Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 7377 OF 2008

Bhupal Singh and Others       Appellant(s)

VERSUS

 State of Haryana        

Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8635-8636 OF 2014  CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8637-8638 OF 2014

AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6184-6185 OF 2010

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1.  Civil  Appeal  No.  7377  of  2008 is  filed  

against the judgment and order dated 19.10.2005  

1

Page 2

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana  

at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal No. 363 of  

1989 which arises out of  order dated 21.11.1988  

passed by the Additional District Judge Faridabad  

in  Land Acquisition Case No.  15 of  1988.   Civil  

Appeal Nos. 8635-8636 of 2014 & 8637-8638  

of 2014 are filed against the final judgment and  

orders  dated  07.05.2010  along  with  modified  

orders dated 23.07.2010 and 27.05.2010 passed  

by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  in  

Regular First Appeal Nos. 2214 of 2010 (O&M) and  

2253  of  2010  (O&M)  respectively  whereby  the  

High Court disposed of both the R.F.As in terms of  

order dated 19.10.2005 passed in R.F.A. No. 363  

of  1989.     Civil  Appeal  Nos.  6184-6185  of  

2010  are  filed  against  the  judgment  and  order  

dated 20.10.2009 in R.F.A. No. 3165 of 1993(O&M)  

and Cross Objection Petition No. 85-CL of 2009.

2

Page 3

2. By  impugned  judgment/orders,  the  Division  

Bench of  the High Court  partly  allowed the first  

appeals  filed  by  the  appellants  herein  

(claimants/landowners)  and  enhanced  the  

quantum  of  compensation  payable  to  the  

claimants at the rate of Rs.50/-  per sq.  yard for  

their  lands,  which  were  acquired  by  the  State  

under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter  

referred to as  “The Act").   Dissatisfied with the  

judgment/orders  passed  by  the  High  Court,  the  

claimants/land owners have filed these appeals for  

enhancement of the compensation.  

3. The question that arises for consideration in  

these  appeals  is  whether  the  High  Court  was  

justified in partly allowing the appeals filed by the  

claimants/landowners  by  awarding  compensation  

at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. yard for their lands  

which  were  acquired  by  the  State  or  the  rate  

3

Page 4

should have been more than Rs.50/- per sq. yard?

4. In  order  to  appreciate  the  controversy  

involved in these appeals, it is necessary to state  

the relevant facts infra.

5. The  appellants  are  the  owners  of  the  land  

described hereinbelow in relation to the appellants  

in the appeals:  

(i) Appellants in of C.A.  No.  7377 of 2008 and  

C.A. Nos. 6184-6185 of 2010 are the owners of the  

land  acquired  in  village  Atmadpur  Hadbast  No.  

127, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.  AND

(ii)  Appellants in C.A. Nos. 8635-8636 of 2014 and  

8637-8638  of  2014  are  the  owners  of  the  land  

acquired  in village Mawai, Hadbast Nos. 126  4,  

Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.  

6. In  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  under  

Section 4 of the Act, the State Government issued  

4

Page 5

a notification on 04.11.1977 and acquired a large  

chunk of land measuring 689 Kanals and 17 Marlas  

in  village  Atmadpur,  Hadbast  No.  127,  Tehsil  

Ballabhgarh  District  Faridabad,  Haryana  (as  

mentioned  in  Award  No.13  of  1982-83  –filed  as  

Annexure P-1 in C.A. No. 7377 of 2008), 66 Kanals  

15 Marlas  and 149 Kanals and 18 Marlas in Village  

Mawai, Hadbast Nos. 126 & 4, Tehsil  Ballabgarh,  

District Faridabad (as mentioned in Award No.12 of  

1982-83  &  Award  No.  1  of  1984-85-filed  as  

Annexures  P-1  &  P-3  respectively  in  C.A.  Nos.  

