REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.2846 OF 2017

Bijender & Ors. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Haryana & Anr.        …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2847-2848, 2849, 2850, 2851, 2852, 2853- 2872,  2873-2877, 2878-2882, 2883-2887,  2888-2893, 2894, 2895, 2896,2897, 2898,  2899, 2900-2904, 2905, 2906, 2907-2910,  2911, 2912, 2913-2914, 2915, 2916,2917,  2918-2929, 2930, 2931-2932, 2933-2950,  2951,2952-2954,2955 OF 2017  

AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos.17338-17354  OF 2017

@ S.L.P.(c) Nos.29181-29197 of 2016

1

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

2) These  appeals  are  directed  against  the

common  final  judgments  and  orders  dated

22.12.2015, 22.03.2016 and 03.05.2016 passed by

the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at

Chandigarh in R.F.A. Nos.5300, 2807-2809, 2806,

4762, 4764, 4756, 3751, 3759, 3760, 3766, 3768,

3776, 3777, 3785, 3788, 3794, 3798, 3800, 3805,

4839, 4841, 4842, 4843, 4844, 7299, 8756, 4840,

4846, 4838, 3767, 4757, 4752, 4746, 4744, 7323,

1515, 4753, 5980, 4751, 4745, 4809, 2549, 2548,

5910, 4810, 4754, 5911, 5913, 5912, 6307, 6283,

5542, 5908, 4747, 4760, 4758, 4763, 4759, 6308,

6309, 4748, 4749, 4755, 6306, 5909, 3999/2014,

314 & 809/2015, 3600, 2779, 4750, 3762, 3767,

3791, 3792, 3795, 3797, 3801, 4837, 4838, 4840,

4845, 4846, 4771, 4766, 4767, 2778, 2808, 2940,

2

2941, 2942, 2943, 2945, 2946, 3085, 3120, 3121,

3997, 3998, 4000, 4001, 4003, 5226, 7214, 4264,

7253, 3988, 2547, 4263, 1516, 2771, 2772, 2773,

2774, 2775, 2777, 3687, 4307, 4416, 4417, 4418,

4419, 4421, 2776, 2778 & 4808/2014  whereby the

High  Court  while  disposing  of  the  said  appeals

partly allowed the appeals and upheld the awards of

the Land Acquisition Officer insofar as it relates to

assessment of compensation @ Rs.33,00,000/- per

acre  for  the  land  up  to  the  depth  of  2  acres  in

Safidon-Jind  Road,  Safidon  bye-pass  and  Gair

Mumkin  kind  of  land   whereas  it  enhanced  the

compensation  from  Rs.18,00,000/-  per  acre  to

Rs.24,75,000/- per acre from for the land beyond 2

acres.   

3) Facts of the case are taken from C.A. No.2846

of  2017 (Bijender  & Ors.  vs.  State  of  Haryana  &

Anr.)  need  mention,  in  detail,  to  appreciate  the

controversy involved in these appeals.

3

4) The land of  the  appellants  measuring 18362

sq.  yds.  equivalent  to  30  kanal  07  marla  being

1122/37/15  share  out  of  total  acquired  land

measuring 100 kanal 11 marla from the total land

measuring 185 kanal 15 marla of khewat No.1396

khata nos.1658 and 1659 revenue estate of Safidon,

situated at a village Saifdon, District Jind, Haryana

was  acquired.   The  land  was  acquired  for  the

development  and  utilization  of  commercial  and

residential for HUDA Sectors 7, 8 and 9 in Safidon

City in Distt.  Jind vide three Notifications.   Along

with  the  land  of  the  appellants,  the  State  also

acquired land belonging to several landowners alike

the appellants.

5)  Notification  bearing

No.LAC(H)-2007-NTLA/376  on  23.08.2007  under

Section  4  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894

(hereinafter referred to as the “the Act”)  was issued

for  the  acquisition of  142 acres of  land in village

4

Singhpura,  for  public  purpose,  namely,  for  the

development  of  residential,  commercial  Sector  7,

Safidon.   

