REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3807-3825 OF 2018  

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35281-35299 OF 2016)  

Mohammad Yusuf and Others Etc. Etc. .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and Others.         .... Respondent(s) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No.3826 OF 2018  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3585 OF 2017

AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3827-3859 OF 2018  

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 4413-4445 OF 2017

J U D G M E N T

R.K.Agrawal,J

1) Leave granted.

2) The above appeals have been filed against the impugned

common  judgment  and  order  dated  03.06.2016  passed  by

learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 6617 of 2012 (O&M) and other

1

connected matters whereby the High Court partly allowed the

appeal  filed  by  the  appellants  herein  while  dismissing  the

cross appeals of the respondent-State.  

3) Brief Facts:-

(a) The Government of Haryana, Revenue Department, vide

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’) dated 18.10.2005 has

notified  the  land  of  Village  Ferozpur  Namak,  Tehsil  Nuh,

District  Mewat  for  the  construction  of  Mini  Secretariat  at

District  Mewat,  admeasuring  372 karnals  2  marlas  (i.e.  46

acres 4 karnals and 2 marlas). Consequently, the Government

of  Haryana,  vide  Notification  dated  25.05.2006,  issued

declaration that the land is required for a public purpose.

(b) Notice under Section 9 of the LA Act was issued to all the

landholders and interested persons. The Land  Acquisition

Collector  (LAC),  Nuh,  Mewat,  vide  Award  No.  1  dated

05.11.2007 assessed the market value of the acquired land at

the  uniform  rate  of  Rs  16  lakhs  per  acre  along  with  30%

solatium and 12% additional amount to the landholders.  

2

(c) Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed a Reference

under Section 18 of the LA Act which was registered as LA

Case No. 394/01.12.10/19.09.11 before the Land Acquisition

Collector-cum-SDO(C)  Nuh,  Mewat.   On  28.08.2012,  the

Reference Court, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 72,00,000

lakhs per acre and applied the development cut at the rate of

55% and a further cut of  5% on account of  waiting period,

totaling to 60%.  Thus, the compensation was determined at

Rs. 28,80,000/- per acre along with the statutory benefits.

(d) Being  not  satisfied,  the  appellants  herein  preferred  a

Regular First Appeal (RFA) being No. 6617 of 2012 alongwith

other set of appeals before the High Court. Respondent-State

also filed cross appeals before the High Court.  Learned single

Judge of the High Court,  vide common judgment and order

dated  03.06.2016,  partly  allowed  the  appeals  of  the

landholders by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 64,80,000

per acre along with other benefits while dismissing the cross

appeals filed by the respondent-State.   

3

(e) The landholders,  being aggrieved by the  judgment and

order dated 03.06.2016, has preferred these appeals by way of

special leave before this Court.

4) Heard  Mr.  R.S.  Suri,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

appellants and Mr. P.S. Patwalia,  learned senior counsel for

the respondent-State and perused the records.  

Point(s) for consideration:-

5) The short point of consideration arises before this Court

is  as  to  whether  in  the  light  of  present  facts  and

circumstances of the case, any interference is sought for by

this Court?  

Rival contentions:-

6) At the outset, learned senior counsel for the appellants

argued that  the High court  failed to consider  that  the land

acquired  had  great  future  potential  for  being  developed  as

residential  as  well  as  commercial  area,  hence,  the

compensation  ought  to  have  been  awarded  accordingly.

Learned senior counsel further contended that the assessment

of  the  compensation  has  not  been  done  considering  the

following factors like potential value, location of land, future

4

prospects, the development of land in question and the likely

injury to be sustained by the appellants herein for loss of their

future earnings etc. It was also contended that the High Court

has  not  considered  the  facts  that  the  acquired  land  has

immense  potential  which  is  situated  at  a  distance  of  half

kilometers from the Nuh City, and also situated within 30 kms

from the cyber city and could be directly approachable from

Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.

7) Further,  the  Reference Court  allowed a cut  of  55% on

account  of  development  for  raising  infrastructural  activities

and other amenities and a cut of 5% on account of  waiting

period which was reduced by the High Court to 10% which is

also  not  in  accordance  with  law vis-à-vis  the  fact  that  the

acquired land has all the infrastructural facilities on the date

of Notification.  

8) Per  contra, learned  senior  counsel  for  the

respondent-State  submitted that  the High Court has rightly

determined the compensation while condoning the potentiality

of the area and also after having regard to the sale deeds of

adjoining areas and a cut of 10% on the assessed value of the

5

acquired  land  has  been  applied  in  accordance  with  law

vis-à-vis  the  fact  that  the  acquired  land  has  all  the

infrastructural facilities on the date of Notification.  

9) Learned  senior  counsel  further  submitted  that  the

compensation  awarded  is  adequate  in  terms  of  principles

incorporated  under  Section  23  of  the  LA  Act  as  also

interpreted by this Court in a catena of cases.  Learned senior

counsel  finally  contended that  the  amount of  compensation

has been awarded considering the factors like potential value

location of land, future prospects, the development of land in

question  and  the  likely  injury  to  be  sustained  by  the

appellants,  if  any, and no interference is sought for by this

Court in the matter.   