8635-36 of 2014 & 8637-8638 of 2014) and 445  

Kanals  12  Marlas   in  village  Atmadpur,  Hadbast  

No.  127,  Tehsil  Ballabhgarh  District  Faridabad,  

Haryana  (as  mentioned  in  Award  dated  

06.04.1989 passed by the reference Court of Land  

Acquisition Collector-filed as Annexure P-1 in C.A.  

Nos.  6184-85  of  2010)  for  development  of  

5

Page 6

residential colonies for the public at large. It was  

followed  by  the  declaration  published  on  

01.11.1980  under  Section  6  of  the  Act.  The  

aforementioned land belonging to the appellants  

was also acquired pursuant to these notifications.  

7. This  led to  initiation of  the  proceedings for  

determination of compensation payable to each of  

the  landowners  including  that  of  the  appellants  

herein  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  (in  short  

“the  LAO”).  Under Section 9 of the Act, notices  

were issued to the appellants calling upon them to  

participate in the land acquisition proceedings to  

enable the LAO to determine the fair market value  

of the lands on the date of acquisition as provided  

under  Section  23  of  the  Act  so  that  the  

compensation would be paid to the land owners at  

such determined rate.  Accordingly,  the LAO held  

an enquiry and after affording an opportunity to  

6

Page 7

the  appellants  passed  award  dated  18.11.1982  

and  02.05.1984  fixing  the  compensation  @  

Rs.16.52  per  square  yard  being  the  fair  market  

value  of  the  acquired  land  payable  to  the  

appellants.  

8. Feeling  aggrieved  by  the  said  awards,  the  

appellants  sought  reference  to  the  Civil  Court  

under Section 18 of the Act for re-determination of  

the compensation made by the LAO. The reference  

Court,  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  adduced,  

partly  answered  the  reference  in  favour  of  the  

appellants and accordingly enhanced the rate of  

compensation  from Rs.16.52  per  square  yard  to  

Rs.22/-  per  square  yard.  In  other  words,  the  

Reference  Court  held  that  the  appellants  were  

entitled to get compensation for their lands at the  

rate  of  Rs.22/-   per  square  yard  being  the  fair  

market  value  of  their  lands  on  the  date  of  

7

Page 8

notification issued under Section 4 of the Act.  

9. Dissatisfied with the determination made by  

the reference Court,  the appellants filed appeals  

under Section 54 of the Act before the High Court  

and challenged the legality and correctness of the  

award of the Reference Court out of which these  

appeals arise.

10. The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court,  by  

impugned  judgment/orders,  partly  allowed  the  

appeals  filed  by  the  appellants  and  accordingly  

enhanced  the  compensation  payable  to  the  

appellants.   The  High  Court  held  that  the  fair  

market  value/rate  of  the  acquired  lands  on  the  

date  of  acquisition  for  the  appellants’  land  was  

Rs.50/- per square yard and hence the appellants  

were  entitled  to  get  the  compensation  for  their  

acquired lands at  the rate of Rs.50/-  per  square  

yard along with other statutory benefits payable  

8

Page 9

under the Act. It is against these judgment/orders,  

the claimants/landowners have filed these appeals  

by way of special leave before this Court.    

11. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

12. Shri  Nidhesh Gupta,  learned Senior Counsel  

appearing  for  the  appellants  placing  reliance  on  

decisions in  Haji Mohd. Ekramul Haq vs. State  

of W.B. 1959 Supp(1) SCR 922, State of Kerala  

vs. P.P. Hassan Koya  (1968) 3 SCR 459,  Bhag  

Singh & Ors. vs. UT of Chandigarh  (1985) 3  

SCC  737,  Municipal  Committee,  Bhatinda  &  

Ors.  vs.  Balwant  Singh   (1995)  5  SCC  433,  

Union  of  India  &  Ors.  vs.  Mangatu  Ram &  

Ors.  (1997) 6 SCC 59,  V. Hanumantha Reddy  

vs.  Land  Acquisition  Officer  &  Mandal  R.  

Officer  (2003) 12 SCC 642,  General Manager,  

ONGC Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel &  

Anr.  (2008)  14  SCC  745,  Maharunnisa  vs.  