6) Notification  bearing

No.LAC(H)-2007-NTLA/379  on  23.08.2007  under

Section 4 of the Act was issued for the acquisition of

249.49  acres  land  in  villages  Safidon,  Singhpura,

Rampura,  Ratta  Khera  and  Khera  Khemawati  for

public  purpose,  namely,  for  the  development  of

residential, commercial sector 8 at Safidon.

7) Notification  bearing

No.LAC(H)-2007-NTLA/382  on  23.08.2007  under

Section 4 of the Act was issued for the acquisition of

167.79  acres  of  land  in  village  Safidon,  Khera

Khemawati for the public purpose, namely, for the

development of residential and commercial sector 9

at Safidon.

8) The  said  notifications  were  published  in  the

newspapers.  The objections to the said notifications

5

were also invited.  However, the objections filed by

the landowners were rejected by Collector finding no

merit therein under Section 5A of the Act.

9) This was followed by 3 declarations made and

published under Section 6 of the Act on  21.08.2008

bearing  No.  LAC(H)-2008-NTLA/423  in  respect  of

the land measuring 74.10 acres of  land in village

Singhpura,   LAC(H)-2008-NTLA/426  in  respect  of

the land measuring 199.57 acres of land in village

Safidon,  Singhpura,  Rampura,  Ratta  Khera  and

Khera  Khemawati  and  LAC(H)-2008-NTLA/429  in

respect  of  the  land  measuring  150.97  acres  in

village Safidon and Khera Khemawati.

10) The Collector held an enquiry. He applied the

Belting System for determining the market rate of

land and, accordingly, classified the land in parts.

On 19.08.2010, the Collector passed 3 Awards. By

Award  No.3  in  respect  of  the  land  in  village

Singhpura,  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  awarded

6

compensation @ Rs.33 lacs per acre for the land up

to the depth of 2 acres from Safidon-Jind Road and

Safidon Bye-Pass Road and Gair Mumkin and for

the  land classified  as  “Nehri,  Chahi”,  he  awarded

Rs.  18  lacs  per  acre.   The  landowners  were  also

awarded  30% solatium  and  additional  amount  @

12% per annum from the date of notification under

Section 4 of the Act till the Award as provided under

Section 23 of the Act.   

11) By Award No.4 in respect of the acquisition of

land in village Safidon, Singhpura, Rampura, Ratta

Khera and Khera Khemawati, the Land Acquisition

Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.33 lacs per acre

for  the  land  up  to  the  depth  of  2  acres  from

Safidon-Jind Road and Safidon Bye-Pass Road and

Gair Mumkin and @ Rs.18 lacs per acre for  “Nehri,

Chahi”  Land.  The landowners were also awarded

30% Solatium and additional  amount @ 12% p.a.

from the date of notification under Section 4 of the

7

Act till the award as provided under Section 23 of

the Act.

12) By Award No.5 in respect of acquisition of land

in village Safidon and Khera Khemawati, the Land

Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.33

lacs per acre for the land upto the depth of 2 acres

from Safidon-Jind Road and Safidon Bye-pass Road

and  Gair  Mumkin  and  Rs.18  lacs  per  acre  for

“Nehri,  Chahi”  land.   The  landowners  were  also

awarded  30% Solatium and  additional  amount  @

12% p.a. from the date of notification under Section

4 of the Act till the Award as provided under Section

23 of the Act.

13) Being  dissatisfied  with  the  Awards,  the

landowners filed Reference Petitions under Section

18 of the Act before the Additional District Judge,

Jind praying for enhancement of the compensation

contending  inter  alia that the market value of  the

land  at  the  time  of  acquisition  was  much higher

8

than  what  was  offered  by  the  Collector  in  his

Awards.  According to the appellants (landowners),

the market value was to the tune of Rs.5000/- per

sq. yds.

14) The Additional  District Judge by its common

Award dated 17.12.2013 dismissed all 305 reference

petitions and, in consequence, upheld the Awards

passed  by  the  Collector.   In  other  words,  the

Reference  Court  was of  the  view that  the  rate  at

which  the  compensation  was  determined  by  the

Collector by applying the Belting System in working

out the compensation was just and proper and as

per  Section 23 of  the  Act.   The  Reference  Court,

therefore,  did  not  enhance  the  compensation

awarded by the Collector.  All the reference petitions

were accordingly dismissed.