Discussion:-

10) The  intention  behind  the  enactment  of  the  Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 was to acquire land for welfare purposes

and to compensate the owners adequately.  It is well  known

fact that the Right to Property is a Constitutional Right (earlier

it  was a  Fundamental  Right  until  1978)  as  provided under

Article  300  A  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  The  term

6

“compensation” was interpreted by this Court in a number of

cases that it is to be “a just equivalent of what the owner has

been deprived of.” Hence, the acquisition must pass the test of

compensation being reasonable, just and fair. The term justice

as  enshrined  in  the  preamble  includes  justice  in  economic

terms  and  the  term  economic  justice  in  itself  mandatorily

requires compensation to be adequate.

11) In  a  catena  of  cases,  this  Court  has  held  that

compensation  should  be  adequate  and  there  must  be  no

injustice with the land owners since they stand deprived from

their very vital right i.e., Right to Property. At the same time, it

is also to be kept in mind that no hypothetical view shall be

taken as it may be harmful to the public exchequer in case of

acquisition for public purposes. Hence, courts must maintain

balance  between  both  the  parties.   In  the  cases  of  land

acquisitions,  generally  courts  confronted with the  short  but

important  question that  what  ought  to  be  the  ideal  market

value  for  the  acquired  land.  This  Court,  in  Major  General

Kapil Mehra and Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.  (2015) 2

SCC 262 while dealing with the matter held as under:-

7

“10. Market Value: First question that emerges is what would be the reasonable market value which the acquired lands are capable  of  fetching.  While  fixing  the  market  value  of  the acquired  land,  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  is  required  to keep in mind the following factors:- (i) existing geographical situation of the land; (ii) existing use of the land; (iii) already available  advantages,  like  proximity  to  National  or  State Highway or road and/or developed area and (iv) market value of  other  land  situated  in  the  same  locality/village/area  or adjacent or very near to the acquired land.”

12) For the purpose of deciding compensation of land in case

of  acquisition,  Section 23 of  the LA Act is  the fundamental

section which says that  some vital  factors  to be considered

while   determining  compensation.  At  this  juncture,  it  is

pertinent to re-produce the said section herein below:

23.  Matters  to  be  considered  in  determining compensation.-(1)  In  determining  the  amount  of compensation to be awarded for  land acquired under this Act, this court shall take into consideration- First,  the  market  value  of  the  land  at  the  date  of  the publication of the notification under section 4,sub-section(1); Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be  on  the  land  at  the  time  of  the  Collector’s  taking possession thereof; Thirdly,  the  damage  (  if  any)  sustained  by  the  person interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the  land,  by reason of  severing such land from his  other land; Fourthly,  the  damage  (if  any)  sustained  by  the  person interested, at the time of Collector’s taking possession of the land ,by reason of  the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;

8

Fifthly , if , in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and Sixthly,  the  damage  (if  any)  Bonafide  resulting  from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land.

13) On  a  plain  reading  of  Section  23  of  the  LA  Act,  it  is

evident that the compensation has to be calculated according

to the value of the land to the owner and the question to be

considered is  whether the  person from whom the land was

taken was to lose by having it taken from him. The probable

use to which the land might be put was necessarily an element

to  be  taken  into  consideration  for  calculating  the

compensation  of  acquired  land.  The  land  owners  get

compensation  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the  land,  in  its

actual  condition  at  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the

Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act.  

14) In the instant case, the appellants contented and invited

our  attention to the  fact  that  the  valuation of  the  acquired

land should be assessed on urban land criteria since land had

all basic amenities like water, sewer, electricity and telephone

9

lines were already present on the date of Notification under

Section 4 of  the  LA Act.  However  for  being an urban area,

there must be some other facilities like commercial activities,

population  growth,  education  activities,  paying  capacity  of

people, healthy public transport, infrastructure etc. It is also a

well  established  rule  that  in  the  cases  of  calculation  of

compensation,  there  cannot  be  a  straight  jacket  formula,

hence, each case has to be dealt in the light of circumstances

of  each case.  Common sense  is  the  best  and most  reliable

guide.  

15) It  is  a  well  settled  law  that  when  there  are  several

exemplars with reference to similar land, usually the highest

of  the  exemplars  which  is  a  bonafide transaction,  will  be

considered. In the present case, the Reference Court, in Para

20 held as under:-

“…..Here in this case, applying the said authority to the facts and  circumstances  of  this  case,  I  am  of  the  considered opinion that exemplar sale deed Exhibit P1 hold the fields in preference to the other sale deeds. Reason for exclusion of sale deeds Exhibit P2 to P3 is that sale deed Exhibit P1 is of the  highest  land  1  kanal  6  marlas  and  is  of  the  highest amount,  which  is  very  close  to  the  date  of  notification because  vide  sale  deed  Exhibit  P1  dated  5.10.2005,  land measuring 1 kanal 6 Marlas, whose nature was “Narmot”,

