1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.885 OF 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15476 of 2016)

Surender Singh            ….Appellant(s) VERSUS

State of Haryana & Ors. ….Respondent(s) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.890  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18631 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.896 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19204 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 888  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18594 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 889 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18534 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 886  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 15541 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.887  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38745 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 897-900 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 19859-19862 of 2016)

2

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 909-912 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38735-38738 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.904 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 19955 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 891-895  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38746-38750 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 901-903  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38706-38708 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.905 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21944 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 984-985 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38729-38730 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1028-1034 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38477-38483 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1140-1146  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 24387-24393 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.920-952 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38562-38594 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1035-1043  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.32033-32041 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.914-915 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 26270-26271 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.906-907 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38710-38711 of 2016

3

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1182 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2785/2018

D.No.25046 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.987-992 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38504-38509 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1049-1053  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38470-38474 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL NO.908 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38701 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.972-981  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38718-38727 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 916-919 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38713-38716 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL NO.913  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38698 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1057-1058  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 2626-2627 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.953-971 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 2013-2031 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1012-1027  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38488-38503 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL NO.986 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 29499 of 2016

4

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1001-1002  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38484-38485 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1180-1181 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 2766-2767 of 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……CC No. 18530-18531 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1003-1009  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38510-38516 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1055-1056  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 38434-38435 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL NO.982  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38703 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL NO.983  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38705 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1075 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8084 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1079 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.9551 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1078  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.9242 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1010  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.30834 of 2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1011  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.38659 of 2016)

5

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1138-1139  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 22957-22958 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1048  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.35059 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1044-1047 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 35054-35057 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1068  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 4371 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1066-1067 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 4335-4336 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1170-1179  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 2755-2764 of 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)… CC No. 24562-24570 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1059-1065  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 3033-3039 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1054  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 38461 of 2016

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1072 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5934 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1074  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5935 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1076  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 9228 of 2017

6

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1077 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 9239 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1195-1196  OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 2805-2806 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)…CC No. 3152 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1073  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5937 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1081  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 9924 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1069 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 4362 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1070-1071  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 4369-4370 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1150  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 31097 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1080 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 9243 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1132-1133  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 11874-11875 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1082-1131 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 11440-11489 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1134  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 11709 of 2017)

7

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1183 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2793 of 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 12429 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1186 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2795 of 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 12432 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1184 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2794 of 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 12433 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1185 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2796 of 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 12434 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1187 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2797 of 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 13789 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1190  OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2800 of 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 13790 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1197 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2807 of 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 13791 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1188 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2798 of 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 13792 of 2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1189 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2799 of 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 15878 of 2017

8

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1169 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.372 of 2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1136 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21035 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1135 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17627 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1149 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 29983 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1137 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21420 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1147-1148  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 29981-29982 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1151-1153  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 31215-31217 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1154-1158 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 33226-33230 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1191-1194 OF 2018 Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.2801-2804 of 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)……… D.No. 37077 of 2017)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.1159-1168 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 34271-34280 of 2017)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.993-1000  OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 1046-1053 of 2018)

9

               J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  are  filed  against  the  common

final judgment and order dated 05.02.2016 passed

by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  at

Chandigarh  in  R.F.A.  No.  1854  of  2012  etc.etc.

whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeals

filed by the appellants herein and thereby enhanced

the  compensation @ Rs.62,11,700/-  per  acre  and

other statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act,

1894  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Act”)  and

accordingly  modified  the  Award  dated  27.02.2012

passed by the Reference Court, Gurgaon in LAC No.

551  of  2009/2011  and  other  connected  matters

and, in consequence, dismissed  the appeals filed by

the State.

10

3. In order  to  appreciate  the  entire  controversy

involved in this bunch of appeals, it is necessary to

set out the facts in detail.

4. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section

4  of  the  Act,  the  State  of  Haryana  issued  a

Notification on 11.01.2005 for  acquisition of  large

chunk of land totaling around 520 acres 02 Kanals

and 13.5 Marlas situated in 15 villages in the State

of Haryana. The acquisition in question was for the

public  purpose,  namely,  construction  of  Express

Highway  known  as  “KMP”.  It  was  followed  by

another  notification  issued  on  17.11.2005  by  the

State under Section 4 of the Act for the same public

purpose in relation to the land situated in 4 villages.

5. The details of the acquisition, such as name of

the villages and the area of the land situated in each

village are setout hereinbelow

11

S.No. Name of Village Area  acquired  (per acre)

1. Kasan 514 kanal 13 marla 2. Kukrola 97 kanal 04 marla 3. Khaintawas 99 kanal 14 marla 4. Dhana 241 kanal 00 marla 5. Path Hajipur 960 kanal 04 marla 6. Sultanpur 499 kanal 01 marla 7. Fazilwas 11 kanal 13 marla 8. Mokalwas 185 kanal 18 marla 9. Bas Lambi 313 kanal 07 marla 10. Mubarikpur 242 kanal 13 marla 11. Jhanjhrola J17 kanal 01 marla 12. Babra Bakipur 100 kanal 19 marla 13. Shed  

Mohammadpur 222 kanal 01 marla

14. Kharkari 14 kanal 11 marla 15. Fakharpur 182 kanal 14 marla

6. This  was  followed  by  two  declarations

published by the State under Section 6 of the Act.

