Non -  Reportable    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2736 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15098 of 2016 ]

Balwant Singh (D) through LRs. Gurbinder Singh     ....  Appellant

Versus

The State of Haryana  & Others Etc. Etc.  

    …. Respondents W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2895  of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.13037 of 2017 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2855 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.16884 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2857 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.16886 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2858 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.17173 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2737 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15108 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2739 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15135 of 2016]

CIVIL APPEAL No.2738 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15111 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2741 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15255 of 2016 ]

1

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2859 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.16882 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2740 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15172 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2742 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15270 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2860 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.17169 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No.2861 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.16881 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2746 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15573 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2743 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15488 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2744 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15507 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2745 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15568 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2748 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15617 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2854 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.16883 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2747 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15616 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2750 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.17168 of 2016 ]

2

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2749 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.15649 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2751-2851 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.27155-27255 of

2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2852 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.27153 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No.2862 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.19314 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2853 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.27152 of 2016  ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2867 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.34699 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2894 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.11708 of 2017 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2863 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.23520 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2864 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.25399 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2865 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.25400 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2866 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil)..D.No.33520 of 2016 ]

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2869-2893 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 11834-11858 of

2017 ]

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2868 of 2019

3

[ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.5081 of 2017 ]

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.  

1. These Appeals pertain to the compensation payable

for the land acquired under the Notifications issued under

Section 4 of  the Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act”) for the land situated in Villages

Ajronda,  Taloribanger and Daulatabad,  Tehsil  and District

Faridabad, State of Haryana.   

2. A  Notification  was  issued  on  7th April,  1986  under

Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of 6.97 acres of land

situated in Village Ajronda for the purpose of development

and  utilization  as  green  belt.   The  market  value  of  the

acquired land was determined as Rs.3,38,800/- per acre by

the Collector’s award dated                30 th March, 1989.

The Reference Court determined the market value for the

land  acquired  at  Rs.435  per  square  yard.   Another

Notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act on 5 th

June, 1992 for acquisition of 7.81 acres of land in Village 4

Ajronda for  development and utilization of  the same for

educational, medical, defence and administrative purposes

in Sector 20-B, Faridabad.  The Collector passed an award

on  2nd June,  1995  determining  the  market  value  at

Rs.4,50,000/-  per  acre.            The  Reference  Court

assessed the market value of the land at Rs.392.50/- per

square yard. The two Notifications were issued on 3rd July,

1995  for  acquisition  of  98.66,  103.34  and  183.34  acres

totaling to 385.34 acres in Village Ajronda, 6.88 acres in

Village Taloribanger and 29.58 acres in Village Daulatabad

for  commercial,  institutional,  recreational  and  residential

purposes  in  Sectors  20-A  and  20-B,  Faridabad.   The

Collector arrived at the market value of Rs.5,85,000/- per

acre vide an award dated 29th June, 1998.  In the reference

under Section 18 of the Act,  the Court fixed the market

value at Rs.400 per square yard for some cases.  In a few

other cases, the market value was determined as Rs.480/-

per square yard.   

3. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the

Reference  Court,  the  Claimants  filed  appeals  before  the

High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana at  Chandigarh.  By  a

5

judgment dated 6th October, 2010, the High Court finalized

the compensation payable to the landowners/Claimants at

Rs.435/- per square yard for the land acquired under the

Notification dated 7th April, 1986, Rs.566/- per square yard

for the land acquired under the Notification dated 5th June,

1992 and Rs.795/- per square yard for the land acquired

under the Notifications dated 3rd July, 1995.  Though the

High  Court  referred  to  the  location  of  the  land and the

future potential of the land being suitable for commercial

and  industrial  purposes,  it  relied  upon  on  its  earlier

judgment  in  State  of  Haryana v.  Escort  Dealers

Development Association Limited1 for  arriving at the

market value. The judgment in Escort’s case (supra) is in

respect  of  land  in  Village  Mewla  Maharajpur  which  was

acquired for construction of a link road from Delhi- Mathura

Road to Sector-46 of the Faridabad-Ballabhgarh Controlled

Area.  The market value was assessed at Rs.337.20/- per

square yard in  Escort’s case (supra). Taking into account

the  locational  advantage  of  the  land  involved  in  the

acquisition under the Notifications dated 7th April, 1986, 5th

June, 1992 and 3rd July, 1995, the High Court added fifty 1 (1993) 105 (3) PLR 466 – Regular Appeal No. 253 of 1992 decided on 26th  November, 1993.

6

per  cent  to  Rs.337.20/-  awarded  to  the  Claimants  in

Escort’s case (supra) and applied a 15% cut from 1987 to

1986.  Thereby,   a compensation of Rs.435/- per square

yard was fixed for the land acquired under the Notification

dated  7th April,  1996.

In  respect  of  land acquired under the Notification dated

5th June, 1992, the High Court granted 30 per cent increase

for  the  time  gap  between  1986-1992  and  arrived  at  a

compensation of Rs.566/- per square yard.  Regarding the

compensation payable to the Claimants for acquisition of

the land under Notifications dated 3rd July, 1995, the High

Court  finalized  the  market  value  at  Rs.795/-  per  square

yard by granting an increase of 12 per cent per annum, on

a cumulative basis, on the compensation payable for the

land under the Notification dated 5th June, 1992.   

