SURENDER SINGH Vs THE STATE OF HARYANA
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL
Judgment by: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Case number: C.A. No.-000885-000885 / 2018
Diary number: 16693 / 2016
Advocates: SHOBHA GUPTA Vs
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.885 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15476 of 2016)
Surender Singh ….Appellant(s) VERSUS
State of Haryana & Ors. ….Respondent(s) WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.890 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18631 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.896 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19204 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 888 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18594 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 889 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18534 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 886 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 15541 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.887 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38745 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 897-900 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 19859-19862 of 2016)
2
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 909-912 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38735-38738 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.904 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 19955 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 891-895 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38746-38750 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 901-903 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38706-38708 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.905 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21944 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 984-985 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38729-38730 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1028-1034 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38477-38483 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1140-1146 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 24387-24393 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.920-952 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38562-38594 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1035-1043 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.32033-32041 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.914-915 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 26270-26271 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.906-907 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38710-38711 of 2016
3
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1182 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2785/2018
D.No.25046 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.987-992 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38504-38509 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1049-1053 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38470-38474 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO.908 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38701 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.972-981 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38718-38727 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 916-919 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38713-38716 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO.913 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38698 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1057-1058 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 2626-2627 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.953-971 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 2013-2031 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1012-1027 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38488-38503 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO.986 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 29499 of 2016
4
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1001-1002 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38484-38485 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1180-1181 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 2766-2767 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……CC No. 18530-18531 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1003-1009 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38510-38516 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1055-1056 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38434-38435 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO.982 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38703 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO.983 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38705 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1075 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8084 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1079 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.9551 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1078 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.9242 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1010 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.30834 of 2016)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1011 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.38659 of 2016)
5
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1138-1139 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 22957-22958 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1048 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.35059 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1044-1047 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 35054-35057 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1068 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 4371 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1066-1067 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 4335-4336 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1170-1179 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 2755-2764 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)… CC No. 24562-24570 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1059-1065 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 3033-3039 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1054 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38461 of 2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1072 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5934 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1074 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5935 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1076 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 9228 of 2017
6
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1077 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 9239 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1195-1196 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 2805-2806 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)…CC No. 3152 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1073 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5937 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1081 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 9924 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1069 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 4362 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1070-1071 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 4369-4370 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1150 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 31097 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1080 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 9243 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1132-1133 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 11874-11875 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1082-1131 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 11440-11489 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1134 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 11709 of 2017)
7
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1183 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2793 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 12429 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1186 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2795 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 12432 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1184 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2794 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 12433 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1185 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2796 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 12434 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1187 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2797 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 13789 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1190 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2800 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 13790 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1197 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2807 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 13791 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1188 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2798 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 13792 of 2017
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1189 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2799 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 15878 of 2017
8
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1169 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.372 of 2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1136 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21035 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1135 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17627 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1149 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 29983 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1137 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21420 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1147-1148 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 29981-29982 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1151-1153 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 31215-31217 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1154-1158 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 33226-33230 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1191-1194 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2801-2804 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 37077 of 2017)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1159-1168 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 34271-34280 of 2017)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.993-1000 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 1046-1053 of 2018)
9
J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the common
final judgment and order dated 05.02.2016 passed
by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 1854 of 2012 etc.etc.
whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeals
filed by the appellants herein and thereby enhanced
the compensation @ Rs.62,11,700/- per acre and
other statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and
accordingly modified the Award dated 27.02.2012
passed by the Reference Court, Gurgaon in LAC No.
551 of 2009/2011 and other connected matters
and, in consequence, dismissed the appeals filed by
the State.
10
3. In order to appreciate the entire controversy
involved in this bunch of appeals, it is necessary to
set out the facts in detail.
4. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
4 of the Act, the State of Haryana issued a
Notification on 11.01.2005 for acquisition of large
chunk of land totaling around 520 acres 02 Kanals
and 13.5 Marlas situated in 15 villages in the State
of Haryana. The acquisition in question was for the
public purpose, namely, construction of Express
Highway known as “KMP”. It was followed by
another notification issued on 17.11.2005 by the
State under Section 4 of the Act for the same public
purpose in relation to the land situated in 4 villages.
5. The details of the acquisition, such as name of
the villages and the area of the land situated in each
village are setout hereinbelow
11
S.No. Name of Village Area acquired (per acre)
1. Kasan 514 kanal 13 marla 2. Kukrola 97 kanal 04 marla 3. Khaintawas 99 kanal 14 marla 4. Dhana 241 kanal 00 marla 5. Path Hajipur 960 kanal 04 marla 6. Sultanpur 499 kanal 01 marla 7. Fazilwas 11 kanal 13 marla 8. Mokalwas 185 kanal 18 marla 9. Bas Lambi 313 kanal 07 marla 10. Mubarikpur 242 kanal 13 marla 11. Jhanjhrola J17 kanal 01 marla 12. Babra Bakipur 100 kanal 19 marla 13. Shed
Mohammadpur 222 kanal 01 marla
14. Kharkari 14 kanal 11 marla 15. Fakharpur 182 kanal 14 marla
6. This was followed by two declarations
published by the State under Section 6 of the Act.
