KASHMIR SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA .
Bench: SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,A.K. SIKRI
Case number: C.A. No.-011030-011030 / 2013
Diary number: 1929 / 2011
Advocates: PANKAJ GUPTA Vs
KAMAL MOHAN GUPTA
Page 1
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11030/2013 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3711 of 2011)
Kashmir Singh …Appellant(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors. …Respondent(s)
With
C.A.No11031/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3743/2011
C.A.No.11032/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3776/2011
C.A.No.11033/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3791/2011
C.A.No.11034/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3901/2011
C.A.No.11035/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3909/2011
C.A.No.11036/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3911/2011
C.A.No.11037/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3914/2011
J U D G M E N T
A.K.SIKRI,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In all these appeals, challenge is laid to the judgment of the High Court
pronounced on 20th September 2010, whereby number of appeals filed for
enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’) were dismissed by the High Court.
The land of the appellants was acquired by the Government of Haryana,
1
Page 2
which falls in the Revenue Estate of Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District
Fatehabad, Haryana. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) had assessed the
market value of the acquired land @ Rs.2,75,000/- per acre for chahi,
Rs.1,75,000/- per acre for Tibba/Tall and Rs.3,25,000/- per acre for gair
mumkin land. The appellants had filed objections to the said determination
of compensation by the LAC and the matter was referred to the learned
Additional District Judge, Fatehabad under Section 18 of the LA Act. The
learned ADJ passed the award dated 21.2.2006. Vide this award, he
categorized the land into two categories, namely category-A and category-B
and fixed the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for category-A and
Rs.6,50,000/- per acre for category-B. Still dissatisfied and aspiring for
further enhancement of the compensation, the appellants filed Regular First
appeal from the aforesaid orders of the learned ADJ. However, these appeals
have been dismissed holding that the compensation as fixed by the learned
ADJ is appropriate and does not call for any further enhancement. Feeling
aggrieved, present appeals have been filed. Since the land of all the
appellants is situate in Revenue Estate of Tohana, District Fatehabad,
Haryana and is acquired by the same Notification, facts pertaining to the said
Notification apply to all these appellants. The only difference is in the
quantum of land which was owned by these appellants and has been taken
away by the State in acquisition. Therefore, taking general note of the
particulars of acquisition and the nature of land, would serve the purpose.
2
Page 3
3. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
issued on 11.1.2001. This was published in official gazette on 08.01.2002.
The land is situate in revenue estate of Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana.
The public purpose mentioned was the construction of godowns and rice
mills at Tohana, for HAFED (Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Market
Federation Ltd.). In pursuance to the Land Acquisition Collector’s Award
dated 19.9.2003, the acquired lands were taken possession on 17.12.2003.
The Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act vide its award dated
21.2.2006 assessed the compensation @ Rs.8/- Lac per acre and Rs.6.50 Lac
per acre by categorizing the acquired land in two categories, viz. Category-A
and Category-B. Under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, the escalation was fixed
at 12% per annum on the assessed compensation. The other statutory
benefits were also allowed thereby. The appeals filed by land owners before
the High Court, seeking enhancement of compensation and the appeal filed
by HAFED seeking reduction of compensation are decided by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana vide a common judgment dated 20.9.2010. Appeals
of both the parties have been dismissed as noted above.
4. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court would reveal that though
the appellants had produced on record certain sale deeds and other
documents showing higher value of the land, the High Court chose to rely
upon only one document, namely, Ex.P-15 which is a conveyance deed
registered for sale by Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation
(HSIDC) to the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC). Vide this
3
Page 4
Conveyance Deed 34,475 square meters of land was sold by the HSIDC to
CWC @ Rs.150/- per square meter. The allotment letter issued in this behalf
was dated 4.9.2001 and from this the High Court inferred that process for
sale must have been started much prior thereto. In the instant case, since
the Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act is dated 11.1.2001, in the
opinion of the High Court, it was the most approximate date to the aforesaid
sale of land in favour of CWC. The High Court also found that the land sold
to CWC is located at a link road whereas the land of the appellants which
was acquired by the Government was located at a crossing of five roads and
thus lands sold of HSIDC to CWC was better located. The High Court, thus,
relied upon the said sale deed on the basis of which it has concluded that the
assessment of compensation by the learned ADJ is most appropriate.
5. In an endeavour to find fault with the aforesaid approach of the High
Court, Mr. Singla, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
submitted that the High Court committed an error in relying upon the said
solitary document and in the process ignore other more relevant documents
which had been produced by the appellants. He submitted that the acquired
land is strategically located which the landowners have proved by producing
on record the site plans, Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-28. The acquired land is located
near the industrial area. There are many commercial establishments located
near the acquired like viz. FCI godwon, CWC godown, HUDA Colony, Grain
Market of Tohana, Mirch Mandi, Railway Station. The land is situated in the
fast developing area of Tohana town and all the civil facilities are available
4
Page 5
there. The acquired land is situated on a State Highway close to industrial
and residential area. The valuation of the land considering the same merely
of agricultural kind is not fair as it had great future potential. Mr. Singla
specifically referred to Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-4 which are the Government
documents and as per these documents even the State agencies had been
mentioning the value of acquired land @ Rs.7/- Lac per acre. He also
referred to Ex.P-18 which shows the allotment of commercial plot of 100
square yards by HUDA @ Rs.1193/- per square yard. His submission was
that though these arguments and the aforesaid referred documents were
specifically taken note of by the High Court but not dealt with and
completely ignored. Mr. Singla also drew our attention to the following
findings of the Reference Court regarding the nature of the land:
“…….After careful consideration of the case law relied upon by both the parties and after appreciating the evidence brought on record by both the parties, it is held that in view of the cogent and reliable oral as well as documentary evidence coupled with the admissions of RW1, it is clearly proved on the file that as far as the location and potentiality of industrial, commercial and industrial nature and it was not simply agricultural land as found by the learned Land Acquisition Collector while fixing the market rate and as such, the market rate granted by the Land Acquisition Collector was much less than the prevailing rate at that time.”
