Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2714-2721/2012

ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. ETC. Appellants(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1527/2016 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12495/2015)

J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12495 of  2015

2.  Around  46.93  acres  of  Land  was  acquired  by  the  

respondent-  State  of  Haryana  initiating  the  proceedings  by  

Notification dated 19.09.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land  

1

Page 2

Acquisition Act, 1894. The purpose of acquisition is residential and  

commercial for Panchkula, Sector-21. The acquired property is in  

Village Fatehpur. In respect of the same development, we have  

seen that this court in many cases has based the fixation of the  

land value based on acquisition proceedings initiated in 1981 in  

Village Judian.  Those properties in village Judian had access to  

State Highway and the value fixed by this Court is Rs. 250/- per  

square  yard.  In  respect  of  properties  situated  in  the  adjoining  

village of the appellants namely, Devi Nagar, we have fixed land  

value  at  the  rate  of  Rs.  250/-  per  square  yard  that  was  the  

acquisition  initiated  in  the  year  1987  and  that  property  had  

extensive national highway frontage.  

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in all the  

adjoining  villages  for  the  properties  acquired  for  the  same  

purpose, this court having fixed the land value at Rs. 250/- per  

square yard and above, the appellants may also be granted the  

same value.  

4. Shri  Sanjay  Kumar  Tyagi,  learned  Additional  Advocate  

General for the respondent- State of Haryana however points out  

2

Page 3

that  even  according  to  the  appellants,  their  claim  was  only  

Rs.125/-  per  square  yard  and  in  any  case  the  land  of  the  

appellants does not have the same advantage when compared to  

other properties for which this court had fixed the land value at  

Rs.250/- per square yard and above.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants however points  

out that in the matter of fixation of just and fair compensation,  

the Court is not bound by claim made by the owner. It is for the  

Court, in the facts and circumstances of each case, to award just  

and fair compensation.

6. Prior  to  amendment  Act  68  of  1984,  the  amount  of  

compensation that could be awarded by the Court was limited to  

the amount claimed by the applicant. Section 25 read as under -  

“Section  25.  Rules  as  to  amount  of  compensation -  (1)  When  the  applicant  has  made  a  claim  to  compensation, pursuant to any notice given under  Section  9,  the  amount  awarded  to  him  by  the  court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or  be less than the amount awarded by the Collector  under Section 11.  (2) When the applicant has refused to make such  claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to  be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the  

3

Page 4

amount  awarded  by  the  court  shall  in  no  case  exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. (3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient  reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such  claim,  the amount awarded to him by the court  shall  not  be  less  than,  and  may  exceed,  the  amount awarded by the Collector.”

The amended Section 25 reads as under:  

“Section  25.  Amount  of  compensation  awarded by Court not to be lower than the  amount awarded by the Collector- The amount  of compensation awarded by the Court shall  not  be less than the amount awarded by the Collector  under Section 11.”

The amendment has come into effect on 24.09.1984.

7. The pre-amended provision put a cap on the maximum; the  

compensation  by  court  should  not  be  beyond  the  amount  

claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, put a cap on  

the  minimum;  compensation  cannot  be  less  that  what  was  

awarded  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector.  The  cap  on  

maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is  

put  is  only  on  minimum,  it  is  clear  that  the  amount  of  

compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to  

the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the Court  

4

Page 5

to award just and fair  compensation taking into consideration  

the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of  

the claim made by the owner.

8. Although in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,  

this Court in Sanjay Batham v. Munna Lal Parihar1 held that  

-

“17.  It  is  true  that  in  the  petition  filed  by  him  under  Section 166 of  the  Act,  the  Appellant  had  claimed compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/- only, but  as held in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2  SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the  Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court  is  entitled to  award higher  compensation to  the  victim of an accident.”

9. In  Bhag  Singh  and  Others v. Union  Territory  of  

Chandigarh2, this Court held that there may be situations where  

the amount higher than claimed may be awarded to the claimant.  