15) Aggrieved by the said Awards, the landowners

filed separate Regular First Appeals before the High

Court  praying  for  enhancement  of  the

9

compensation.   

16) By  impugned  judgments  dated  22.12.2015,

22.03.2016 and 03.05.2016, the High Court partly

allowed the appeals.  The High Court held that the

Awards  of  the  Collector  assessing  compensation

@Rs.33 lacs per acre for the land up to the depth of

2  acres  on  Safidon  Jind  Road,  Safidon  bye-Pass

road does not call  for  any interference and hence

they  were  upheld.   However,  so  far  as  the  other

category of land (Nehri, Chahi) beyond 2 acres from

the road was concerned,  the  High Court modified

the  Award  and  enhanced  the  compensation  from

Rs.18  lacs  to  Rs.24,75,000/-  per  acre.  The  High

Court  determined  the  market  rate  at  Rs.

48,40,000/-  per  acre  and  then  reducing  by  33%

worked  out  to  Rs.32,42,800/-  per  acre,  i.e.,

Rs.33,00,000/- per acre so far as Safidon-Jind land

was concerned.  So far as other land for which the

Collector had awarded Rs.18 lacs per acre, the High

1

Court  deducted  25%  and  thus  worked  out  to

Rs.24,75,000/- per acre.

17) Aggrieved  by  the  said  judgments,  the

landowners  have  filed  these  appeals  by  way  of

special leave before this Court.

18) Heard learned counsel for the parties.   

19) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

(landowners)  while  assailing  the  legality  and

correctness  of  the  impugned  judgments  mainly

argued three points.

20) In the first place, learned counsel argued that

the High Court having accepted in principle that the

acquired  land  is  a  developed  land  and  has

potentiality in all respects coupled with the fact that

it is surrounded by upcoming activities in any town

erred in not properly determining the market value

of the land as required under Section 23 of the Act

read with law laid  down by  this  Court  in  several

cases.

1

21) In the  second place,  learned  counsel  argued

that the appellants (landowners) had filed as many

as 59 Sale deeds of the adjacent and nearby areas

having a similar quality of land alike the acquired

land before the Reference Court.  Learned counsel

urged that out of 59 sale deeds, two pieces of land

were sold at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per square yard

whereas remaining lands were also sold at different

rates ranging between Rs.200/- to Rs.4,500/- per

square yard.  

22) It was, therefore, his submission that since the

highest  rate  in  the  comparable  sales  is  usually

preferred for  determining  the  market  value  of  the

acquired land,  the  High Court  should  have  taken

Rs.4,500/-  per  square  yard  to  be  the  basis  for

determining the market value of the acquired land.

23) In the third place, learned counsel argued that

the Collector, Reference Court and the High Court

erred in applying the Belting System for determining

1

the  market  value  of  the  acquired  land  which,

according  to  learned  counsel,  wrongly  resulted  in

classifying the acquired land in two parts and, in

consequence, resulted in applying two rates for two

parcels  of  the  lands.  One  rate  was  for  the  land

which is  abutting the  main road,  whose rate  was

more as compared to the other land, and the land

which is in interior from the main road, whose rate

was less.

24) It was his submission that the Collector and

the  Reference  Court  failed  to  give  any  justifiable

reasons as to why they choose to apply the Belting

System  for  determining  the  market  value  of  the

acquired  land.   Similarly,  according  to  learned

counsel, the High Court also did not deal with this

issue  though  raised  by  the  appellants  before  the

High Court in their appeals.

25) In  reply,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent

(State)  supported  the  impugned  judgments  and

1

contended  that  the  market  value  of  the  acquired

land determined by the High Court which resulted

in  partially  enhancing  the  rate  in  relation to  one

class of land which is in interior from  Rs.18 lacs to

Rs.24,75,000/-  per  acre,  is  just  and  proper  and

does not call for any further enhancement and nor

the  other  class  of  land  (Rs.33,00,000/-  per  acre)

calls  for  any  further  enhancement  and  the  same

was rightly upheld by the High Court.

