Page 1

                         [REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11030/2013 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3711 of 2011)

Kashmir Singh    …Appellant(s)

Vs.

State of Haryana & Ors.                    …Respondent(s)

With

C.A.No11031/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3743/2011

C.A.No.11032/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3776/2011

C.A.No.11033/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3791/2011

C.A.No.11034/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3901/2011

C.A.No.11035/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3909/2011

C.A.No.11036/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3911/2011

C.A.No.11037/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3914/2011

J U D G M E N T

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In all these appeals, challenge is laid to the judgment of the High Court  

pronounced on 20th September 2010, whereby number of appeals filed for  

enhancement  of  compensation  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’) were dismissed by the High Court.  

The land of  the appellants  was acquired by the Government of  Haryana,  

1

Page 2

which  falls  in  the  Revenue  Estate  of  Tohana,  Tehsil  Tohana,  District  

Fatehabad, Haryana.  The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) had assessed the  

market  value  of  the  acquired  land  @  Rs.2,75,000/-  per  acre  for  chahi,  

Rs.1,75,000/-  per  acre  for  Tibba/Tall  and  Rs.3,25,000/-  per  acre  for  gair  

mumkin land.  The appellants had filed objections to the said determination  

of  compensation by the LAC and the matter  was referred to the learned  

Additional  District  Judge, Fatehabad under Section 18 of the LA Act.   The  

learned  ADJ  passed  the  award  dated  21.2.2006.   Vide  this  award,  he  

categorized the land into two categories, namely category-A and category-B  

and fixed the compensation  of  Rs.8,00,000/-  per  acre for  category-A and  

Rs.6,50,000/-  per  acre  for  category-B.   Still  dissatisfied  and  aspiring  for  

further enhancement of the compensation, the appellants filed Regular First  

appeal from the aforesaid orders of the learned ADJ.  However, these appeals  

have been dismissed holding that the compensation as fixed by the learned  

ADJ is appropriate and does not call for any further enhancement.  Feeling  

aggrieved,  present  appeals  have  been  filed.   Since  the  land  of  all  the  

appellants  is  situate  in  Revenue  Estate  of  Tohana,  District  Fatehabad,  

Haryana and is acquired by the same Notification, facts pertaining to the said  

Notification  apply  to  all  these  appellants.   The  only  difference  is  in  the  

quantum of land which was owned by these appellants and has been taken  

away  by  the  State  in  acquisition.   Therefore,  taking  general  note  of  the  

particulars of acquisition and the nature of land, would serve the purpose.

2

Page 3

3. Notification  under  Section  4  of  the  Land Acquisition  Act,  1894 was  

issued on 11.1.2001.  This was published in official gazette on 08.01.2002.  

The land is situate in revenue estate of Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana.  

The public  purpose mentioned was the construction  of  godowns  and rice  

mills at Tohana, for HAFED (Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Market  

Federation  Ltd.).   In  pursuance to  the Land Acquisition  Collector’s  Award  

dated 19.9.2003, the acquired lands were taken possession on 17.12.2003.  

The  Reference  Court  under  Section  18  of  the  Act  vide  its  award  dated  

21.2.2006 assessed the compensation @ Rs.8/- Lac per acre and Rs.6.50 Lac  

per acre by categorizing the acquired land in two categories, viz. Category-A  

and Category-B.  Under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, the escalation was fixed  

at  12%  per  annum  on  the  assessed  compensation.  The  other  statutory  

benefits were also allowed thereby. The appeals filed by land owners before  

the High Court, seeking enhancement  of compensation and the appeal filed  

by HAFED seeking reduction of compensation are decided by the High Court  

of Punjab and Haryana vide a common judgment dated 20.9.2010.  Appeals  

of both the parties have been dismissed as noted above.

4. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court would reveal that though  

the  appellants  had  produced  on  record  certain  sale  deeds  and  other  

documents showing higher value of the land, the High Court chose to rely  

upon  only  one  document,  namely,  Ex.P-15  which  is  a  conveyance  deed  

registered  for  sale  by  Haryana  State  Industrial  Development  Corporation  

(HSIDC)  to  the  Central  Warehousing  Corporation  (CWC).  Vide  this  

3

Page 4

Conveyance Deed 34,475 square meters of land was sold by the HSIDC to  

CWC @ Rs.150/- per square meter.  The allotment letter issued in this behalf  

was dated 4.9.2001 and from this the High Court inferred that process for  

sale must have been started much prior thereto.  In the instant case, since  

the Notification  under Section 4 of  the LA Act is  dated 11.1.2001,  in the  

opinion of the High Court, it was the most approximate date to the aforesaid  

sale of land in favour of CWC.  The High Court also found that the land sold  

to CWC is located at a link road whereas the land of the appellants which  

was acquired by the Government was located at a crossing of five roads and  

thus lands sold of HSIDC to CWC was better located.  The High Court, thus,  

relied upon the said sale deed on the basis of which it has concluded that the  

assessment of compensation by the learned ADJ is most appropriate.