9

Page 10

Commissioner  &  Land  Acquisition  Officer,  

Bijapur  (2009) 9 SCC 750,  Chandrashekhar &  

Ors. vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition  

Officer, (2009) 14 SCC 441, Valliyammal & Anr.  

vs.  Special  Tehsildar  (Land  Acquisition)  &  

Anr.,  (2011) 8 SCC 91,  Chandrashekar (Dead)  

by L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer  

& Anr.,  (2012) 1 SCC 390,  Salaha Begaum &  

Ors.  vs.  Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer,  

(2013)  11  SCC  426  and  Digamber  & Ors.  vs.  

State of Maharashtra & Ors.,  (2013)  14 SCC  

406, contended that the High Court having rightly  

held  in  appellants’  favour  that  a  case  for  

enhancement in payment of compensation for the  

acquired land is made out, erred in enhancing the  

compensation  only  @  Rs.50/-  per  square  yard.  

According  to  the  learned  senior  counsel,  having  

regard to the nature of the potentiality of the use  

10

Page 11

of  the  lands  which  was  duly  proved  by  the  

appellants  by  adducing  evidence  and  rightly  

recognized by the Courts in appellants’ favour by  

returning finding on this issue, the appellants were  

entitled  to  claim  enhancement  in  the  

compensation  at  the  rate  ranging  between  

Rs.100/-  per  square  yard to  Rs.200/-  per  square  

yard in place of Rs.50/- per square yard. Learned  

senior  counsel  pointed out  that  several  acres  of  

lands situated near the acquired lands in question  

were acquired by the State Government between  

the years 1980 to 1989-1990 and for acquisition of  

these  lands,  the  State  Government  paid  

compensation to  their  landowners  @ Rs.300/-  to  

Rs.325/- per square yard pursuant to orders of the  

Courts.   Learned  senior  counsel,  therefore,  

contended that if Rs.300/-to Rs.325/- is taken to be  

the rate of the similarly situated lands in the year  

11

Page 12

1989-1990 and if  10% is reduced retrospectively  

on yearly basis of Rs.300/-to Rs.325/-, then in such  

event,  the  fair  market  value  of  the  lands  in  

question prevailing in the year 1977, i.e., the year  

of acquisition, could safely be determined between  

Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- per square yard. Lastly and in  

the alternative, learned senior counsel contended  

that  in  any event,  the High Court  having rightly  

held  that  the  appellants  were  entitled  to  claim  

compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.63/- per  

square  yard  erred  in  eventually  awarding  

compensation  at  the  rate  of  Rs.50/-  per  square  

yard without there being any basis. According to  

him, the appellants therefore were entitled to get  

the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.63/-  

per square yard instead of Rs. 50/- per square yard  

on the basis of finding of the High Court.  

13. In  contra,  learned  Counsel  for  the  

12

Page 13

respondent-  State  supported  the  impugned  

judgment and contended that no case is made out  

on facts or/and in law to call for any interference in  

the  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court.  

Learned counsel  while refuting the contention of  

Mr.  Nidesh  Gupta,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the appellants, contended that the  

fair market value of the lands in question cannot  

be  determined  in  the  manner  suggested  by  Mr.  

Gupta.   According  to  him,  firstly  in  order  to  

determine the fair  market  value of  the acquired  

land, as provided under Section 23 of the Act, one  

is  required  to  take  into  account  the  prevailing  

market  rate  of  the  similarly  situated  lands  in  

nearby area of the acquired land on the date of  

the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the  

Act but in no case the rate of the lands either sold  

or acquired subsequent to the date of issuance of  

13

Page 14

the  notification  in  question  can  be  taken  into  

consideration.  Learned  counsel  pointed  out  that  

the appellants never claimed compensation at the  

rate  of  Rs.200/-  per  square  yard  as  was  urged  

before this Court for the first time and hence at  

best the appellants could be considered for award  

of compensation at the rate of Rs.63/- per square  

yard but not beyond this rate.  