26) Learned  counsel  then  pointed  out  several

infirmities in the 59 comparable sale deeds relied on

by  the  appellants  and  contended  that  these  sale

deeds should not be relied on for determining the

market rate of  the acquired land for the following

reasons.

27) First,  all  the 59 sale deeds pertained to very

small pieces of land wherein the lands were sold in

square yards, whereas the acquired land in question

is  very  large  and measures  in  acres  (around 300

1

acres or so).  In other words, according to learned

counsel, there is no comparison between the lands,

which is the subject matter of the sale deeds relied

on by the appellants (claimants), and the acquired

land in question.

28) Second,  some  claimants,  whose  lands  were

acquired in these acquisition proceedings, had sold

their  part  of  the  acquired  lands  in  very  small

measures few months before the date of acquisition

only  with  an  intention to  create  evidence  so  that

they may get the compensation for  their  acquired

land at the same rate at which they sold their land.

29) In  other  words,  according  to  the  learned

counsel,  such  sales  could  not  be  regarded  as

genuine sales between the seller and the buyer and

were, in fact, the bogus sales brought into existence

with a sole purpose to claim more compensation for

their acquired lands.

30) Learned counsel, lastly, contended that there

1

is no case made out by the appellants (landowners)

to  question  the  Belting  System  applied  by  the

Courts  below for  determining  the  market  rates  of

the acquired land inasmuch as having regard to the

nature  of  the  land  and  other  factors,  the  Belting

System  was  properly  applied.  Learned  counsel,

therefore, contended that the impugned judgments

deserve to be upheld calling no interference.

31) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are  inclined  to  allow  the  appeals  in  part  and,  in

consequence,  modify  the  impugned  judgments  by

partially enhancing the compensation payable to the

appellants  for  their  acquired  land  to  the  extent

indicated below.                   

32) Coming first to the question as to whether the

Courts below were justified in applying the "Belting

System”  for  determining  the  market  rates  of  the

acquired land in question?

1

33) We are of the considered opinion that keeping

in  view the  nature,  extent,  size,  surrounding and

location of the acquired land, the Courts below were

justified in applying Belting System for determining

the market rate of the acquired land.

34) One cannot dispute that the Belting System is

a judicially accepted method for determining the fair

market value of the acquired land.  It is applied in

appropriate  cases  when different  parcels  of  lands

with different survey numbers belonging to different

owners and having different locations are acquired

which put together comprises of  a large chunk of

land.  Such chunk cannot be taken as a compact

block.  

35) The acquired land having a frontage abutting

the highway/main road always has a better value as

compared  to  the  land,  which  is  away  from  the

highway/main road.  Indeed, farther the land from

the  highway/main  road,  lesser  the  value  of  such

1

land. In such a situation, where large pieces of land

having  different  locations  are  acquired,  Belting

System is considered apposite for determining the

market value of the lands. (see – Union of India &

Ors. vs. Mangatu Ram & Ors. 1997 (6) SCC 59 and

Andhra  Pradesh  Industrial  Infrastructure

Corporation Limited vs.  G. Mohan Reddy & Ors.

2010 (15) SCC 412).

36) In Belting System, the acquired land is usually

divided in two or  three  belts  depending upon the

facts of each case.  The market value of the front

belt  abutting  the  main  road  is  taken  to  fetch

maximum  value  whereas  the  second  belt  fetches

two third or so of the rate determined in relation to

the first belt and the third belt, if considered proper

to carve out, fetches half or so of the maximum.  It

is again depending upon facts of each case.

37) Similarly, this Court has consistently held on

the  question  as  to  what  is  fair  and  reasonable

1

market value of any acquired land on the date of its

acquisition. It is held that such a question is always

a question of fact and its answer depends on the

nature of evidence, circumstances and probabilities

appearing in each case.  