One was published on 31.05.2005. It was in
relation to first notification issued under Section 4
of the Act on 11.01.2005 whereas other declaration
was published on 08.02.2006. It was in relation to
second notification issued under Section 4 of the
Act on 17.11.2005.
12
7. This was followed by the initiation of the
proceedings for determination of compensation
payable by the State to the landowners whose lands
were acquired in the acquisition proceedings in
question. Notices to landowners were accordingly
issued under Section 9 of the Act.
8. The Land Acquisition Officer held an enquiry
as required under Section 11 of the Act and passed
separate awards in relation to the lands situated in
different villages on 10.05.2006. The Land
Acquisition Officer determined the uniform rate
applicable to entire acquired land payable to every
landowner. In his opinion, all the landowners,
whose lands were acquired in the aforementioned
15 villages, were entitled to get the compensation at
the uniform rate of Rs.12,50,000/- per acre.
9. Dissatisfied with the awards, the landowners
filed their objections under Section 18 of the Act
13
and prayed for making reference to the Civil Court
for fresh determination of the compensation and the
rate at which it was payable. As a consequence
thereof, land references were accordingly made and
forwarded to the Reference Court for
re-determination of the compensation under the
Act. As many as 41 land references were made to
the Reference Court.
10. By a common Award dated 27.02.2012, the
Reference Court (Civil Court) partly allowed all the
reference cases and enhanced the rate of
compensation at Rs.43,17,841/- per acre. In other
words, the Reference Court enhanced the rate from
Rs.12,50,000/- per acre to Rs.43,17,841/- per acre.
11. This determination gave rise to filing of first
appeals by the landowners as well as the State of
Haryana in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana
under Section 54 of the Act. As stated at the bar, in
14
all, 556 first appeals were filed in the High Court
against the award of the Reference Court out of
which 258 appeals were filed by the landowners and
remaining 298 appeals by the State.
12. So far as the appeals filed by the landowners
were concerned, the landowners prayed therein for
grant of more compensation than what was awarded
by the Reference Court. In other words, the case of
the landowners in the High Court in support of their
appeals was that the Reference Court though was
right in enhancing the rate of compensation but was
not right in awarding at the rate of Rs.43,17,841/-
per acre. According to them, the rate of land
determined by the Reference Court should have
been much higher than Rs.43,17,841/- per acre
because the acquired land had immense potential.
13. So far as the appeals filed by the State were
concerned, the case of the State in the appeals was
15
that the Reference Court erred in determining the
market rate of the land at the rate of
Rs.43,17,841/- per acre. According to the State, it
was on higher side as compared to what was fixed
by the LAO, i.e., Rs.12,50,000/- per acre which, in
the facts and circumstances of the case, was just,
proper and adequate with no scope of any further
enhancement therein.
14. By impugned judgment, the High Court partly
allowed the appeals filed by the landowners and as
a consequence thereof dismissed the appeals filed
by the State. The High Court while partly allowing
the landowners’ appeals further enhanced the rate
of acquired land from Rs.43,17,841/- per acre to
Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.
15. In other words, in the opinion of the High
Court, the fair market rate of acquired land should
be at Rs.62,11,700/- per acre and, therefore, the
16
compensation be paid to each landowner for their
acquired lands, at the rate of Rs.62,11,700/- per
acre.
16. Against this judgment of the High Court, the
landowners as well as the State both felt aggrieved
and filed these appeals by way of special leave in
this Court.
17. So far as the appeals filed by the landowners
are concerned, their common case in their appeals
is that the High Court was right in enhancing the
rate of acquired land but was not right in confining
it to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. According to them,
the rate of acquired land should have been much
more than what was determined by the High Court,
i.e., Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.
18. So far as the appeals filed by the State are
concerned, the case of the State was that the High
Court erred in further enhancing the rate of
17
acquired land to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. According
to the State, there was no case made out for any
further enhancement in the rate of the acquired
land and on the other hand, the appeals filed by the
State deserved to be allowed by the High Court by
reducing the rate of acquired land fixed by the
Reference Court and restoring the rate fixed by the
LAO that being the fair market rate of the land
rightly fixed by the LAO, i.e., Rs.12,50,000/- per
acre.
