court 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.

Page 45

45

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 Rs.392.50 per sq. yard was

probably occasioned by the fact that while the

lands were acquired under the Notification issued

in July, 1987, the comparative rate relating to the

Page 46

46

same property was Rs.392.50 per sq. yard. In view

of the passage of time between the different

acquisitions, in our view, a just compensation

would be at the rate of Rs.325/- per sq. yard

instead of Rs.280/- per sq. yard. Similar is the

case of Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, where the facts were

similar to those in Ashrafi's case. In Smt.

Kamlesh Kumari's case, initially the amount of

compensation assessed by the Reference Court at the

rate of Rs.325/- per sq. yard was reduced to

Rs.90/- per sq. yard by the High Court and,

ultimately, the amount of compensation was

increased to Rs.280/- per sq. yard, in appeal. In

our view, the just compensation in the lands in

Smt. Kamlesh Kumari's case also deserves to be

increased to Rs.325/- per sq. yard, which had been

the amount awarded by the Reference Court.

38. In Sailak Ram's case, different amounts were

assessed as compensation in respect of the lands

Page 47

47

comprised in village Mewla, Maharajpur, acquired

under the Notification dated 2nd August, 1989.

There too the market rate was assessed at Rs.280/-

per sq. yard along with all statutory benefits

under the 1894 Act. In our view, the compensation

in respect of the lands involved has also to be

assessed at Rs.325/- per sq. yard.

39. In Sucha Singh's case, Mr. Kapoor had submitted

that the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded the

compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre,

which was enhanced by the Reference Court to

Rs.4,60,000/- up to one killa and to Rs.4,00,000/-

beyond one killa. On appeal to the High Court, the

amounts were reduced to Rs.3,74,400/- per acre up

to one acre and Rs.2,24,640/- per acre beyond one

acre. According to Mr. Kapoor, while the average

sale price had been found to be Rs.6,23,997/- per

acre, together with increase of 12% per annum, the

figure would amount to Rs.7,82,746/- per acre.

Page 48

48

However, although the land belonging to Mr.

Kapoor's clients fell within the municipal limits

of Talwandi Bhai, a deduction of 40% was

unjustified. On the other hand, a cut of 331/3 per

cent would be more realistic. Accordingly, the

compensation for the said lands, after taking into

consideration the deduction of 331/3 per cent is

assessed at Rs.7,25,000/- 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

Page 49

49

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 fact, doubled to about Rs.400/-

per sq. yard within the next two years. Mr.

Swarup's submission that by such standards, the

value of the lands acquired in 1987 should be

Rs.100/- per sq. yard, is, in our view,

justifiable.

Page 50

50

42. In Mukesh Kumar's case (Supra), Mr. Manoj

Swarup had pointed out that having regard to the

potentiality of the acquired lands, the belting

system should not have been resorted to. We are

inclined to accept Mr. Swarup's contention on this

score. We are also inclined to accept Mr. Swarup's

other submissions that, although, the High Court

had allowed a yearly increase of 12%, taking 1983

as a base-year, such increase was not commensurate

with the yearly escalation of prices and that was

required to be calculated on a cumulative basis, as

was held in Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel's case

(supra). Accordingly, in Mukesh Kumar's case and

the other cases heard along with the said case, we

are of the view that while adding 12% annual

increase to the value of the lands acquired, the

same should be done on a cumulative basis. In

Mukesh Kumar's case, the compensation awarded was

at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq. yard along with all

statutory benefits, as provided under Sections

Page 51

51

23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Having discarded the belting system which has been

resorted to, we are of the view that the

compensation as awarded at the rate of Rs.235/- per

sq. yard, has to be reassessed by applying the

cumulative rate of increase at the rate of 12% per

annum with the base year being the date of the

Notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, together with the statutory

benefits, as indicated hereinabove. The stand

taken on behalf of the State of Haryana, regarding

the amount of escalation fixed at 12% being

improper, does not appeal to us having regard to

the potentiality of the lands acquired and the

sharp increase in the value of the lands in recent

times. The valuation of the compensation of the

acquired land at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq. yard

by the High Court, appears to have been influenced

by the compensation already assessed in Atam

Prakash's case, where the market value of the land

Page 52

52

acquired in Sectors 9 and 11 was assessed at

Rs.235/- per sq. yard. According to Mr. Swarup,

the said lands were far away from the lands

involved in the present set of cases and,

accordingly, the rate 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 & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.

State of Haryana & Anr. [SLP(C)Nos.20144-20150 of

2007] and State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Partap Singh

lands in village Patti Mehar, Saunda and Jandli in

Page 53

53

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.33637-33638 of 2011,

filed by Manohar Singh and others, which are

situated in Hansi, District Hisar. The said lands

also form the subject matter of several other

Special Leave Petitions, which will be covered by

the decision in the above-mentioned Special Leave

Petitions (now appeals). In the said cases, the

High Court had assessed the compensation payable

for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.805/- per

sq. yard along with the statutory sums available

under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act

Page 54

54

and solatium on the market value under Section

23(2) thereof. It was also indicated that the land

owners would also be entitled to interest as

provided under Section 28 of the Act.

44. While deciding the valuation of the lands, the

High Court applied a cut of 60% and also took into

consideration that the lands in question were small

plots, the value whereof was definitely higher than

the lands which had been acquired which were much

larger in area.

45. In our view, the High Court was justified in

taking into consideration the size of the plots,

which were exhibited for the purposes of comparison

with the size of the plots acquired, but we are

unable to uphold the cut of 60%, which has been

imposed by the High Court, since the acquired lands

are already within developed municipal limits. In

these cases also, a cut of one-third the value

would be appropriate as in the other cases.