5. In an endeavour to find fault with the aforesaid approach of the High  

Court,  Mr. Singla,  the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants  

submitted that the High Court committed an error in relying upon the said  

solitary document and in the process ignore other more relevant documents  

which had been produced by the appellants.  He submitted that the acquired  

land is strategically located which the landowners have proved by producing  

on record the site plans, Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-28. The acquired land is located  

near the industrial area. There are many commercial establishments located  

near the acquired like viz. FCI godwon, CWC godown, HUDA Colony, Grain  

Market of Tohana, Mirch Mandi, Railway Station. The land is situated in the  

fast developing area of Tohana town and all the civil facilities are available  

4

Page 5

there.  The acquired land is situated on a State Highway close to industrial  

and residential area. The valuation of the land considering the same merely  

of agricultural kind is not fair as it  had great future potential.   Mr. Singla  

specifically  referred  to  Ex.P-1  and  Ex.P-4  which  are  the  Government  

documents and as per these documents even the State agencies had been  

mentioning  the  value  of  acquired  land  @ Rs.7/-  Lac  per  acre.    He  also  

referred to Ex.P-18 which shows the allotment of  commercial  plot  of  100  

square yards by HUDA @ Rs.1193/- per square yard.  His submission was  

that though these arguments and the aforesaid referred documents were  

specifically  taken  note  of  by  the  High  Court  but  not  dealt  with  and  

completely  ignored.   Mr.  Singla  also  drew  our  attention  to  the  following  

findings of the Reference Court regarding the nature of the land:

“…….After  careful  consideration  of  the  case  law relied upon by both the parties  and after  appreciating the evidence brought on record by  both the parties, it  is held that in view of the  cogent and reliable oral as well as documentary  evidence coupled with the admissions of RW1, it  is clearly proved on the file that as far as the  location  and  potentiality  of  industrial,  commercial and industrial nature and it was not  simply agricultural land as found by the learned  Land  Acquisition  Collector  while  fixing  the  market  rate  and  as  such,  the  market  rate  granted by the Land Acquisition Collector was  much less than the prevailing rate at that time.”

6. He  further  referred  to  the  following  observation  from  the  

judgment of this Court in Udho Das vs. State of Haryana 2010 (8) SCR  

900:

5

Page 6

“….Concededly, the Act also provides for  the  payment  of  the solatium,  interest  and an  additional  amount  but  we  are  of  the  opinion,  and it is common knowledge, that even these  payments  do  not  keep  pace  with  the  astronomical  rise  in  prices  in  many  parts  of  India, and most certainly in North India, in the  land price and cannot fully compensate for the  acquisition of the land and the payment of the  compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum  increase which courts  have often found to be  adequate in compensation matters hardly does  justice to those land owners whose land have  been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of  the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15%  per year but is often upto 100% a year for land  which has the potential of being urbanized and  commercialized such as in the present case.”

7. His last submission was that in any case, the matter had now been set  

at  rest  by  recent  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Asharfi  &  Ors.  Vs.  State  of  

Haryana  2013 (5) SCC 527 where similar submissions, which are made by  

the appellants herein, have been accepted by the court.

8. Learned counsel appearing for Haryana State Co-operative Supply and  

Market Federation Ltd. (HAFED), on the other hand, submitted that the High  

Court has taken into consideration all the relevant documents even including  

sale  deed  on  which  the  appellants  relied  upon,  but  found  that  the  only  

relevant document for the purpose of arriving at just compensation was Ex.P-

15. He submitted that in preferring to make this document as the basis for  

compensation,  the  High  Court  has  given  cogent  reasons  and  therefore  

judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted with.  His submission was that  

the learned ADJ had suitably enhanced the compensation by increasing it  

6

Page 7

quite  substantially  than  what  was  granted  by  the  LAC.   His  further  

submission was that reliance on allotment letter dated 8.10.2002 (Ex.P-18)  

during the course of arguments, was totally misconceived as this was not  

even pleaded in the memo of SLP filed or the memo of appeals filed before  

the High Court.  In any case, the relevant date for determination of market  

price of the land was 11.1.2001 when Notification under Section 4 of the LA  

Act was issued and relying upon two allotment letters were of subsequent  

dates which were issued more than 17 months after the date of issuance of  

Section 4 Notification.  Therefore, relying upon these documents was totally  

misplaced.  Referring to the question of law framed in the SLP, he further  

submitted that the earlier arguments advanced were neither raised in the  

SLP nor argued before the courts below and therefore the appellants cannot  

be allowed to take fresh plea  for the first time in this Court. It was also his  

submission  that  the  judgment  relied  upon  by  the  appellants  had  no  

application to the facts of the present case.   