19. It is essentially with this factual background,
the entire controversy on the question of
re-determination of the rate of acquired land
payable to the landowners is made the
subject-matter of these appeals at the instance of
the landowners and the State.
20. Therefore, the question that arises for
consideration in this bunch of appeals, is whether
18
the High Court was right in partly allowing the
landowners’ appeals and thereby was justified in
further enhancing the rate of compensation from
Rs.43,17,841/- per acre to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.
In other words, the question is whether the High
Court was justified in dismissing the State's appeals
and thereby was justified in not reducing the rate of
acquired land fixed by the Reference Court and
restoring the rate (Rs.12,50,000/- per acre) fixed by
LAO.
21. To put it in yet another words, what is the fair
market value of the acquired land in question - (1)
Rs.12,50,000/- per acre as fixed by the LAO; or (2)
Rs.43,17,841/- per acre as fixed by the Reference
Court; or (3) Rs.62,11,700/- per acre as fixed by the
High Court or lastly any other rate between
Rs.12,50,000/- per acre and Rs.62,11,700/- per
acre or more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre
19
prevailing on the date of acquisition i.e. 11.01.2005
and 17.11.2005.
22. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
23. As mentioned above, the submission of learned
counsel for the different landowners in support of
their respective appeals was more or less common.
According to them, there is overwhelming evidence
adduced by the landowners to prove the potentiality
of the land on the date of acquisition (11.01.2005
and 17.11.2005) which, in fact, found acceptance to
the High Court while enhancing the rate of acquired
land.
24. It was urged that having regard to the
situation, proximity and the surroundings of the
acquired area which was already developed much
prior to the date of the acquisition coupled with the
fact that at least one sale deed out of the four
exemplar sale deeds filed by the landowners
20
(Exs-P1, P-10, P-12, P-13 and P-14) to prove the
real market value of the acquired land as
contemplated under Section 23 of the Act should
have been made basis by the High Court for fixing
the rate of acquired land and had it been done then
the rate of acquired land would have been more
than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.
25. All the learned counsel for the landowners
then took us through the evidence with a view to
show the potentiality in the acquired land, its
situation, location, proximity with the well
developed areas and its surrounding places and on
that basis urged that a case for further
enhancement in the rate of the acquired land, i.e.,
more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre is made out
and, therefore, this Court should allow the appeals
filed by the landowners and suitably enhance the
21
rate of acquired land for determining the
compensation payable to each landowner.
26. In reply, learned counsel for the State of
Haryana contended that the High Court erred in
allowing the landowners’ appeals and further erred
in dismissing the State's appeals.
27. According to learned counsel, the landowners’
appeals were liable to be dismissed whereas the
State's appeals deserved to be allowed by the High
Court by setting aside the award of the Reference
Court.
28. His submission was that the High Court
cursorily disposed of the appeals without deciding
any issue though involved in the appeals thereby
causing prejudice to the rights of the State in
particular.
29. Learned counsel then took us through the
findings of the High Court and the issues raised by
22
the State for proper determination of the rates of the
acquired land and on that basis pointed out the
prejudice caused due to casual approach of the
High Court in deciding the appeals.
30. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the entire record of the
case, we are constrained to allow the appeals filed
by the State in part and set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court and also the award
passed by the Reference Court and are inclined to
remand the cases to the Reference Court (Civil
Court) for deciding the reference cases afresh on
merits in the light of our observations/directions
made hereinbelow.
31. The need to remand these cases to the
Reference Court has occasioned essentially for two
reasons. First, it is clear from the perusal of the
impugned judgment that the High Court essentially
23
based its decision or, we may say, proceeded to
decide the appeals by making the decision of this
Court in Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation vs Pran Sukh & Others [2010 (11)
SCC 175] to be the basis to examine the question as
to whether the rate of acquired land fixed by the
LAO and Reference Court is fair or not.
32. The High Court, however, noticed from the
facts involved in the case of Pran Sukh (supra) that
the land situated in one village - Kasan along with
its some adjoining villages was acquired on
15.11.1994 by the State and this Court determined
the compensation payable to the landowners of
Kasan village at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre.
33. The High Court felt that Rs.20,000,00/- per
acre should be taken as the base price for
determining the rate of acquired land in question.
The High Court perhaps did this after having
24
noticed that some part of the acquired land in these
appeals is situated in Kasan village and, therefore,
it is ideal to take the rate of Kasan village land as
basis for determining the rate of acquired land also.
The High Court accordingly gave annual increase of
8% to Rs.20,00,000/- and worked out the rate at
Rs.62,11,700/- per acre for the entire acquired land
in question by applying one uniform rate.
34. In our considered opinion, the approach of the
High Court in the facts of these cases does not
appear to be right inasmuch as the High Court
failed to take into consideration several material
issues which arose in these cases and had bearing
on determination of the fair market rate of the land
in question under Section 23 of the Act.