38) It  is  held  that  one  of  the  guiding  factors  in

such cases is the conduct of a hypothetical willing

vendor,  who  would  offer  the  land  and  a  willing

purchaser  in  normal  human  conduct,  would  be

willing to buy the land as a prudent man in normal

market  condition  on  the  date  of  the  notification

under Section 4(1)  of  the Act but not  an anxious

buyer dealing at arm's length nor facade or fictitious

sales  brought  about  in  quick  succession  or

otherwise to inflate the market value.  

39) It is held that when the Courts are called upon

to fix the market value of the land in compulsory

acquisition, one of the types of evidence of the value

of the property is the sale of the acquired land to

1

which the claimant is a party and in its absence,

the sale of the neighboring lands.  

40) It  is  held  that  the  transactions  relating  to

acquired  land  of  recent  dates  or  in  the

neighbourhood  lands  that  possessed  of  similar

potentiality  or  fertility  or  other  advantageous

features  are  considered  to  be  relevant  piece  of

evidence.  

41) It is held that in proof of the sale transactions,

the relationship of the parties to the transactions,

the market conditions, the terms of the sale and the

date  of  the  sale  are  to  be  looked  into.   These

features need to be established by examining either

the vendor or vendee and if they are not available,

the  attesting  witnesses  who  have  personal

knowledge  of  the  transaction  etc.  The  original  or

certified copies of the sale deeds are required to be

tendered in evidence to prove such facts.  One of the

underlying principles to fix a fair market value with

2

reference  to  comparable  sale  is  to  reduce  the

element of speculation.  

42) It is held that in comparable sale, the features

are (1) it must be within a reasonable time of the

date of the notification (2) it should be a  bona fide

transaction  (3)  it  should  be  a  sale  of  the  land

acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired and

(4) it should possess similar advantages.  

43) These  factors  should  be  established  by

adducing  material  evidence  by  examining  the

parties  to  the  sale  or  persons  having  personal

knowledge  of  the  sale  transactions.  The  proof

thereof focuses on the fact whether the transactions

relied on are genuine and bona fide transactions or

not.  

44) It is further held that it is the paramount duty

of  the  Courts  of  facts  to  subject  the  evidence  to

close scrutiny with a view to objectively assess the

evidence  tendered  by  the  parties  on  proper

2

considerations thereof in its correct perspective to

arrive at a reasonable market value.  The attending

facts  and  circumstances  in  each  case  always

furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the

acquired land.  The neighbourhood lands possessed

of  similar  potentialities  or  same  advantageous

features/circumstances  available  in  each case  are

also to be taken into account.  

45) Indeed,  it  is  held  that  the  object  of  the

assessment of the evidence is to enable the Courts

to arrive at a fair and reasonable market value of

the lands and in that process, sometimes the Courts

are  required  to  trench  on  the  border  of  the

guesswork  but  mechanical  assessment  has  to  be

eschewed.  

46) It is also held that Judges are required to draw

from  their  experience  and  the  normal  human

conduct  of  the  parties  as  to  which transaction is

bona fide and genuine sale transaction because that

2

is  one  of  the  guiding  factors  in  evaluating  the

evidence.      

47) It is also held that the amount awarded by the

Land Acquisition Collector forms an offer and that it

is  for  the  landowners  to  adduce  relevant  and

material  evidence  to  establish  that  the  acquired

lands are capable of  fetching higher market value

and  the  amount  offered  by  the  Land  Acquisition

Collector  is  inadequate  and that  he  proceeded on

wrong  principle.   (See  -  Periyar  and  Pareekanni

Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1991(4) SCC 195).

48) This Court also examined the question as to

how the Courts should judge the potentiality of the

acquired  land  and  what  are  the  relevant

consideration,  which  should  be  taken  into

consideration  for  deciding  the  potentiality  of  the

land.  

49) It is held that potentiality means capacity or

possibility for changing or developing into state of

2

actuality.  The question as to whether the land has

a  potential  value  or  not  is  primarily  one  of  fact

depending  upon  its  condition,  situation,  user  to

which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put

and  whether  it  has  any  proximity  to  residential,

commercial or industrial areas or institutions.  The

existing  amenities  such  as  water,  electricity,

possibility of their further extension, whether near

about  town  is  developing  or  has  prospect  of

development need to be taken into consideration.