14. Having  heard  the  learned  Counsel  for  the  

parties and on perusal of the record of the case,  

we find force in the alternative submission of the  

learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellants  

mentioned above and hence are inclined to allow  

these appeals in part and accordingly modify the  

impugned award in favour of the appellants to the  

extent indicated below by enhancing the rate of  

the  land per  square  yard  for  re-determining  the  

payment of the compensation and other statutory  

14

Page 15

benefits payable under the Act to the appellants.

15. Law on the question as to how the Court is  

required to determine the fair market value of the  

acquired  land  is  fairly  well  settled  by  several  

decisions of this Court and remains no more  res  

integra. This Court has,  inter alia, held that when  

the acquired land is a large chunk of undeveloped  

land  having  potential  and  was  acquired  for  

residential purpose then while determining the fair  

market  value  of  the  lands  on  the  date  of  

acquisition,  the  appropriate  deductions  are  also  

required to be made.

16. It  is  apposite  to  take  note  of  some  of  the  

decisions of this Court on the issue relevant for the  

disposal of these appeals:

(i) In  Brig.  Sahib  Singh  Kalha  &  Ors. v.  

Amritsar Improvement Trust & Ors., (1982) 1  

SCC 419, this Court opined that where a large area  

15

Page 16

of undeveloped land is acquired, provision has to  

be made for providing minimum amenities of town  

life.  Accordingly,  it  was held that a deduction of  

20% of the total acquired land should be made for  

land  over  which  infrastructure  has  to  be  raised  

(space for roads, etc.).  Apart from the aforesaid, it  

was also held that the cost of raising infrastructure  

itself  (like  roads,  electricity,  water,  underground  

drainage,  etc.)  needs  also  to  be  taken  into  

consideration.  To  cover  the  cost  component  for  

raising  infrastructure,  the  Court  held  that  the  

deduction to be applied would range between 20%  

to 33%. Commutatively viewed, it was held, that  

deductions would range between 40% and 53%.

(ii) In  Chimanlal  Hargovinddas v.  Special  

Land Acquisition Officer, Poona & Anr. (1988)  

3  SCC  751  while  referring  to  the  factors  which  

ought  to  be  taken  into  consideration  while  

16

Page 17

determining  the  market  value  of  the  acquired  

land,  it  was  observed  that  a  smaller  plot  was  

within  the  reach  of  many  whereas  for  a  larger  

block of land there were implicit disadvantages. As  

a matter of illustration,  it  was mentioned that  a  

large  block  of  land  would  first  have  to  be  

developed by preparing its layout plan. Thereafter,  

it  would require carving out roads,  leaving open  

spaces,  plotting  out  smaller  plots,  waiting  for  

purchasers  (during  which  the  invested  money  

would  remain  blocked).  Likewise,  it  was  pointed  

out that there would be other known hazards of an  

entrepreneur.  Based  on  the  aforesaid  likely  

disadvantages it was held that these factors could  

be  discounted  by  making  deductions  by  way  of  

allowance  at  an  appropriate  rate  ranging  from  

20% to 50%. These deductions, according to the  

Court, would account for land required to be set  

17

Page 18

apart  for  developmental  activities.  It  was  also  

sought to be clarified that the applied deduction  

would depend on, whether the acquired land was  

rural  or  urban,  whether  building  activity  was  

picking up or was stagnant,  whether the waiting  

period  during  which  the  capital  would  remain  

locked  would  be  short  or  long;  and  other  like  

entrepreneurial hazards.