35. First, the acquired land, in these cases, was a
huge chunk of land measuring around 520 acres, 2
kanals and 13.5.marlas. Second, the entire acquired
25
land was not situated in village Kasan but it was
spread over in 15 villages as detailed above. Third,
there is no evidence to show much less any finding
of the High Court as to what was the actual
distance among the 15 villages against one another,
the location, situation/area of each village, whether
any development had taken place and, if so, its
type, nature and when it took place in any of these
villages, the potentiality and the quality of the
acquired land situated in each village, its nature
and the basis, the market rate of the land situated
in each village prior to the date of acquisition or in
its near proximity, whether small piece of land or
preferably big chunk of land, the actual distance of
each village qua any other nearby big developed city,
town or a place, whether any activity is being
carried on in the nearby areas, their details.
Fourth, whether the acquired land in the case of
26
Pran Sukh (supra) in village Kasan and the
acquired land in question are similar in nature or
different and, if so, how and on what basis, their
total distance etc.
36. These were, in our view, the issues which had
material bearing while determining the rate of the
acquired land in question.
37. The High Court, in the absence of any evidence
on any of these issues, could not have determined
one flat market rate of the acquired land in question
by applying one isolated rate of one land situated in
one village Kasan and adding 8% annual increase
from 1994 in such rate and made it applicable to
the entire lands situated in 15 different villages.
38. In our opinion, it is only when the evidence
had been adduced by the parties to the lis on the
aforementioned issues, the Court would have been
in a position to apply its mind objectively as to
27
which method should be applied for determination
of the rate, i.e., whether belting system or flat rate
system or different rates for different lands
depending upon the quality of land situated in
different villages etc.
39. The fair market value of the acquired land
cannot be decided in isolation on the basis of only
one factor. There are several other factors, which
govern the determination of the rate. These factors
need to be proved with sufficient evidence. It must
appear that the Courts have made sincere endeavor
to determine the fair market rate of the acquired
land and while determining has taken into account
all relevant aspects of the case. It is the duty of the
landowners and the State to adduce proper and
sufficient evidence to enable the Courts to arrive at
a reasonable and fair market rate of the acquired
land prevalent on the date of acquisition.
28
40. Taking into consideration the aforesaid
infirmities, which we have noticed, we have no
hesitation in holding that the trial in these cases
has not been satisfactory. We cannot countenance
the cursory manner in which both the Courts below
proceeded to determine the market rate of the
acquired land. It has certainly caused prejudice to
both the parties.
41. We do not blame any party for prosecuting
their case in wholly unsatisfactory manner but the
fact remains that both the parties failed to adduce
sufficient evidence on several material issues, as a
result, both the Courts below did not record any
finding on any of the material issues arising in the
case.
42. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find
it difficult at this stage to determine the fair market
rate of the acquired land for want of sufficient
29
evidence. If we do, it will cause prejudice to the
parties. We, therefore, refrain from doing so.
43. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow
the appeals filed by the State, set aside the
impugned judgment and the award of the Reference
Court (Civil Courts) and remand the cases to the
Reference Court for deciding all reference cases
afresh on merits keeping in view our observations
made supra.
44. Parties would be at liberty to adduce additional
evidence in support of their respective stand both
oral and documentary. The Reference Court will
accordingly decide the rate of land as prevalent on
the date of acquisition in the light of law laid down
by this Court strictly in accordance with law
uninfluenced by any finding of the High Court and
this Court on the merits.
30
45. Parties to appear before the Reference Court
on 05.02.2018 to enable the Reference Court to
proceed in the cases and ensure its disposal within
one year from the date of appearance of the parties
as an outer limit. The original record of the case, if
requisitioned here, be sent back forthwith to the
concerned Reference Court.
46. Since we have remanded these cases to the
Reference Court for fresh adjudication on merits in
accordance with law, the appellants (landowners)
are entitled to get back the amount of court fee paid
by each appellant (landowner) on his appeal memo
before the High Court as also before this Court as
provided under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act.
47. The Registry is accordingly directed to issue
necessary certificate of refund of Court Fee amount,
if paid by any of the landowner on his memo of
appeal in the High Court and in this Court under
31
the Court Fees Act to enable the landowners to
claim the refund of the court fee amount from the
concerned State Treasury.
48. If for any reason, it is not possible for the
Registry of this Court to issue refund certificate of
the Court Fee amount paid by the landowners
(appellants) on their memo of appeals filed in the
High Court on their respective appeal memo then
the requisite certificate shall be issued by the
concerned High Court as per the Rules in favour of
each appellant (landowner) under the Court Fees
Act.
………...................................J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; January 25, 2018