SUBHASH CHANDER Vs STATE OF HARYANA & ANR..
Bench: H.L. DATTU,DIPAK MISRA
Case number: C.A. No.-002187-002187 / 2013
Diary number: 14349 / 2008
Advocates: Vs
KAMAL MOHAN GUPTA
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2187 OF 2013 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL)NO. 17615 OF 2008)
SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2188 OF 2013 @S.L.P.(C)NO.17622 OF 2008 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2189 OF 2013 @S.L.P.(C)NO.17621 OF 2008 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2190 OF 2013 @S.L.P.(C)NO.17625 OF 2008 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2191 OF 2013 @S.L.P.(C)NO.17623 OF 2008 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2192 OF 2013 @S.L.P.(C)NO.17733 OF 2008 CIVIL APPEAL NO.2193 OF 2013 @S.L.P.(C)NO.21265 OF 2009
AND WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2194 OF 2013 @S.L.P.(C)NO.22374 OF 2009
O R D E R
1. Delay in filing applications for substitution is
condoned.
2. Applications for substitution are allowed.
3. Permission to file Special Leave Petitions is
granted.
4. Delay in filing the S.L.Ps is condoned.
5. Leave is granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
6. These Civil Appeals filed by the land-owners are
disposed of by this common judgment and order, since
Page 2
2
the issues involved are one and the same.
7. The facts in these appeals are as under: The
respondent-State had acquired lands in and around the
Municipal limits of Karnal, Haryana, for the purpose
of development of an urban estate. The first phase of
such acquisition of lands under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) had taken
place some time in the year 1973 and 1977. The lands
so acquired were later renamed as Sectors 13 and 14.
The Land Acquisition Collector by award dated
23.11.1973 had awarded compensation of Rs.270/-
per biswa (Rs.5.40 per square yard, (for short “per
sq. yard”) for whole of the land, besides Ghair
Mumkin rasta) and Rs.135/- per biswa (Rs.2.70 per sq.
yard for Ghair Mumkin rasta). The compensation so
awarded was further enhanced by the Reference Court.
On further appeal by the land-owners therein, the
High Court in the case of Jatinder Singh vs. The
State of Haryana and ors. (R.F.A. No. 1655 of 1979
dated 17.07.1980) had enhanced the compensation at
the rate of Rs.22/- per sq. yard. The lands in
dispute which are re-christened as Sector 6, 3, 9 and
7, was acquired under Section 4 of the Act by issuing
successive notifications dated 04.06.1980,
13.03.1981, 22.06.1982 and 05.07.1982, respectively.
On completion of the acquisition proceedings under
Page 3
3
the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector determined
the compensation at Rs.28,512/- per acre for Chahi
Nehri Land, Rs.22,080/- per acre for Barani Land,
Rs.14,200/- per acre for Banjar Qadim Land and
Rs.13,440/- per acre for Ghair Mumkin Land acquired
under notification dated 04.06.1980; at Rs.80,000/-
per acre for Chahi/Nehri Land and Rs.50,000/- per
acre for Ghair Mumkin Land acquired under
notification dated 13.03.1981; and at Rs.86,000/- per
acre in respect of land acquired under both the
notifications dated 22.06.1982 and 05.07.1982.
8. Aggrieved by the determination of the compensation
by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land-owners
had sought reference of the matter to the Civil Court
under Section 18 of the Act for determining the fair
and just compensation for the lands acquired. Upon
such reference, the Reference Court had enhanced the
rate of compensation in respect of lands in Sectors
6, 3, 9 and 7 to Rs.20/-, Rs.33/-, Rs.35/- and
Rs.35/- per sq. yard, respectively. Being
dissatisfied with the compensation so awarded,
several land-owners had filed appeals before the High
Court seeking enhanced compensation. The respondent-
State had also appealed against the aforesaid award
seeking reduction of the compensation so determined.
Page 4
4
9. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in the
aforesaid Appeal No. 882 of 1983 and connected
matters has determined the rate of compensation
payable to the lands acquired under different
notifications as under:
“In absence of sufficient material of comparable rates, the market price can be determined by periodical increase formula approved by the Apex Court in the case of Sahaswan, District Badaun (supra). If the formula approved by the Apex Court in Shaswan, District Baduan (supra) is to be applied with 1973 year as the base, the market value of the land in the year 1980 comes to Rs.58.45/-, in the year 1981 comes to Rs.66.21/- and in the year 1982 comes to Rs.76.21/-. The land being big chunk, 1/3rd of the development purposes, for roads, parks and public utilities. Therefore, the rate per square yard comes to Rs.39.17/- as on the date of notification dated 4.6.1980 and Rs.44.37/- per square as on the date of notification dated 13.3.1981 and at Rs.51.07/- per square yard as on the dates of notifications dated 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982. Accordingly, the market price of the land under different acquisition notifications is assessed at Rs.39/- per square yard in respect to land acquired for Sector 6 (represented by notification dated 4.6.1980) and Rs.44/- for Sector 3 (represented by the notification dated 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982). These appeals are accordingly allowed with costs and respondents are directed to calculate the compensation for the acquired land at the above rates. The appellants are also entitled to solatium and interest as determined by the Reference Court on the amount determined herein.”