50) It  is  also  held  that  the  value  of  the  smaller

plots, which is always on the higher side, is usually

not  taken  into  consideration  for  determining  the

large block of the land.  One of the reasons being

that the substantial area of the large block is used

for development of  sites like laying out the roads,

drains  sewers,  water  and  electricity  lines  and

several  civic  amenities  and  to  provide  these

facilities, lot of time is consumed.  The deduction is,

2

therefore, made, which ranges from 20% to 50% or

in  appropriate  cases  even  more.  (See  –  Atma

Singh(Dead)  Thr.  L.Rs.  &  Ors. vs.  State  of

Haryana & Anr. 2008 (2) SCC 568).

51) Keeping  the  aforementioned  well  settled

principles of law in consideration, let us recapitulate

the  facts  of  the  case  hereinbelow to  examine  the

issue arising in the case.

52) As  mentioned  above,  the  total  land acquired

for development and utilization of commercial and

residential  sector  is  situated  in  villages  Safidon,

Singpura,  Rampura,  Ratta  Khera  &  Khera

Khemawati  in  District  Jind  in  State  of  Haryana.

The acquired land comprises of more than around

300 acres or so and is thus a very large in chunk.

The acquired land belonged to several landowners

and obviously so being so large in volume.  One side

of the acquired land is abutting the road. The land

has  surrounding  with  some  kind  of  activities  in

2

nearby areas and this shows that the acquired land

has some potential.

53) The Collector, therefore, taking into account all

these  factors  considered  it  proper  to  classify  the

land on the basis of 2004-2005 revenue records in

two heads for  determining  the  compensation.  The

first  head  was  in  the  name  Nehri  Chahi,  i.e.,

canalling  irrigated/water  supplied  from  pipes  in

which  land  measuring  82-49  acres  was  included

whereas the other parcel of land measuring around

117.08  acres,  which  is  abutting  the  road,  was

included in other head in the name - To the depth of

2 acres from Safidon-Jind Road & Safidon bye pass

Road  and  Gair  Mumkin.  -  (see  Award  of  the

Collector  dated  19.8.2010  (annexure  P-3).  The

Collector  made  this  classification  by  applying  the

Belting System.  It is pertinent to mention that it

was  not  objected by  the  landowners  as  would be

clear from Para 3 of the Award dated 19.8.2010.  

2

54) Since the land included under the head, i.e.,

Safidon- Jind Road and Safidon Bye pass Road and

Gair Mumkin was abutting the road, the Collector

fixed  its  market  rate  at  Rs.33,00,000/-   (Thirty

Three Lacs) per acre up to the extent of  the land

going inside 2 acres from the road.  

55) So far as the land included in the first head,

i.e.,  Nehri-  Chahi  beyond 2 acres was concerned,

the Collector fixed its market rate at Rs.18,00,000/-

(Eighteen Lacs) per acre.

56) The  Reference  Court  dismissed  the  reference

and upheld the rates fixed by the  Collector.   The

High  Court,  however,  in  an  appeal  filed  by  the

appellants (claimants), in the impugned judgments,

upheld the rate, i.e., Rs.33,00,000/- per acre so far

as  it  relates  to  the  land  included  in  the  head.  -

Safidon - Jind Road and Safidon Bye pass Road and

Gair  Mumkin saying  that  this  does not  need any

enhancement  but  enhanced  the  rate  from

2

Rs.18,00,000/- per acre to Rs.24,75,000/- per acre

insofar  as  it  pertained  to  land  beyond  2  acres

included in the head - Nehri Chahi.

57) We  are  of  the  considered  opinion  that  the

Collector  was  justified  in  applying  the  Belting

System to the acquired land in question. Since the

acquired land was a large chunk of land having its

frontage abutting the roadside, the Belting System

was  rightly  applied  to  the  acquired  land  for

determination of its fair market rate.  