                              4. The  Appeals  filed  by  the  Claimants  and  the  State

against the judgment of the High Court were allowed by

this Court and the matters were remitted back for fresh

consideration.  Finding fault with the judgment of the High

Court in determining the compensation only on the basis of

Escort’s case (supra), this Court requested the High Court

7

to consider the sale instances and the other documentary

evidence that may be placed on record by the parties for

determination of the market value.   

5. On a re-consideration of the matter as requested by

this Court, the High Court came to the conclusion that the

compensation  which  was  assessed  earlier  by  the  High

Court  does  not  require  any  alteration.   The  High  Court

referred to Exhibit-P6 dated 31st January, 1984 pertaining

to the sale of 194.14 square meters (232 square yards)

which  was  sold  at  a  total  price  of  Rs.10,00,000/-  i.e.

Rs.4306/- per square yard.            The sale transaction is in

respect of a plot in an auction.  As per the conditions of the

auction, only 10 per cent was to be paid at the time of the

auction and the balance was payable in instalments.  No

site plan of the location of the said land was filed. This was

the only transaction which pertained to a period prior to

the  Notification  dated  7th April,  1986.   The  High  Court

considered  Exhibit-P7  which  related  to  the  sale  of  an

industrial  plot  measuring  11,000  square  yards  at  an

average  price  of  Rs.1,145/-  per  square  yard.  The

transaction took place twelve years after the Notification

8

dated  7th April,  1986.  The  High  Court  also  considered

exhibits P-8 and P-9  relating to allotment letters of 14th

November,  1994  for  a  small  plot  measuring  21  square

yards in Sector 15-A, Faridabad at the rate of Rs.1,666/-

per  square  yard  and  8th January,  1992  for  a  shop

measuring                       40 square yards in Sector 15-A,

Faridabad  at  the  rate  of  Rs.875/-  per  square  yard

respectively.  The High Court referred to a judgment of this

Court in Ashrafi & Others v.  State of Haryana2 in which

Rs.325  per  square  yard  was  determined  as  the  market

value for the land situated in Sector 45, Faridabad which

was  acquired  by  a  Notification  dated  2nd August,  1989.

Considering  the  locational  advantage and potentiality  of

the land acquired under the Notifications  in  the present

Appeals, the High Court was of the opinion that Rs.435/-

per  square  yard  which  was  determined  for  the  land

acquired under the Notification dated 7th April, 1986 does

not need any alteration.  The High Court has taken into

account  the  allotment  letters  Exhibits  P-12  to  P-14,  by

which small booths were sold by way of open auction in

Sectors 15-A and 16-A, Faridabad and it was of the opinion

2 (2013) 5 SCC 527  

9

that  the variation of  prices in  these allotments made in

1989  made  the  said  transactions  unreliable  for

determining the market value.  That apart, the High Court

felt  that  the  sales  of  small  plots  are  not  comparable

transactions.   In  the  absence  of  any  other  material  on

record,  the High Court  was of  the opinion that  granting

increase on an yearly basis for the time gap from 1986 to

1992  was  the  only  way  in  arriving  at  a  fair  and  just

compensation to be paid for acquisition of the land under

the Notification dated                      5 th June, 1992.  The

High Court, on the said finding, reiterated the market value

for  the  land  acquired  under  the  Notification  dated

5th June, 1992 at Rs.566/- per square yard.  By adding 12

per cent increase for three years from 1992 to 1995, the

High Court reaffirmed the compensation to be paid to the

Claimants  for  the  land  acquired  under  the  Notifications

dated 3rd July, 1995 at Rs.795/- per square yard.   

6. The  Claimants  as  well  as  the  State  are  before  us,

aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court.

Submissions made on behalf of the Claimants are that the

potentiality of the land for future use was not given proper

10

weight  by  the  High  Court,  that  the  comparable  sale

transactions  were  not  taken  into  account,  and  that  the

cumulative increase method was not  properly applied in

respect  of  these  Notifications.  According  to  the  learned

counsel for the State of Haryana, the High Court failed to

take into account the documents produced on behalf of the

State which showed that comparable sales were made at a

lesser price.   It  was contended on behalf  of the learned

counsel for the State that the market value arrived at by

the High Court was on a higher side.   

7. A perusal of the impugned judgment does not show

that there were any documents which were filed by the

State             in addition to those that were already on

record.  There is no reference to any serious effort made

by the State to question the market value which was fixed

by the Court earlier.  Taking into account the location of the

land and its potentiality on the dates of the Notifications

and  the  other  material  on  record,  we  do  not  find  any

reason  to  entertain  the  Appeal  filed  by  the  State  for

reduction  of  the  compensation  determined  by  the  High

Court.   