9. We  are  of  the  view  that  the  matter  does  not  require  elaborate  

discussion inasmuch as the acquisition of land in Fatehabad District itself,  

which was acquired in the year 1993 was the subject matter of consideration  

in the case of Asharfi (supra).  In that case, the court had dealt with various  

Notifications issued by different State Governments acquiring lands in their  

respective States.   It  included acquisition  of  lands situated in  Fatehabad,  

District  Hissar,  Harayana  as  well.   The  Court  fixed  the  compensation  @  

7

Page 8

Rs.3.50 per square yard as on 1993 and the following discussion ensued in  

this behalf in Para 15 of the judgment.

10. It is clear from the above that price of land in the said area in 1991 was  

fixed @ Rs.420/- per square yard.  The Court had applied the formula of 12%  

per year in the valuation of land and on that basis fixed the market rate at  

approximately Rs.520/- per square yard after taking a deduction of one-third,  

the valuation was arrived at Rs.350/- per square yard in the year 1993.  The  

relevant portion of the judgment, in this behalf reads as under:  

  In regard to the 157.20 acres of land situated in  

Fatehabad,  District  Hisar,  Haryana,  acquired  for  utilisation  and  development  of  residential  and  commercial  purposes  in  Sector  3,  Fatehabad,  the  compensation in respect thereof has been questioned  in Civil Appeals Nos. 319-52 of 2011 by one Mukesh  and a number of appeals have been tagged with the  said matter,  including the one filed by the Haryana  Urban  Development  Authority,  being  SLPs  (C)  Nos.  26772-79  of  2009  (now  appeals).  As  indicated  hereinbefore, in para 25, the Collector had awarded  compensation at a uniform rate of Rs 1,81,200/- per  acre  along  with  statutory  benefits.  The  Reference  Court  determined  the  compensation  at  the  uniform  rate  of  Rs  206  per  square  yard.  The  High  Court  modified the said award and awarded compensation  at the rate of  Rs 260 per square yard for  the land  acquired  up  to  the  depth  of  100  meters  abutting  National Highway No. 10. The value of the rest of the  acquired land was maintained at Rs 206 per square  yard. The area in question being already developed to  some extent,  a  cut  of  50% on the  value  is,  in  our  view,  excessive.  We  agree  with  Mr.  Swarup  that  resorting to the belting system by the High Court was  improper and that at best a standard cut of one-third  would have been sufficient to balance the smallness  of the exhibits produced. It has been pointed out by  Mr. Swarup that on a comparative basis, the price of  

8

Page 9

lands in the area in 1991 was on an average of about  Rs 420 per square yard. Given the sharp rise in land  prices,  the  value,  according  to  Mr.  Swarup,  would  have doubled  to  about  Rs  800 per  square  yard  by  1993. Even if we have to apply the formula of 12%  increase,  the  valuation  of  the  lands  in  question  in  1993 would be approximately Rs 527 per square yard.  Imposing a deduction of one-third, valuation comes to  about  Rs  350 per  square  yard,  which,  in  our  view,  would  be  the  proper  compensation  for  the  lands  covered in the case of Mukesh and other connected  matters.”

11. Going  by  the  formula  adopted  in  the  aforesaid  judgment,  12% per  

annum increase can be applied on the value of land determined as Rs.520/-  

per square yard in the year 1993, upto the year 2001 when the Notification  

under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the instant case.  However,  we  

cannot be oblivious to the fact that from 1993 to 2001, there was a period  

when instead of increase in the land price, there was attrition in the land  

rates.   Therefore,  we  would  like  to  enhance  the  value  by  applying  the  

formula of 12% per annum increase for a period of 4 years, instead of taking  

entire period 1993 and 2001 (and this would not be treated as a precedent).  

When calculated in this manner, the valuation of the land in the year 2001  

shall come to Rs.770/- per square yard.  After making a deduction of one-

third  therefrom  the  net  valuation  comes  to  Rs.514/-  per  square  yard.  

Compared to the land value of this very area in 1993 which was fixed at  

Rs.350/- per square yards, we have increased the same by about 50% over a  

period of 7 years or so, which we think, is quite reasonable as this much  

compensation is legitimately due to the appellants.  We, accordingly, fix the  

9

Page 10

compensation  @  Rs.514/-  per  square  yard  for  the  acquired  land  of  the  

appellants.  

12. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.

    ………………………………J.

   (Surinder Singh Nijjar)

 ……………………………….J.

   (A.K.Sikri) New Delhi, December 13, 2013

10