1

NON-REPORATABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5261-5263 OF 2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 25395-97 OF 2016)

LOVELEEN KUMAR ETC.                                     ...APPELLANTS VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.  ...RESPONDENTS

WITH

Civil Appeal No.5266 of 2018 (@SLP(C) No. 25853/2016) Civil Appeal Nos.5267-5295 of 2018(@SLP(C) Nos. 26989-27017/2016) Civil Appeal Nos.5296-5323 of 2018 (@SLP(C) Nos. 31489-31516/2016) Civil Appeal Nos.5264-5265 of 2018 (@SLP(C) Nos. 25792-25793/2016) Civil Appeal No.5474 of 2018 (@SLP(C) No. 34877/2016) Civil Appeal No.5473 of 2018 (@SLP(C) No. 34874/2016) Civil Appeal Nos.5477-5510 of 2018 (@SLP(C) Nos. 36677-36710/2016) Civil Appeal No.5475 of 2018 (@SLP(C) No. 34875/2016) Civil Appeal Nos.5526-5534 of 2018 (@SLP(C) Nos. 11671-11679/2017) Civil Appeal No.5476 of 2018 (@SLP(C) No. 34876/2016) Civil Appeal No.5513 of 2018 (@SLP(C) No. 806/2017) Civil Appeal No.5512 of 2018 (@SLP(C) No. 808/2017) Civil Appeal No.5514 of 2018 (@SLP(C) No. 807/2017) Civil Appeal No.5515 of 2018 (@ SLP(C) No. 6057/2017) Civil Appeal No.5511 of 2018 (@ SLP(C) No. 2455/2017) Civil Appeal Nos.5516-5523 of 2018 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 8213-8220/2017) Civil Appeal Nos.5524-5525 of 2018 (@ SLP(C) Nos. 8352-8353/2017)  Civil Appeal Nos.5535-5536 of 2018 (@SLP(C) Nos. 18607-18608/2017)  Civil Appeal No.5537 of 2018 (@ SLP(C) No. 19817/2017) Civil Appeal No.5540-5542 of 2018 (@ SLP(C) No.13462-13464 of 2018 (@ Diary No. 23208/2017) Civil Appeal No.5538 of 2018 (@ SLP(C) No. 25154/2017) Civil Appeal No.5539 of 2018 (@ SLP(C) No. 28058/2017) Civil Appeal No.5544 of 2018 (@ SLP(C) No.13466 of 2018  (@ Diary No. 30734/2017)  Civil Appeal No.5543 of 2018 (@ SLP (C) No.13465 of 2018) (@ Diary No. 33285/2017) Civil Appeal Nos.5324-5472 of 2018 (@ SLP(C) No. 30164-30312/2016)

JUDGMENT

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2

2. These  appeals  are  directed  against  the  judgment  dated

28.05.2016 passed in R.F.A. No. 7324 of 2014 and connected matters

by  the  High  Court  for  the  States  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at

Chandigarh.  Civil  Appeals  arising  out  of SLP(C)  Nos.

25395-25397/2016,  SLP(C)  No.  25853/2016,  SLP(C)  Nos.

26989-27017/2016,  SLP(C)  Nos.  31489-31516/2016,  SLP(C)  Nos.

25792-25793/2016,  SLP(C)  Nos.  34877/2016,  SLP(C)  No.

34874/2016,  SLP(C)  Nos.  36677-36710/2016,  SLP(C)  No.

34875/2016,  SLP(C)  Nos.  11671-11679/2017,  SLP(C)  No.

34876/2016, SLP(C) No. 806/2017, SLP(C) No. 808/2017, SLP(C) No.

807/2017, SLP(C) No. 6057/2017, SLP(C) No. 2455/2017, SLP(C) Nos.

8213-8220/2017,  SLP(C)  Nos.  8352-8353/2017,  SLP(C)  Nos.

18607-18608/2017,  SLP(C)  No.  19817/2017,  SLP(C)  Diary  No.

23208/2017, SLP(C) No. 25154/2017, SLP(C) No. 28058/2017, SLP(C)

Diary No. 30734/2017, and SLP(C) Diary No. 33285/2017 are filed by

the  land-losers/claimants  seeking  enhancement  of  compensation.