11

8. We are in agreement with the judgment of the High

Court  that  the  comparable  sale  transactions  of  small

extents  of  land  which  were  brought  on  record  by  the

Claimants  are  not  a  proper  indicia  for  determining  the

market value3.  The High Court was also right in not taking

into account the transactions pertaining to auction of small

booths4.  Considering the locational advantage of the land

in  issue  and  the  market  value  that  was  fixed  by  the

judgment in Escort’s (supra) and Ashrafi’s case (supra),

we are in agreement with the High Court that Rs.435/- per

square yard is a just and reasonable compensation for land

acquired  by the  Notification  dated 7th April,  1986.   It  is

relevant to refer to the judgment in Escort’s case (supra)

by which the High Court determined the compensation for

3.59 acres of land situated in Village Mewla  Maharajpur

acquired pursuant to a Notification under Section 4 of the

Act on 30th July, 1987.  By placing reliance on documentary

evidence, the Reference Court awarded a compensation of

Rs.255.49/- per square yard.  The High Court taking note of

3 Kasturi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354, ¶8;  Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Land Acquisition Officer and Asstt. Commr. (1996) 10 SCC 629, ¶4  

4 Karnataka Housing Board v. LAO, (2011) 2 SCC 246, ¶5 and ¶6

12

the rise in price of the land enhanced the compensation

with an increase of 12 per cent per annum for a period of

32 months between the date of the sale transactions relied

upon by the landowners till the Notification dated 30th July,

1987.   On  that  basis,  the  High  Court  in  Escort’s case

(supra)  held  that  the  Claimants  were  entitled  to  a

compensation  of  Rs.337.20/-  per  square  yard.   A

Notification  issued  under  Section  4  of  the  Act  on  2nd

August, 1989 for acquisition of 184.66 acres of land Village

Mewla  Maharajpur,  Faridabad  was,  inter  alia,  subject

matter  of  the judgment  in  Ashrafi’s case (supra).   The

High  Court  determined  compensation  of  Rs.  220/-  per

square yard in respect of land situated in the said Village

Mewla Maharajpur.  This Court enhanced the compensation

to                Rs.325/- per square yard.  It is clear from the

record that the land situated in Village Mewla Maharajpur,

District Faridabad is not far away from Ajronda where the

land covered  by  the  Notifications  which  are  the  subject

matter of the present Appeals is situated.  Moreover, the

evidence on record shows that the land in issue has better

potential  in  comparison  to  the  land  situated  in  Village

13

Mewla  Maharajpur.    Accordingly,  in  respect  of  the

Notification dated 5th June, 1992, we are of the opinion that

the increase at the rate of five per cent per annum granted

by the High Court for the period between 1986 to 1992

needs to be enhanced to 12 per cent per annum.  It was

observed  in  ONGC Limited v.  Rameshbhai  Jivanbhai

Patel5 as follows:  

“13. Primarily,  the  increase  in  land  prices depends on four factors: situation of the land, nature  of  development  in  surrounding  area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas,  unless  there  is  any  prospect  of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban  or  semi-urban  areas,  where  the development  is  faster,  where  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. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the  escalations  in  prices  have  touched  even

5 (2008) 14 SCC 745 ¶13

14

30%  to  50%  or  more  per  year,  during  the nineties.”

9. The  land  acquired  under  these  Notifications  is  in

Sectors  20-A  and  20-B,  Faridabad.   There  was  a  steep

increase in the price of land in the 1990s.  The material on

record  suggests  that  the  Secretariat  and  several  other

commercial  complexes  came  up  just  opposite  the  land

acquired during the period.   On the basis of the above

factors, we are of the opinion that 12 per cent per annum

cumulative increase on Rs.435/-  per square yard can be

granted for the land acquired under the Notification dated

5th June, 1992. In respect of the land acquired under the

Notifications dated 3rd July, 1995, the Claimants would be

entitled  for  compensation  by  taking  into  account  a

cumulative increase of 12 per cent per annum on Rs.435/-

per  square  yard  from the  year  1986  to  the  year  1995.

Though this Court in ONGC’s case (supra) sounded a note

of caution in the adoption of annual increase method to be

applied only for a few years,  this Court after taking into

account the facts and circumstances of the case, applied

the cumulative increase for eight years                      in

15

Wazir v. State of Haryana6 and nine years in Ashrafi’s

case (supra).   On an overall appreciation of facts and the

material on record, we are of the view that the cumulative

increase at the rate of 12% per annum from 1986 to 1995

is just and reasonable.   

10. Accordingly,  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  is

modified and the Claimants of the land acquired under the

Notification  dated  7th April,  1986  shall  be  entitled  to

compensation  at  the  rate  of  Rs.435/-  per  square  yard.

Compensation at the rate of           Rs. 860/- and Rs.1210/-

per  square  yard  is  payable  for  land acquired  under  the

Notifications  dated  5th June,  1992  and  3rd July,  1995

respectively.  The land owners shall be entitled to all other

statutory benefits under the Act.  Pending application(s), if

any, is also disposed.    

                          .................................J.

             [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

 ..................................J.               [M.R.SHAH]

New Delhi, March 11,  2019.

6 2019 SCC Online SC 35

16