10. The aforesaid conclusion is reached by the learned
Single Judge keeping in view the judgment and order
passed in RFA No. 1655 of 1979 dated 17.07.1980 and
Page 5
5
accordingly has enhanced compensation payable at the
rate of 15% per annum from the date of last
acquisition in the same area in the light of
observations of this Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti v. Bipin Kumar, (2004) 2 SCC 283. However,
1/3rd of the price is deducted as development cost
and, accordingly, the market price of lands was
assessed at Rs.39/- per sq. yard for Sector 6; at
Rs.44/- per sq. yard for Sector 3; and at Rs.51/- per
sq. yard for both Sectors 7 and 9. The land-owners
were also awarded solatium and interest.
11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order so passed
by the learned Single Judge, the land-owners are
before us in these appeals.
12. We have heard Shri V.K. Jhanji and Shri P.N.
Misra, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants and Shri Tarjit Singh, learned counsel for
the State.
13. Shri Jhanji and Shri Misra would contend that the
learned Single Judge while determining the just and
fair compensation payable to the land owners ought
not to have deducted 1/3rd price towards the
development costs, after taking into consideration
the base price of the lands acquired at Rs.22/- per
sq. yard in consonance with the price of lands
Page 6
6
acquired earlier which are renamed as Sectors 13 and
14. They would submit that such deduction in the name
of costs for developing roads, parks and other public
utilities is contrary to the base price fixed in the
case of Jatinder Singh’s case (supra). In aid of
their submission, the learned counsel have relied
upon several judgments of this Court, reference to
which, in our opinion, may not be necessary for the
purpose of disposal of these appeals.
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State
would justify the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court.
15. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and
order including the awards of the Courts below. We
have also appreciated the arguments advanced by the
parties to the lis.
16. We notice that the learned Single Judge, while
enhancing the compensation has followed the
quantification of compensation of the adjacent lands
at the rate of Rs.22/- per sq. yard previously
determined by the High Court for lands acquired by
the respondent-State in the year 1973 and 1977. The
said rate pertains to the lands later named as
Page 7
7
Sectors 13 and 14, which are situated across the
lands in lis herein. The learned Single Judge, after
keeping the base price at Rs.22/- per sq. yard has
enhanced the compensation at the rate of 15% per
annum for the lands acquired vide notifications dated
04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982 and 05.07.1982
later named as Sectors 6, 3, 9 and 7, respectively.
While doing so, he has deducted 1/3rd of the said
price towards costs borne by the respondent-State in
development of such lands as commercial and
residential areas.
17. In our view, since the learned Single Judge has
fixed the base price in consonance with the
compensation awarded for lands previously acquired in
the year 1973 and 1977 and calculated the market
value with an increase at the rate of 15% per annum
from 1973 till the issuance of respective
notifications dated 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981,
22.06.1982 and 05.07.1982 following the observation
made by this Court in Krishi Utpadan case (supra), in
our considered opinion, ought not to have made any
deduction towards the development costs.
18. In view of the above, while modifying the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, we direct the
Reference Court to determine the market value of the
Page 8
8
lands acquired and re-christened as Sectors 3, 6, 7
and 9 at the rate of Rs.58.45/- for the lands
acquired under 1980 notification, at Rs.66.21/- for
the lands acquired under 1981 notification and
Rs.76.21/- per sq. yard for the lands acquired under
1982 notification without deducting 1/3rd of the price
towards development costs.
19. Shri Jhanji, learned counsel for the appellants,
would raise another contention insofar as the non-
payment of interest on the solatium amount awarded by
the High Court. He would submit that the learned
Single Judge, while determining the compensation
payable to the appellants ought to have directed the
Reference Court to award appropriate interest on the
solatium amount. To buttress his contention he
refers to the Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India, (2001)
7 SCC 211, wherein the Court while considering the
scope and extent of solatium under the provisions of
the Act has observed in respect of interest accruing
on such solatium and stated at paragraph 24 as under:
“ The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the position further clear. The proviso says that “If such compensation” is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year “on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of
Page 9
9
such expiry”. It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would be no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What the legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the legislature when that section was framed or enacted.”
20. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment and
order, has not awarded interest on the solatium amount.
We are of the opinion that in view of the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court, the learned Judge ought to
have granted interest on the solatium amount.
21. In view of the above discussion, we allow these
appeals, modify the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and remit these appeals to the Reference Court to
re-determine the compensation payable to the land owners
in the light of the judgment and order passed by us in
these appeals. We further direct the Reference Court to
complete this exercise as early as possible, at any
rate, within an outer limit of six months.
Page 10
10
Ordered Accordingly.
.......................J.
(H.L. DATTU)
.......................J.
(DIPAK MISRA)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 19, 2013.