6. He further referred to the following observation from the
judgment of this Court in Udho Das vs. State of Haryana 2010 (8) SCR
900:
5
Page 6
“….Concededly, the Act also provides for the payment of the solatium, interest and an additional amount but we are of the opinion, and it is common knowledge, that even these payments do not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum increase which courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case.”
7. His last submission was that in any case, the matter had now been set
at rest by recent judgment of this Court in Asharfi & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana 2013 (5) SCC 527 where similar submissions, which are made by
the appellants herein, have been accepted by the court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for Haryana State Co-operative Supply and
Market Federation Ltd. (HAFED), on the other hand, submitted that the High
Court has taken into consideration all the relevant documents even including
sale deed on which the appellants relied upon, but found that the only
relevant document for the purpose of arriving at just compensation was Ex.P-
15. He submitted that in preferring to make this document as the basis for
compensation, the High Court has given cogent reasons and therefore
judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted with. His submission was that
the learned ADJ had suitably enhanced the compensation by increasing it
6
Page 7
quite substantially than what was granted by the LAC. His further
submission was that reliance on allotment letter dated 8.10.2002 (Ex.P-18)
during the course of arguments, was totally misconceived as this was not
even pleaded in the memo of SLP filed or the memo of appeals filed before
the High Court. In any case, the relevant date for determination of market
price of the land was 11.1.2001 when Notification under Section 4 of the LA
Act was issued and relying upon two allotment letters were of subsequent
dates which were issued more than 17 months after the date of issuance of
Section 4 Notification. Therefore, relying upon these documents was totally
misplaced. Referring to the question of law framed in the SLP, he further
submitted that the earlier arguments advanced were neither raised in the
SLP nor argued before the courts below and therefore the appellants cannot
be allowed to take fresh plea for the first time in this Court. It was also his
submission that the judgment relied upon by the appellants had no
application to the facts of the present case.
9. We are of the view that the matter does not require elaborate
discussion inasmuch as the acquisition of land in Fatehabad District itself,
which was acquired in the year 1993 was the subject matter of consideration
in the case of Asharfi (supra). In that case, the court had dealt with various
Notifications issued by different State Governments acquiring lands in their
respective States. It included acquisition of lands situated in Fatehabad,
District Hissar, Harayana as well. The Court fixed the compensation @
7
Page 8
Rs.3.50 per square yard as on 1993 and the following discussion ensued in
this behalf in Para 15 of the judgment.
10. It is clear from the above that price of land in the said area in 1991 was
fixed @ Rs.420/- per square yard. The Court had applied the formula of 12%
per year in the valuation of land and on that basis fixed the market rate at
approximately Rs.520/- per square yard after taking a deduction of one-third,
the valuation was arrived at Rs.350/- per square yard in the year 1993. The
relevant portion of the judgment, in this behalf reads as under:
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 Appeals Nos. 319-52 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 SLPs (C) Nos. 26772-79 of 2009 (now appeals). As indicated hereinbefore, in para 25, 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 square yard. The High Court modified the said award and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs 260 per square 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 square 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 one-third 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
8
Page 9
lands in the area in 1991 was on an average of about Rs 420 per square yard. Given the sharp rise in land prices, the value, according to Mr. Swarup, would have doubled to about Rs 800 per square 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 square yard. Imposing a deduction of one-third, valuation comes to about Rs 350 per square yard, which, in our view, would be the proper compensation for the lands covered in the case of Mukesh and other connected matters.”
11. Going by the formula adopted in the aforesaid judgment, 12% per
annum increase can be applied on the value of land determined as Rs.520/-
per square yard in the year 1993, upto the year 2001 when the Notification
under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the instant case. However, we
cannot be oblivious to the fact that from 1993 to 2001, there was a period
when instead of increase in the land price, there was attrition in the land
rates. Therefore, we would like to enhance the value by applying the
formula of 12% per annum increase for a period of 4 years, instead of taking
entire period 1993 and 2001 (and this would not be treated as a precedent).
When calculated in this manner, the valuation of the land in the year 2001
shall come to Rs.770/- per square yard. After making a deduction of one-
third therefrom the net valuation comes to Rs.514/- per square yard.
Compared to the land value of this very area in 1993 which was fixed at
Rs.350/- per square yards, we have increased the same by about 50% over a
period of 7 years or so, which we think, is quite reasonable as this much
compensation is legitimately due to the appellants. We, accordingly, fix the
9
Page 10
compensation @ Rs.514/- per square yard for the acquired land of the
appellants.
12. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
………………………………J.
(Surinder Singh Nijjar)
……………………………….J.
(A.K.Sikri) New Delhi, December 13, 2013
10