(iii) In  Kasturi  &  Ors. v.  State  of  Haryana,  

(2003)  1  SCC  354, this  Court  opined  that  in  

respect  of  agricultural  land or  undeveloped land  

which  has  potential  value  for  housing  or  

commercial  purposes,  normally  1/3rd  amount  of  

compensation  should  be  deducted  depending  

upon the location, extent of expenditure involved  

for development, the area required for roads and  

other civic amenities, etc. It was also opined that  

appropriate deductions could be made for making  

18

Page 19

plots for  residential  and commercial  purposes.  It  

was sought to be explained that the acquired land  

may be plain or uneven, the soil of the acquired  

land may be soft or hard, the acquired land may  

have a hillock or may be low-lying or may have  

deep ditches. Accordingly, it was pointed out that  

expenses  involved  for  development  would  vary  

keeping  in  mind the  facts  and circumstances  of  

each  case.  In  Kasturi  case, it  was  held  that  

normal  deductions  on  account  of  development  

would be 1/3rd of the amount of compensation. It  

was,  however,  clarified  that  in  some  cases  the  

deduction could be more than  1/3rd in other cases  

even less than 1/3rd.  

(iv) In  Lal  Chand v.  Union  of  India  & Anr.,  

(2009) 15 SCC 769,  it was held that to determine  

the market value of a large tract of undeveloped  

agricultural land (with potential for development),  

19

Page 20

with  reference  to  sale  price  of  small  developed  

plot(s),  deductions varying between 20% to 75%  

of  the  price  of  such  developed  plot(s)  could  be  

made.

(v) In  A.P.  Housing  Board v.  K.  Manohar  

Reddy  &  Ors.,  (2010)  12  SCC  707,  having  

examined the existing case law on the point it was  

concluded  that  deductions  on  account  of  

development could vary between 20% to 75%. In  

the peculiar facts of the case, a deduction of 1/3rd  

towards development charges was made from the  

awarded amount to determine the compensation  

payable.

(vi) In Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.  

v.  M.K.  Rafiq  Saheb,  (2011)  7  SCC  714,  this  

Court after having concluded that the land which  

was  the  subject-matter  of  acquisition  was  not  

agricultural land for all practical purposes and no  

20

Page 21

agricultural  activities  could  be  carried  out  on  it,  

concluded  that  in  order  to  determine  fair  

compensation,  based  on  a  sale  transaction  of  a  

small  piece  of  developed  land  (though  the  

acquired land was a large chunk),  the deduction  

made  by  the  High  Court  at  50%,  ought  to  be  

increased to 60%.

17. After taking note of the aforesaid cases and  

placing  reliance  upon  the  principles  laid  down  

therein,  this  Court  in  Chandrashekar  and  

Others, (supra) observed as under:

“It  is  essential  to  earmark  appropriate  deductions out of the market value of an  exemplar  land,  for  each  of  the  two  components referred to above. This would  be  the  first  step  towards  balancing  the  differential  factors.  This would pave the  way for determining the market value of  the  undeveloped  acquired  land  on  the  basis  of  market  value  of  the  developed  exemplar land.

As far back as in 1982, this Court in Brig.  Sahib  Singh  Kalha  case  held,  that  the  permissible  deduction  could  be  up  to  53%. This  deduction was divided by the  Court into two components. For the “first  component” referred to in the foregoing  

21

Page 22

paragraph, it was held that a deduction of  20%  should  be  made.  For  the  “second  component”,  it  was  held  that  the  deduction  could  range  between  20%  to  33%.  It  is  therefore  apparent  that  a  deduction of up to 53% was the norm laid  down by the Court as far back as in 1982.  The aforesaid norm remained unchanged  for a long duration of time, even though,  keeping  in  mind  the  peculiar  facts  and  circumstances  emerging  from  case  to  case,  different  deductions  were  applied  by this  Court  to balance the differential  factors  between  the  exemplar  land  and  the acquired land. Recently however, this  Court has approved a higher component  of deduction.

In 2009 in Lal Chand case and in 2010 in  A.P. Housing Board case it has been held  that while applying the sale consideration  of  a  small  piece  of  developed  land,  to  determine  the  market  value  of  a  large  tract  of  undeveloped  acquired  land,  deductions between 20% to 75% could be  made. But in 2009 in Subh Ram case, this  Court restricted deductions on account of  the “first component” of development, as  also,  on  account  of  the  “second  component” of development to 33% each.  The  aforesaid  deductions  would  roughly  amount to 67% of the component of the  sale  consideration  of  the  exemplar  sale  transaction(s).”

18. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, we  

have perused the evidence in these cases. It is not  

in dispute that the acquisition of land in question  

22

Page 23

was made in the year 1977 and it was for a large  

chunk of undeveloped agriculture land.  It is also  

not  in  dispute  that  it  was  for  construction  of  

“residential  purpose”.  It  is  further not in dispute  

that the appellants did not file any sale deed in  

evidence in support of their case to prove the fair  

market  value of the acquired land.  All  that  they  

adduced was an oral evidence of some witnesses  

to prove the potentiality of the lands by showing  

its location, proximity to the main road which was  

passing  in  the area  and named some industries  

and hospitals operating in the nearby areas of the  

acquired lands etc.  

19. Taking  all  these  factors  in  mind  and  on  

appreciation  of  this  oral  evidence,  the  LAO,  

Reference  Court  and  the  High  Court  fixed  their  

respective  rates  as  mentioned  above,  namely,  

Rs.16.52, Rs.22/- and Rs. 50/- per Square yard.  

23

Page 24

20. As rightly argued by learned senior counsel  

for the appellants, it is not in dispute that the High  

Court did hold in appellants’ favour that they were  

entitled  to  claim  compensation  at  the  rate  of  

Rs.63/- per Square yard in the concluding para of  

the  impugned  judgment  basing  its  finding  after  

taking into consideration the potentialities of land  

and rate of one adjacent land of the acquired land  

which was also found to have been acquired at the  

same time as determined by the Courts.  

21. In  the  light  of  this  finding,  we  fail  to  

appreciate as to why the High Court then assessed  

the  rate  at  Rs.50/-  per  square  yard  in  place  of  

Rs.63/- per sq. yard. In other words, having rightly  

come to a conclusion that the fair market value of  

the  land  in  question  on  the  date  of  acquisition  

(04.11.1977)  was Rs.63/-  per  square  yard,  there  

was no justification on the part of the High Court  

24

Page 25

to  have  then  reduced  it  to  any  rate  less  than  

Rs.63/- much less to Rs.50/-  per square yard. In  

our considered view, it should have been fixed at  

Rs.63/-  per square yard only.

22. We have also given our anxious consideration  

to  the whole issue keeping  in  view the  peculiar  

facts, evidence adduced and the law quoted above  

for determining the fair market value of the land  

on  the  date  of  notification  (04.11.1977).  Having  

regard  to  the  total  scenario  emerging  from the  

record of the case and the findings recorded by  

the Courts below on the issues such as location of  

land, its potentiality, surroundings, the rate of the  

adjacent  land  determined  by  the  Courts,  the  

condition  of  the  acquired  underdeveloped lands,  

the expenditure required to develop the acquired  

land to start the activities, per cent of deductions  

to be made, its proximity to the various places in  

25

Page 26

the nearby town (Faridabad), and lastly, the fact  

that the appellants failed to file any sale deed of  

any parcel of land (be that of small piece of land or  

big)  sold  in  the  near  proximity  of  the  acquired  

land, the fair market value of the lands in question  

as  on  04.11.1977  (date  of  acquisition)  can  

reasonably be worked out to  "Rs.63/- per Square  

Yard".   In other words, in our considered opinion,  

the High Court was not  right  in determining the  

fair market rate of the acquired land at Rs.50/- per  

Square  yard  and  instead  it  should  have  

determined the fair  market  rate of  the acquired  

land in question at “Rs.63/- per Square Yard”.  We  

accordingly now fix it.   

23.   We are not impressed by the submission of  

learned senior counsel for the appellant when he  

submitted that we should take into consideration  

the  fair  market  value  of  the  adjacent  land  

26

Page 27

determined by the Court which was acquired 10  

years subsequent to the acquisition in question in  

1989-1990 and then go on reducing its value 10%  

every year to determine the fair market value of  

the  land  in  question.  To  say  the  least,  this  

submission is  wholly misconceived being against  

the  settled  principle  of  law  relating  to  land  

acquisition cases.

24. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the  

respondent, the fair market value of the acquired  

land is required to be determined under Section 23  

of the Act on the basis of the market rate of the  

adjacent lands similarly  situated to the acquired  

lands prevailing on the date of acquisition or/and  

prior to acquisition but not subsequent to the date  

of  acquisition.  In  appropriate  cases,  addition  of  

10% per annum escalation in the prices specified  

in the sale deeds (if filed and relied on) in relation  

27

Page 28

to adjacent similarly situated lands for fixing the  

market  value  of  the  acquired  land  may  be  

permitted.  Such is, however, not the case in hand.  

Here is the case where firstly, no sale deeds were  

filed  by  the  appellants  to  prove the  fair  market  

value  of  the  acquired  land  and  secondly,  what  

they  now  want  this  Court  to  do  is  to  take  into  

consideration the rate of those lands which were  

acquired ten years after the date of acquisition in  

question and then reduce the value of such land  

by  10% every  year  so  as  to  determine  the  fair  

market value of the acquired land in question. In  

our view, such procedure for determination is not  

provided in the Act.  

25. We also cannot accept the submission of the  

learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  when  he  

contended that the appellants are entitled to claim  

compensation  at  the  rate  ranging  between  

28

Page 29

Rs.100/-  to  Rs.200/-  per  sq.  yard.   As  observed  

supra, since the appellants failed to file any sale  

deed of the lands to prove the price of the lands  

prevailing at  the relevant  time (04.11.1977),  we  

fail  to  appreciate  as  to  on  what  basis,  the  

appellants can claim the compensation at the rate  

of Rs.100/- per sq. yard or more.  In our view it  

was  necessary  for  the  appellants  to  have  filed  

copies of the sale deed to prove the fair market  

rate  prevailing  on  the  date  of  acquisition  

(04.11.1977).  Since the only evidence which was  

adduced  was  to  prove  the  potentialities  of  the  

acquired land, the courts below took into account  

the  potentialities  and  the  rate  of  adjacent  land  

fixed by the Courts and accordingly fixed the rate.  

We do not find any illegality in such approach of  

the courts below.

26. We have arrived at the figure of “Rs.63/- per  

29

Page 30

sq. yard” after applying all relevant factors, which  

we have mentioned above.  In our view, the rate  

determined by this Court is just,  reasonable and  

represents  fair  market  value  of  the  lands  in  

question  on  the  date  of  acquisition.   Indeed,  in  

such  cases,  one  can  never  come  to  any  exact  

figure of price of lands because in the very nature  

of things, the prices are bound to vary from land to  

land  and  further  they  also  depend  upon  the  

individual  buyer-to-buyer,  seller-to-seller  and the  

reasons  which  led  to  such  sale  and  purchase.  

However,  Courts  in  such  cases  always  exercise  

their discretion within the permissible parameters  

after appreciating the entire evidence brought on  

record and applying the relevant legal principles.  

We have kept these factors in mind.

27. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals  

filed by the appellants-landowners deserve to be  

30

Page 31

allowed and are accordingly allowed in part.  The  

impugned  judgment  and  orders  are  accordingly  

modified to the extent indicated above.

28. The concerned LAO is  directed  to  calculate  

the compensation payable to the appellants (land  

owners)  for  their  acquired  lands  pursuant  to  

notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on  

04.11.1977  “at  the  rate  of  Rs.63/-  per  sq.  

yard” and  accordingly  calculate  all  statutory  

compensation  such  as  solatium,  interest  etc.  

payable under the Act to every land owner.   

29. Let  this  calculation  be  made,  as  directed  

above, by the LAO and the amount so calculated  

and worked out  be  paid  to  the  appellants  (land  

owners)  after  making proper  verification of  their  

claim cases within three months from the date of  

receipt of this judgment.  No costs.

31

Page 32

                     …….….……............................J. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]

                               …………..................................J.

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; April 01, 2015.

32