Non -Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.1572 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 29623 of 2016 ]

MAHANTI DEVI        .... Appellant

Versus

M/S JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. & ANR.

   ….Respondents W I T H  

CIVIL APPEAL No.1573 of 2019 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 29626 of 2016 ]

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.  1. A notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')

on 11.04.2005 for acquiring land measuring 720-18 bighas

and 95-4 bighas for the Himachal Cement Project (a unit of

M/s  Jaiprakash Associates  Ltd.)  in  the villages Baga and

Karog, Tehsil  Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.  The

said notification was published on 12.04.2005.  An award

was passed on 27.01.2006.  Compensation was computed

by  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  at  the  rate  of

Rs.2,10,000/- per bigha for cultivated land and Rs.40,369/-

per  bigha  for  uncultivated  land.   In  the  reference  filed

under  Section  18  of  the  Act,  the  Appellants  were  held

entitled  for  compensation  at  the  rate  of  Rs.5  lakh  per

bigha.   The sale deeds which were executed in 2004, i.e.,

one year  prior  to  the issuance of  the notification  under

Section 4 of the Act were brought on record.  According to

the well-established law as laid down by this  Court,  the

sale deed representing the highest market value was taken

into  account  by the  Reference Court  for  the  purpose of

computing the compensation.   Exhibit PW2/A pertained to

sale of 2 biswas of land for Rs.1,20,000/- as per which the

market value of one bigha would be Rs.12 lakhs.   In view

of the said sale deed pertaining to a small piece of land,

the Reference Court imposed a deduction of 60% of the

value of the land in Exhibit PW2/A and concluded that the

Appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.5

lakhs per bigha.   2. It is clear from a perusal of the judgment of the High

Court of Himachal Pradesh which heard the appeals filed

by the Respondent and the cross-objections filed by the

Appellants, that the logic followed by the Reference Court

was adopted and the compensation of Rs.5 lakhs per bigha

was maintained.  There was no detailed discussion either

by the Reference Court or the Appellate Court by taking

into account the relevant factors for making a deduction of

60% from  the  market  value  of  a  sale  deed  which  was

executed.   3. It was held by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor

v. State of Gujarat1 as under:-

“20. The amount of  compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be  identified  having  regard  to  the  proximity  from  time angle  as  well  as  proximity  from  situation  angle.  For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable  adjustment  has  to  be  made  having  regard  to various  positive  and  negative  factors  vis-à-vis  the  land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under:

Positive factors Negative factors (i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area (ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a

distance from the road (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with  

very small frontage compared  to depth

(iv) nearness to developed  area

(iv) lower level requiring the  depressed portion to be filled  up

(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from  developed locality

(vi) level vis-à-vis land under  acquisition

(vi) some special  disadvantageous factors  which would deter a purchaser

(vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to  whom it may have some very  special advantage”.

1 (2005) 4 SCC 789 p 797

4. We are informed by the learned counsel that a large

number of cases pertaining to the acquisition in issue in

this  case  are  pending  before  the  High  Court  and  the

Reference Court.   5. We deem it proper to remit these matters to the High

Court by setting aside the judgment in RFA No.178 of 2013

for a fresh consideration on the justifiability of imposition

of 60% deduction on the market value, while computing

the compensation to be paid to the Appellants.  The High

Court  would  be  well  advised  to  take  into  account  the

principles  laid  down  by  this  Court  for  the  purpose  of

deductions to be made on the market value. 6. The appeals are disposed of.     

               ..................................J.               [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

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

New Delhi, February 08, 2019