NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 12847 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO(S).11275/2016]

RAJBIR AND  ORS.                          APPELLANT(S)                                 VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.                 RESPONDENT(S) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).14637-645 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) NOS.24124-24132/2016, CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 14601 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No.11064/2016,  CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 14599 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No.11274/2016,  CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 14611-14632 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No.17260-81/2016,  CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).14646-14649 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) NOS.1338-1341/2017, CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 14600 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No.11063/2016,  CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 14602 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 11058/2016,  CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 14653 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 23353/2017,  CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 14605 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 14430/2016,  CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 14633 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 18649/2016,  CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).14651-14652 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No.19685-19686/2017, CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).14606-14609 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No.14367-14370/2016, CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).14603-14604 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No.14371-14372/2016,  CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).14634-14636 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No.18618-18620/2016,  CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).14610 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 17602/2016,  CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).14650 OF 2017 @ SLP(C) No. 10310/2017

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

1

2. Both the claimants and the State are before this Court,  aggrieved  by  the  compensation  awarded  with respect  to  the  land  acquired  for  the  purpose  of Kundli-Manesar-Palwal  Project  (for  short  'KMP Project'). 3. The  Section  4(1)  Notification  was  issued  on 13.08.2004 in respect of around 151 acres of land in four  villages  i.e.  Badh  Malik,  Pritampura,  Jatheri and  Akabarpur  Barota.  The  same  was  followed  by Declaration dated 26.8.2004 under Section 6 of the Act. Dissatisfied by the Award of the Collector, the land owners filed objections, however, the Reference Court  upheld  the  Award  of  the  Collector.  In  the impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court  has  fixed  the compensation in the following manner :-

For  the  land  abutting  GT Road  upto  the  depth  of four acres

Rs.35,70,000/- per acre

For the land upto to the boundary of Sector 38

Rs.27,20,000/- per acre For  the  land  from  the boundary of Sector 38 upto one km.

Rs.18,20,000/- per acre

For remaining land Rs.12,20,000/- per acre

4. In the nature of order we propose to pass, it is not  necessary  to  go  into  the  various  contentions except to note that, in our view, the High Court has gone  wrong  in  placing  reliance  on  a  subsequent acquisition for which Section 4(1) Notification was issued on 17.11.2005 for Rajiv Gandhi Education City and  fixing  the  land  value  for  the  KMP  Project  by

2

introducing the method of an appropriate reduction. Another  error, in  our opinion,  is in  adopting the belting system. Being an acquisition for an Express Way passing through different parcel of land, there is no need or justification for adopting the belting system.  Further, the High Court committed a mistake in introducing cuts.  If the land value is to be fixed  for  KMP  Project  acquisition,  the  relevant factors which are to be noted are mainly the value that  was  prevalent  in  the  locality  prior  to 13.08.2004. 5. We  are  informed  that  several  documents  are available for fixing the land value.  We are also of the view that the High Court should bear in mind, while  fixing the  land value,  that the  road brings development and the value of the land on either side of  the  Highway  increases  and  the  land  owners  on either side of the land are also benefited by the construction of a new road.  However, the High Court has  also  to  take  into  consideration  the reconstructions on use of the land to an extent of 200 feet on either side of the road. 6. We  are  also  informed  that  certain  matters pertaining to the very same acquisition have already been remitted by this Court. 7. For  all  the  above  reasons,  we  set  aside  the impugned  order  and  remit  the  matters  to  the  High Court for consideration afresh. 8. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. 9. We request the High Court to dispose of these cases expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months.

3

10. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 11. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 06, 2017.

4