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No. 30164-30312/2016 are filed by

the  State  seeking  reduction  of  compensation,  and  consequently

praying for setting aside the judgment of the High Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as

“landowners” and “State”. The facts, in brief, are as under:-

By  a  notification  dated  29.08.2005  under  Section  4(1)  of  the

Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  (hereinafter,  “the  Act”),  the  State  of

3

Haryana sought to acquire the land measuring 229.13 acres from

the  revenue  estate  of  village  Hansi  for  the  development  and

utilisation of commercial and residential Sectors namely 3, 5 and

6 at Hansi (District Hisar). The Land Acquisition Collector passed

an award  on 03.08.2007 assessing  the  market  value  in  three

belts: (a) Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre up to a depth of 2 acres from  

G.T. Road;

(b) Rs.10,00,000/- per acre up to a depth of 2 acres from  

the Jind bye-pass road;

(c) Rs. 8,00,000/- for the remaining land.

The  Reference  Court  under  Section  18  of  the  Act  while

assessing  the  compensation  and  passing  the  award  dated

31.05.2014 did away with the belting system and enhanced the

compensation to  Rs.  1,000/-  per  square  yard  (1  acre  =  4840

square yards), which means that the Reference Court awarded

compensation of  Rs.  48,40,000/- per acre.  The State  accepted

the  award  of  the  Reference  Court  and did  not  file  an appeal,

whereas  the  landowners  approached  the  High  Court  seeking

enhancement of compensation by filing appeals, including R.F.A

No. 7324 of 2014 and connected matters.

4

4. The High Court allowed the appeals of the landowners by

the  impugned  judgment  dated  28.05.2016  enhancing  the

compensation  to  Rs.  4173/-  per  square  yard,  i.e.,  Rs.

2,01,97,320/- per acre. While awarding enhanced compensation

as mentioned supra, the High Court noted that the land acquired

is  situated  at  a  prime  location  and  possessed  immense

potentiality;  after  the  acquisition,  more  than 27 acres  of  land

were  sold  by  the  Haryana  Urban  Development  Authority

(hereinafter,  “HUDA”)  to  two  Government  departments  at  Rs.

3,200/-  per  square  metre  and  Rs.  2,246  per  square  yard  (1

square metre = 1.19599 square yards). It has been observed that

in  an acquisition  on 12.06.1995 of  land in  the  same revenue

estate  situated  at  a  distance  of  300 yards  from the  presently

acquired land, the Supreme Court in Smt. Ashrafi and others vs.

State  of  Haryana and  others,  (2013)  5  SCC 527,  had  granted

compensation of Rs. 1,342/- per square yard; the Supreme Court

had applied 1/3rd cut while concluding so; the gap between that

acquisition  in  Smt.  Ashrafi (supra)  and  the  present  case  was

about 10 years and 2 months. The High Court solely relied upon

these  figures,  and keeping  in  mind the  time  gap between the

acquisition in Ashrafi’s case (supra) and the present one of about

5

10 years and 2 months, granted 15% interest increase per year

on the aforementioned compensation of Rs. 1,342/- per square

yard with cumulative effect from the date of acquisition. However,

the High Court applied a further cut of 25%, as the land in the

case of  Ashrafi (supra) was acquired for a commercial purpose

while  the  land  in  the  present  case  was  acquired  for  both

commercial and residential purposes. The ultimate compensation

awarded by the High Court at  Rs.  4,173/- per square yard is

questioned both by the State as well as the landowners in the

present appeals.

5. Shri  Alok  Sangwan,  learned  Additional  Advocate  General

appearing  on behalf  of  the  State,  argued that  the  High Court

erred in finding the  land to be commercial  in nature when in

reality  it  was  agricultural  in  nature,  as  was  deposed  by  the

landowners  themselves  in  the  evidence  of  PW1;  the  Land

Acquisition  Officer  had  allowed the  landowners  to  harvest  the

crops up till 31.10.2007; the High Court has failed to consider

the  sale  deeds  dated  14.06.2005,  30.12.2005,  31.01.2006,

13.07.2006,  06.09.2006,  21.02.2005  and  15.09.2005  which

clearly disclose that certain patches of land involved in those sale

deeds were situated in the middle of the entire patch of land now

6

acquired, which were valued from Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre to Rs.