58) It  is  more  so  because  we  find  that  the

appellants too did not raise any objection before the

Collector and before the High Court and nor they

were able to point out to us as to why it was not

possible to apply the Belting System and what was

illegal in its application.  

59) It is for all these reasons, we find no merit in

the  submission  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants  when he  questioned  the  application  of

2

the  Belting  System  to  the  acquired  land  for

determining its fair market value.  

60) This takes us to examine the next question as

to whether the highest rate of Rs.4500/- per square

yard of the land of the nearby area out of 59 sale

deeds  should  be  made  basis  for  determining  the

market rate of the acquired land.  In our opinion, it

is  not  possible  to  accept  this  submission  of  the

learned counsel for the appellants though pressed

in service vehemently.

61) It is for the reason that firstly, the area sold in

each  sale  deed is  very  small  as  compared  to  the

acquired land.  Secondly, the lands which were sold

by these sale deeds is in square yards and ranges

from 31.06 square yards to 440 yards whereas the

acquired area in question is in acres and comprises

of  more  than 300 acres.   Thirdly,  out  of  59  sale

deeds, there are as many as 31 sale deeds wherein

the area comprises of less than 100 square yards.

2

Fourthly,  except two sale  deeds where 60 and 67

square  yard  of  land  was  sold  for  Rs.4,500/-  per

square  yard,  all  other  sale  deeds  value  ranges

between  Rs.200/-  to  Rs.2000/-  per  square  yard.

Fifthly, there can be no comparison between the two

lands  due  to  the  extent  of  area  which  are  two

extremes and lastly, since no sale deeds were filed

by the appellants showing market price of any large

chunk of land sold in acres at the relevant time, it is

not possible to place reliance on any of these sale

deeds  for  determining  the  market  rate  of  the

acquired land by applying the same rate (Rs.4,500/-

per  square  yard).   It  is,  in  our  opinion,  neither

permissible and nor proper to rely solely upon the

rates  of  small  plots  and  then  determine  the

compensation for a large chunk of acquired land as

in this case.

62) We have applied our mind keeping in view all

the relevant factors coupled with the law laid down

3

by  this  Court.   Taking  into  consideration  all  the

relevant factors emerging from the evidence and the

findings of the Courts below on the issues such as  -

the location of the acquired land, its surroundings,

nature,  potentiality,  rates  of  small  plots,  the

purpose  of  acquisition,  development  cost  needed,

non availability of the sale deeds for large areas sold

in acres, etc., we are of the considered opinion that

just, fair and proper market value of the acquired

land in question on the date of issuance of Section 4

notification is determined  at Rs.45,00,000/- (Forty

Five  Lacs)  per  acre  in  place  of  Rs.33,00,000/-

(Thirty Three Lacs) per acre for the lands described

in detail in column 2 of the Award of the Collector

dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) at page 32 of the

SLP  paper  book  of   C.A.No.  2846/2017  and

Rs.35,00,000/- (Thirty Five Lacs) per acre in place

of Rs.24,75,000/- (Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Five

Thousand) per acre for lands described in detail in

3

column 1 of the said Award.  In other words, the

appellants are held entitled to receive compensation

for the acquired land as described hereunder:   

S. No.

Class of Land Awarded Amount

1. Nehri, Chahi Rs.35 lacs 2. To  the  depth  of  2

acres  from Safidon-Jind  Road &  Safidon  Bye Pass  Road  and Gair-mumkin land

Rs.45 lacs

63) In addition to the aforesaid, the appellants are

also  held  entitled  to  statutory  compensation  as

provided in the Act and which the Courts below had

already awarded to the appellants.  We uphold the

Award of such compensation. The two rates which

we  have  determined  above  would  apply  to  entire

acquired land of all the appellants.

64) In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeals

succeed  and  are  allowed  in  part.  The  impugned

judgments  are  partially  modified  in  appellants’

3

favour by enhancing the compensation payable  to

appellants  (claimants/landowners)  in  respect  of

their acquired land to the extent indicated above.

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

[R.K. AGRAWAL]             

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

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; October 27, 2017  

3