10

situated in village Ferozpur Namak, Tehsil Nuh, was sold for a sale consideration of Rs. 11,70,000/- by one Mahmood son of  Inshe Khan in favour of  Smt.  Hanisha Khatoon wife  of Mohammad Iqbal of the same village. The value per acre of the  land,  as  per  the  said  sale  deed  is  calculated  as  Rs. 72,00,000/- per acre. The said sale deed was executed on 5.10.2005 whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act for the acquired land was published on 18.10.2005 and thus, this sale deed Exhibit P1 is proximate to the point of time from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. No iota of evidence could be led by the respondents to rebut the veracity of this sale deed. There is nothing on record to  show that  the  sale  deed is  not  Bonafide  and a genuine  transaction.  In  fact  despite  availing  number  of opportunities, the respondents failed to lead any evidence to rebut the evidence led by the petitioners.”

16) On a perusal of the Map of the concerned area which is

produced  on  record  by  the  appellants,  we  find  that  the

acquired land in the present case falls within the control area

of Nuh and newly constructed Nalhar Medical College is at a

distance of 3-4 kms from the acquired land. We also find that

the said acquired land is situated on Palwal Road from one

side and on Delhi Road on the other. However, it is a matter of

record that such acquired land is far away from D.C. office

and other  offices.  Also,  Bus Stand as well  as  Nuh Town is

situated  far  away  from the  acquired  land.  Hence,  acquired

land of Firozpur village in such terms cannot be said to be

situated  very  near  to  the  urban  area  of  Nuh  Town.  The

11

appellants produced various sale deeds for the perusal of this

Court. The  vital  sale  deed  dated  05.10.2005,  wherein  land

admeasuring 1 kanal  6 Marlas,  situated in village Ferozpur

Namak, Tehsil Nuh, was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.

11,70,000/-  by  one  Mahmood s/o  Inshe Khan in favour  of

Smt.  Hanisha  Khatoon  w/o  Mohammad  Iqbal  of  the  same

village. If  we calculate the value of per acre in terms of the

above sale deed then it stands at Rs 72 Lakhs per acre. It is

pertinent to mention here that the date of  this sale deed is

05.10.2005 which is proximate to the date of Notification i.e.,

18.10.2005 under  Section 4 of  the  LA Act.   In the  present

case, after having regard to the circumstances of the case and

perusal  of  the sale deeds of  adjourning area,  we are of  the

considered view that the compensation granted at the rate of

Rs. 72 lacs per acre is as per the law and no injustice has

been occurred to the appellants herein.

17) Now coming to the point of development charges which

applied  by  the  High  court  @10% on  the  assessed  value  of

acquired land. Appellants  herein contended that  the  rate  of

deduction as applied by the High Court was not required as

12

the acquired land is situated in the area already developed and

have all the potential for development. It is a matter of record

that  the  Reference  Court  determined  60%  (55%  as

development  charges  and  5% for  waiting  period)  in  totality

towards development charges which later on in appeal reduced

by the  High Court  to  10%.  Deductions may be  made for  a

variety  of  reasons,  which  may  differ  in  different  cases.

However, in the backdrop of judicial precedents on this issue,

it  is  well  settled  position  that  all  deductions  should  not

cumulatively be exceeded the upper benchmark of 75% and at

the same time, it should be kept in mind that no hypothetical

view shall be taken in order to calculate the percentage of the

development charges.

18) In the present case, the appellants contended that the

acquired land has all basic facilities such as water, electricity,

sewer, telephone etc which respondent-State has not disputed.

These  are,  however,  not  enough  to  meet  the  purpose  of

acquisition.  To make  such land suitable  for  the  acquisition

purpose i.e. for the construction of Mini Secretariat at Nuh,

some further development is sine qua non. For calculating the

13

percentage of development charges, various factors need to be

taken into  consideration  such  as  location  of  land,  facilities

available  in  nearby  area,  size  of  the  land,  purpose  of

acquisition etc. The present acquired land of Firozpur Namak

village which is located at some distance from the Nuh Town

needs to be developed in proper manner like construction of

better  and  wide  roads  etc.,  to  make  it  suitable  for  the

acquisition purposes.  The fact that facilities already available

such  as  sewer,  electricity  etc.,  seems  to  be  taken  into

consideration  properly  while  reducing  the  development

charges by the High Court from 60% to 10%.  

19) In  the  case  at  hand,  after  giving  our  thoughtful

consideration  to  the  facts  and  circumstance  noticed

hereinabove, we are of the considered view that a cut at the

rate  of  10  %  is  very  reasonable  towards  development  of

acquired land as some further development would obviously

be required to make it  fit  for  the purpose  for  which it  was

acquired.   

14

20) In  view  of  above  discussion,  we  are  not  inclined  to

interfere  with  the  impugned  decision  of  the  High  Court.

Accordingly, the appeals are hereby dismissed leaving parties

to bear their own cost.  

………….………………………J.               (R.K. AGRAWAL)                           

.…....……..………………………………J.          (S. ABDUL NAZEER)                      

NEW DELHI; APRIL 16, 2018.  

15