8,00,000/- per acre. He further submits that the copies of the

sale deeds were heavily relied upon by the State both before the

Reference Court as well as before the High Court, but the same

were strangely ignored by the High Court.  He also argued that

the landowners relied upon Exhibit PW4/A, the sale deed which

depicts  sale  consideration  at  Rs.  826/-  per  square  yard,

amounting to almost Rs. 40,00,000/- per acre. He  vehemently

contended that  the  High Court  has  erred in  relying  upon the

judgment  which  dealt  with  the  acquisition  under  a  different

notification (Smt.  Ashrafi,  supra),  wherein that  acquisition had

taken place more than a decade ago; there is no reason as to why

the High Court should rely upon the judgment passed in Ashrafi

(supra)  particularly  when  the  land  involved  therein  was  a

commercial property and was a very small area, that too when

the acquisition in the said matter had taken place a decade ago;

absolutely no reasons are assigned to ignore the sale deeds on

record produced by the State. On these and other grounds, he

prays for setting aside the judgment of the High Court and for

confirming the award of the Reference Court.

7

6. Per contra, Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate, and

Shri  Manoj  Swarup,  Advocate,  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

landowners,  contended  that  the  High  Court  is  justified  in

awarding  compensation  at  Rs.  4173/-  per  square  yard;  as  a

matter of fact, the High Court has passed an equitable judgment

by reducing the compensation to Rs. 4,173/- per square yard by

levying a cut of 25% over and above 33.33% cut levied by the

Supreme  Court  in  the  matter  of  Ashrafi  (supra).  They  heavily

supported the judgment of the High Court contending that the

land acquired in  Ashrafi (supra) is situated just 300 yards from

the lands in question; the land in question is acquired not only

for residential purpose but also for commercial purpose; the land

involved in Ashrafi as well as the land involved in the present

acquisition are from the revenue estate of village Hansi; the sale

deeds relied upon by the State were not depicting the true market

value in as much as the sale  consideration mentioned therein

was  less  than  the  award  granted  by  the  Land  Acquisition

Collector;  more  than  27  acres  of  land  was  sold  by  HUDA  in

favour of two Government departments at Rs. 3,200/- per square

metre and Rs. 2,246/- per square yard;  on these grounds,  he

8

prayed for dismissing the appeals of the State and further prayed

for enhancement of compensation to a certain extent.

7. Having  gone  through  the  material  on  record  and  after

considering the arguments of the advocates, we are of the opinion

that the Reference Court, as well as the High Court, have not

considered the sale  deeds produced on behalf  of  the  State  for

determination  of  compensation.  A  chart  of  the  sale  deeds  on

record  filed  before  us  by  the  learned  advocates  appearing  on

behalf of the State reveals prima facie the value of certain lands

involved in those sale deeds.  The site plan of the village Hansi

depicts such sold patches as being in the middle of the acquired

land. The lands in all the sale deeds shown alongside the plan

are in close proximity and adjoining to the land acquired under

the Section 4 notification of the present case. There is no reason

as to why the High Court, while coming to its conclusion, has not

referred  to  the  sale  statistics.  If  the  sale  statistics  are  to  be

ignored, the High Court should have furnished reasons for doing

so.

8. The High Court has mainly relied upon  Ashrafi (supra) for

coming to its conclusion. In our considered opinion, the method

of granting compensation on the basis of cumulative increase as

9

done was not permissible in the facts of the case, in view of the

sale deeds produced. The method of working out compensation

without considering the evidence on record cannot be said to be

justifiable. The land in  Ashrafi (supra) was acquired in the year

1995 and was very small.  It was for a commercial purpose. In

the matter  on hand,  the  land was acquired in the year  2005.

Thus,  there  is  a  gap  of  about  10  years  between  the  two

acquisitions. Relying on such an acquisition of a decade ago may

be unsafe. This Court in the case of  ONGC Ltd. v.  Rameshbhai

Jivanbhai Patel, (2008) 14 SCC 745 observed that a transaction

or acquisition over five years before the present acquisition is an

unreliable standard. It held as follows:

“15. Normally,  recourse  is  taken  to  the  mode  of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation  over  the  proved  market  value  of  nearby lands  in  previous  years  (as  evidenced  by  sale transactions  or  acquisitions),  where  there  is  no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions  of  comparable  lands  in  the neighbourhood.  The  said  method  is  reasonably  safe where  the  relied-on  sale  transactions/acquisitions precede the  subject  acquisition by only  a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years,  may  become  unsafe  and  unreliable  standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or

10

acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the “rate” of annual  increase  may  itself  undergo  drastic  change apart  from  the  likelihood  of  occurrence  of  varying periods  of  stagnation  in  prices  or  sudden spurts  in prices affecting the very standard of increase.”