The Court observed –

“3. … It must be remembered that this was not a  dispute  between  two  private  citizens  where  it  would be quite just and legitimate to confine the  claimant  to  the  claim  made  by  him and  not  to  award him any higher amount than that claimed  though  even  in  such  a  case  there  may  be  

1 (2010) 11 SCC 665 2 (1985) 3 SCC 737

5

Page 6

situations  where  an  amount  higher  than  that  claimed  can  be  awarded  to  the  claimant  as  for  instance where an amount is claimed as due at the  foot of an account. Here was a claim made by the  appellants  against  the  State  Government  for  compensation  for  acquisition  of  their  land  and  under the law, the State was bound to pay to the  appellants  compensation  on  the  basis  of  the  market value of the land acquired and if according  to the judgments of the learned single Judge and  the Division Bench, the market value of the land  acquired  was  higher  than  that  awarded  by  the  Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional District  Judge,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  appellants  should have been denied the benefit of payment  of the market value so determined. To deny this  benefit  to  the  appellants  would  tantamount  to  permitting  the  State  Government  to  acquire  the  land of the appellants on payment of less than the  true market value. There may be cases where, as  for  instance,  under'  agrarian  reform  legislation,  the holder of land may, legitimately, as a matter of  social  justice  with  a  view  to  eliminating  concentration of land in the hands of a few and  bringing  about  its  equitable  distribution,  be  deprived  of  land  which  is  not  being  personally  cultivated  by  him  or  which  is  in  excess  of  the  ceiling area with payment of little compensation or  no compensation at all, but where land is acquired  under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it would not  be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land  without payment of the true market value when  the law, in so many terms, declares that he shall  be paid such market value. …”

6

Page 7

10. In  Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v.  Kanhaiya Lal3,  this  

Court held that under the amended provisions of Section 25 of the  

Act, the Court can grant a higher compensation than claimed by  

the applicant in his pleadings -

“17. Award being in this case between the dates  30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 and as  per the Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh  (Dead)  by  LRs.  etc.  (Supra),  the  amended  provisions would be applicable under which there  is no restriction that award could only be upto the  amount  claimed  by  the  claimant.  Hence  High  Court  order  granting  compensation  more  than  what  is  claimed  cannot  be  said  to  be  illegal  or  contrary to the provisions of the Act.  Hence the  review  itself,  as  is  confined  for  the  aforesaid  reasons, has no merit.”  

11. Further, in Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer  

and  others4,  a  three-Judge  bench  reiterated  the  principle  in  

Bhag Singh (supra) and rejected the contention that a higher  

compensation than claimed by the owner in his pleadings cannot  

be  awarded  by  the  Court.  In  that  case,  the  High  Court  had  

concluded  that  although  the  market  price  of  the  land  was  Rs  

66,550/-  per  acre,  since  the  appellant  had  only  claimed  

compensation at the rate of Rs. 58,500/- per acre in his pleadings,  

3 (2000) 7 SCC 756 4 (2008) 10 SCC 797

7

Page 8

therefore he could only be awarded compensation limited to his  

claim. This Court, while reversing the decision of the High Court,  

awarded the petitioner  the market  value,  i.e.,  Rs.  66,550/-  per  

acre thereby holding that the award would not be limited to the  

claim made by him.

12. In  the  case  of  the  appellants  herein,  it  is  an  admitted  

position that  the  properties  do  not  abut  the national  highway.  

Admittedly, it is situated about 375 yards away from the national  

highway and it appears that there is only the narrow Nahan Kothi  

Road connecting the properties of the appellants to the national  

highway. Therefore, it will not be just and proper to award land  

value  of  Rs.250/-  per  square  yard,  which  is  granted  to  the  

property  in  adjoining village.  Having regard to  the factual  and  

legal position obtained above, we are of the considered view that  

the just and fair compensation in the case of appellants would be  

Rs. 200/- per square yard.   

13. Therefore,  these  appeals  are  disposed  off  fixing  the  land  

value at Rs. 200/- per square yard and the appellants shall also be  

entitled to all the statutory benefits. The amount as above shall  

8

Page 9

be paid and deposited after adjusting the deficit court fee, if any,  

before the Executing Court within a period of three months from  

today.

…….…………………………….J   (KURIAN JOSEPH)

….….…………………………….J (ROHINTON FALI  

NARIMAN) NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 18, 2016.

9