Page 1

                  NON- REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    6958   OF 2013  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24357 of 2010)

Indraj Singh (Dead) .....Appellants through LRs. & Ors.

        Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.         …..Respondents

                       With  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6959    OF 2013  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1025 of 2011),

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6960  OF 2013  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1028 of 2011)

&

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6961  OF 2013  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23257 of 2013)

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Delay condoned.

Page 2

2. Leave granted in all the  special leave petitions.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6th November, 2009, delivered  

in Regular First Appeal No. 950 of 1996 and other First Appeals delivered  

by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, these appeals have  

been filed by the persons whose lands had been acquired for the purpose of  

construction of a sector road under the Bahadurgarh Scheme. The appellants  

are challenging the judgment on the ground that the amount of compensation  

awarded to them is  much lesser  than what should have been awarded to  

them.

4. For the purpose of construction of the road, approximately 7 bighas  

land was to be acquired and for  the said purpose,  necessary Notification  

under  the  provision  of  Section  4  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  

(hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Act”)  read  with  Section  17  had  been  

published on  8th April, 1991, as the land was required immediately.  

5. The land which was acquired for the purpose of  construction of the  

road was  Nehri (irrigated) as well as  gair mumkin (waste land). The Land  

Acquisition Collector, by virtue of his award dated 9th March, 1992, awarded  

compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for irrigated land whereas  

Rs.1.5 lac per acre for  gair mumkin type of land. Compensation was also  

2

Page 3

awarded for super-structures and trees standing on the land. Solatium and  

other statutory benefits were also given to the appellants.

6. Being aggrieved by the award, the appellants had made a Reference  

under  Section  18  of  the  Act.  After  hearing  the  learned  counsel  and  

considering the evidence adduced before the court, the District Court had  

dismissed the Reference as the Court was of the view that the sale deeds  

relied upon by the appellants were not comparable and therefore, the land  

transactions referred to by the appellants could not help them for enhancing  

the amount of compensation awarded to them.

7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Reference by an order dated  

8th December, 1995, the appellants along with other land owners had filed  

First Appeals before the High Court and as all the lands had been acquired  

under a single notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act,  

the  High  Court  had  heard  all  the  appeals  together  and  had  decided  the  

appeals on the basis of the main appeal decided by it.

8. After  hearing  the  concerned  counsel  and  considering  the  evidence  

which  had  been  adduced  before  the  Reference  Court,  the  High  Court  

allowed the appeals by awarding Rs. 11,15,098/- per acre in respect of both,  

3

Page 4

irrigated as well as waste land, observing that both lands would fetch the  

same price due to its residential and commercial potential.

9. The High Court was of the view that the land in question was near to  

the  land  abutting  two  main  roads.  The  High  Court  also  took  into  

consideration the rapid development in the vicinity   and therefore, increased  

the value of the land in question after considering the principles on which  

lands are valued for the purpose of awarding compensation under the Act.

10. The High Court also decided to decrease the value of the land by 1/3rd  

of its value as the land in question was little away from the main road.

11. The submissions made on behalf of the appellants were to the effect  

that  deduction  of  1/3rd value  of  the  land  would  be  very  harsh  on  the  

appellants  because  the  appellants  would  be  getting  substantially  less  

compensation on account of the said deduction. It was also submitted that  

the High Court had taken note of the fact that the land in question was very  

much within the developed area. If the land was within the developed area,  

the High Court should not have deducted 1/3rd of the value of the land in  

question.  

4

Page 5

12. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State had  

tried to support the judgment by submitting that the deduction of 1/3rd  of the  

value of the land was just and proper as observed by the High Court.

13. Upon hearing the learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned  

judgment and relevant records, we are of the view that the appellants should  

have been awarded more compensation. Deduction to the extent of 1/3rd of  

the value of the land is definitely harsh even as per the observations made by  

the High Court as the land in question is very much in the developed area.  

The area has been developed by the HUDA and therefore, the deduction of  

1/3rd of the value of the land is not justified.  

14. Upon  considering  all  relevant  facts,  in  our  opinion,  it  would  be  

absolutely just if 10% value of the land is deducted instead of 1/3rd because  

the land is forming part of a well developed area.

15. The High Court, after deduction of 1/3rd of the amount of the value  

has awarded Rs.7,43,000/- per acre for irrigated and non-irrigated land. The  

said value is after deduction of 1/3rd amount of total valuation of the land.  

The High Court has, thus, in fact, determined the market value of the land at  

Rs.11,15,000/- per acre and after deducting 1/3rd of the said amount, it has  

awarded Rs. 7,43,000/- per acre, after rounding off the figure.

5

Page 6

16. The market value of the land in question, as determined by the High  

Court, is Rs. 11.15 lacs per acre and instead of taking 1/3rd, we direct that  

10% of the said value shall be deducted. The claimants shall be entitled to  

other  statutory  benefits  like  solatium,  interest  etc.  on  the  enhanced  

compensation.

17. In view of the above facts, we modify the impugned judgment and  

allow the appeals to the above extent with no order as to costs.

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

(ANIL R. DAVE)

….……...........................................J.  (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi August  19,  2013

6

Page 7

7