In addition to this, the land in the case of  Ashrafi (supra)

was  very  small  as  compared  to  the  acquisition  on  hand.  The

award passed in that matter cannot be taken into consideration

as  a  comparable  factor  while  awarding  compensation  in  this

matter which involves more than 229 acres of land. The award

that had been relied upon was passed keeping in mind the price

as prevailed in the year 1995 in Ashrafi’s matter (supra), that too

for a small commercial area. As there is a huge time gap between

the acquisition in  Ashrafi (supra) and the present one, and the

land in Ashrafi (supra) was much smaller, Ashrafi (supra) cannot

be a safe criterion to assess compensation in this case, and more

so in view of the ample evidence available on record. The Court

cannot lose sight of the facts and the documents. This Court in

the case of  Special Land Acquisition Officer  v.  Karigowda & Ors.,

(2010)  5  SCC  708  discussed  the  burden  upon  each  party  in

reference and held that each case must be examined on its own

facts. It held as follows:

11

“28. We may notice that Part III provides for procedure and rights of the claimants to receive compensation for acquisition of their land and also states various legal remedies  which  are  available  to  them  under  the scheme of the Act. Under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference  Court  determines  the  quantum  of compensation  payable  to  the  claimants.  Section  23 provides  guidelines,  which  would  be  taken  into consideration  by  the  court  of  competent  jurisdiction while determining the compensation to be awarded for the acquired land. Section 24 of the Act is a negative provision and states what should not be considered by the court while determining the compensation. In other words,  Sections  23  and  24  of  the  Act  provide  a complete  scheme  which  can  safely  be  termed  as statutory  guidelines  and  factors  which  are  to  be considered or not to be considered by the court while determining  the  market  value  of  the  acquired  land. These provisions provide a limitation within which the court  has  to  exercise  its  judicial  discretion  while ensuring that the claimants get a fair market value of the  acquired  land  with  statutory  and  permissible benefits. Keeping in view the scheme of the Act and the interpretation which these provisions have received in the past, it is difficult even to comprehend that there is possibility of providing any straitjacket formula which can be treated as panacea to resolve all controversies uniformly, in relation to determination of the value of the acquired land. This essentially must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

29. It  is  a  settled  principle  of  law  that  the  onus  to prove  entitlement  to  receive  higher  compensation  is upon  the  claimants.  In Basant  Kumar v. Union  of India [(1996)  11  SCC  542]  this  Court  held  that  the claimants  are  expected  to  lead  cogent  and  proper evidence in support of their claim. Onus primarily is on  the  claimants,  which  they  can  discharge  while placing and proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping in mind  the  method  of  computation  for  awarding  of compensation which they rely upon. In this very case,

12

this  Court  stated  the  principles  of  awarding compensation  and  placed  the  matter  beyond ambiguity,  while  also  capsulating  the  factors regulating the discretion of the Court while awarding the compensation. This principle was reiterated by this Court  even  in Gafar v. Moradabad  Development Authority [(2007)  7  SCC 614]  and the  Court  held  as under: (SCC p. 620, para 12)

“12. As held by this Court in various decisions, the burden is on the claimants to establish that the  amounts  awarded  to  them  by  the  Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that they are  entitled  to  more.  That  burden  had  to  be discharged by the claimants and only if the initial burden in that behalf was discharged, the burden shifted to the State to justify the award.”

Thus,  the  onus being primarily  upon the  claimants, they are expected to lead evidence to revert the same, if they so desire. In other words, it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever upon the State in such reference proceedings.  The court cannot lose sight of the  facts  and  clear  position  of  documents,  that obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State in its absolute terms. Every case has to be examined on its own facts and the courts are expected to scrutinise the evidence led by the parties in such proceedings.”

Moreover,  it  was  brought  to  our  notice  that  the  land  is

acquired  mainly  for  the  purpose  of  a  residential  colony,  and

about  5%  commercial  area  to  cater  to  the  needs  of  such

residential colony will also be built. Be that as it may, since the

reasons  assigned  by  the  High  Court  while  coming  to  the

conclusion were assigned solely on the basis of  Ashrafi  (supra),

and as the evidence on record adduced by both the parties was

13

not considered, much less properly considered, the matter, in our

opinion, needs reconsideration by the High Court in as much as

the High Court in such matters would be the last Court to decide

the matter on facts.

9. Accordingly,  the  impugned judgment  passed  by  the  High

Court stands set aside, and the matter is remitted to the High

Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. All appeals

before this Court hereby stand disposed of.  The High Court is

requested  to  decide  the  first  appeals  on  merits  as  early  as

possible, keeping in mind that the land was acquired in the year

2005.  

..................................J Kurian Joseph

.................................J Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

New Delhi May 16, 2018