Page 55

55

Accordingly, we modify the valuation arrived at by

the High Court upon imposing a cut of 60% and

direct that the amount of compensation be re-

assessed upon imposing a cut of 331/3 per cent while

re-assessing the value of the land.

46. This brings us to the last part of the

submissions made with regard to the amount of

deduction effected in respect of the various

properties. The general cut imposed is at a flat

rate of 40%, which, in our view, is not warranted

on account of the fact that the lands in question

have lost their character and potentiality as

agricultural lands and have more or less been

converted into lands which were ready for use for

the purpose of construction. Taking Ms. Agarwal's

submissions regarding the factors which determine

deduction towards development cost, such as

location and potentiality, into account, we are of

the view that a deduction of 331/3 per cent would be

Page 56

56

reasonable on account of the passage of time and

the all round development in the area which 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

331/3 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

Page 57

57

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

abutting National Highway No. 10. The value of the

rest of the acquired land was maintained at Rs.

206/- per sq. yard. The area in question being

already developed to some extent, a cut of 50% on

the value is, in our view, excessive. We agree

with Mr. Swarup that resorting to the belting

system by the High Court was improper and that at

best a standard cut of 1/3rd would have been

sufficient to balance the smallness of the exhibits

produced. It has been pointed out by Mr. Swarup

that on a comparative basis, the price of lands in

the area in 1991 was on an average of about Rs.

Page 58

58

420/- per sq. yard. Given the sharp rise in land

prices, the value, according to Mr. Swarup, would

have doubled to about Rs. 800/- per sq. yard by

1993. Even if we have to apply the formula of 12%

increase, the valuation of the lands in question in

1993 would be approximately Rs. 527/- per sq.

yard. Imposing a deduction of 1/3rd, valuation

comes to about Rs. 350/- per sq. yard, which, in

our view, would be the proper compensation for the

lands covered in the case of Mukesh (supra) and

other connected matters.

49. This disposes of all the various matters which

were heard along with lead matters, a table of

which has been supplied by Mr. Swarup.

50. The decision rendered in the appeals arising

out of SLP(C)Nos.24704-24712 of 2007 (Ashrafi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.) will govern SLP(C)Nos.13415-13426 of 2008, SLP(C)Nos.12263-

12282 of 2008, SLP(C)No.15648 of 2008, SLP(C)Nos.

Page 59

59

5392-5394 of 2008, SLP(C)Nos. 15485-15486 of 2009,

11156-11158 of 2009, SLP(C)No. 28895 of 2008,

2010, SLP(C)Nos.11171-11172 of 2009, SLP(C)Nos.

3125-3126 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.29721-29722 of 2009,

246 of 2009, SLP(C)Nos.3367-3368 of 2010 and SLP(C)

Nos.9268-9270 of 2011. The decision rendered in appeals arising out of SLP(C)Nos.28613-28642 of 2010 (Kamlesh Kumari Etc. Etc. vs. State of Haryana and Anr.) and SLP(C)No.28686 of 2010 (Sailak Ram Vs. State of Haryana) will govern the appeals arising out of SLP(C)Nos.7233-7239 of 2011,

12087 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos. 14389-14390 of 2011,

Page 60

60

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 Vs. State of Haryana) will govern the appeals arising out of SLP(C)No.16005 of 2006, SLP(C)No.16262 of 2006,

Page 61

61

Page 62

62

2007, SLP(C)Nos.16372-16404 of 2008, SLP(C)No......

2007), SLP(C)No.6332 of 2007 and SLP(C)No.6335 of

2007. The decision rendered in the appeals arising out of SLP(C)Nos.1678-1697 of 2010 (Sucha Singh Vs. Collector) will govern the appeals arising out of SLP(C)Nos.13529-13549 of 2011,

2620 of 2011). The decision rendered in C.A.Nos.319-352 of 2011 (Mukesh etc. etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Another) will govern C.A.Nos.8654- 8661 of 2010, C.A.Nos.8642-8645 of 2010,

C.A.Nos.423-424 of 2011, C.A.No.418 of 2011,

C.A.No.419 of 2011, C.A.No.8637 of 2010,

C.A.No.8638 of 2010, C.A.Nos.8646-8653 of 2010,

Page 63

63

C.A.Nos.354-411 of 2011, C.A.Nos.412-417 of 2011,

31845 of 2009. The decision rendered in the appeals arising out of SLP(C)Nos.33637-33638 of 2011 (Manohar Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr.) will govern Civil Appeal Nos.3388-3389 of 2011,

C.A.No.5206 of 2011, C.A.No.5208 of 2011,

C.A.No.5209 of 2011, C.A.No. 5210 of 2011,

C.A.No.5211 of 2011, C.A.No.5212 of 2011,

C.A.No.5213 of 2011, C.A.No.5214 of 2011,

C.A.No.5207 of 2011, C.A.No.5215 of 2011, C.A.No.

5216 of 2011, C.A.Nos.7179-7182 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.

14164 of 2011), SLP(C)Nos.21344-21351 of

2011,SLP(C)Nos.32764-32765 of 2011,

32771 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos. 32772-32773 of 2011,

32797 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.32798-32799 of 2011,

Page 64

64

32807 of 2011.

51. Having regard to the facts of the various cases

disposed of by this judgment, the parties will bear

their own costs.

...................CJI. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

.....................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi Dated: April 11, 2013.

ASHRAFI Vs STATE OF HARYANA .

ASHRAFI Vs STATE OF HARYANA .