One  was  published  on  31.05.2005.   It  was  in

relation to first notification issued under Section 4

of the Act on 11.01.2005 whereas other declaration

was published on 08.02.2006. It was in relation to

second notification issued under  Section 4 of  the

Act on 17.11.2005.

12

7. This  was  followed  by  the  initiation  of  the

proceedings  for  determination  of  compensation

payable by the State to the landowners whose lands

were  acquired  in  the  acquisition  proceedings  in

question.  Notices to landowners were accordingly

issued under Section 9 of the Act.  

8. The Land Acquisition Officer held an enquiry

as required under Section 11 of the Act and passed

separate awards in relation to the lands situated in

different  villages  on  10.05.2006.   The  Land

Acquisition  Officer  determined  the  uniform  rate

applicable to entire acquired land payable to every

landowner.   In  his  opinion,  all  the  landowners,

whose  lands were acquired in the  aforementioned

15 villages, were entitled to get the compensation at

the uniform rate of Rs.12,50,000/- per acre.

9. Dissatisfied with the awards,  the landowners

filed  their  objections under  Section 18 of  the  Act

13

and prayed for making reference to the Civil Court

for fresh determination of the compensation and the

rate  at  which  it  was  payable.  As  a  consequence

thereof, land references were accordingly made and

forwarded  to  the  Reference  Court  for

re-determination  of  the  compensation  under  the

Act. As many as 41 land references were made to

the Reference Court.   

10. By  a  common  Award  dated  27.02.2012,  the

Reference Court (Civil Court) partly allowed all the

reference  cases  and  enhanced  the  rate  of

compensation at Rs.43,17,841/- per acre.  In other

words, the Reference Court enhanced the rate from

Rs.12,50,000/- per acre to Rs.43,17,841/- per acre.

11. This  determination gave  rise  to  filing  of  first

appeals by the landowners as well as the State of

Haryana in the  High Court  of  Punjab & Haryana

under Section 54 of the Act.  As stated at the bar, in

14

all,  556 first appeals were filed in the High Court

against  the  award  of  the  Reference  Court  out  of

which 258 appeals were filed by the landowners and

remaining 298 appeals by the State.

12.  So far as the appeals filed by the landowners

were concerned, the landowners prayed therein for

grant of more compensation than what was awarded

by the Reference Court.  In other words, the case of

the landowners in the High Court in support of their

appeals was that the Reference Court though was

right in enhancing the rate of compensation but was

not right in awarding at the rate of Rs.43,17,841/-

per  acre.  According  to  them,  the  rate  of  land

determined  by  the  Reference  Court  should  have

been  much  higher  than  Rs.43,17,841/-  per  acre

because the acquired land had immense potential.  

13. So far as the appeals filed by the State were

concerned, the case of the State in the appeals was

15

that the Reference Court erred in determining the

market  rate  of  the  land  at  the  rate  of

Rs.43,17,841/- per acre.  According to the State, it

was on higher side as compared to what was fixed

by the LAO, i.e., Rs.12,50,000/- per acre which, in

the facts and circumstances of the case, was just,

proper and adequate with no scope of any further

enhancement therein.

14. By impugned judgment, the High Court partly

allowed the appeals filed by the landowners and as

a consequence thereof dismissed the appeals filed

by the State. The High Court while partly allowing

the landowners’ appeals further enhanced the rate

of  acquired land from Rs.43,17,841/-  per  acre  to

Rs.62,11,700/-  per acre.  

15. In  other  words,  in  the  opinion  of  the  High

Court, the fair market rate of acquired land should

be at  Rs.62,11,700/- per  acre  and,  therefore,  the

16

compensation be paid to each landowner for their

acquired lands,  at  the  rate  of  Rs.62,11,700/-  per

acre.

16. Against this judgment of the High Court, the

landowners as well as the State both felt aggrieved

and filed these appeals by way of special leave in

this Court.  

17. So far as the appeals filed by the landowners

are concerned, their common case in their appeals

is that the High Court was right in enhancing the

rate of acquired land but was not right in confining

it  to  Rs.62,11,700/-  per  acre.  According to  them,

the rate of acquired land should have been much

more than what was determined by the High Court,

i.e., Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.

18. So  far  as  the  appeals  filed  by  the  State  are

concerned, the case of the State was that the High

Court  erred  in  further  enhancing  the  rate  of

17

acquired land to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. According

to the State, there was no case made out for any

further  enhancement  in  the  rate  of  the  acquired

land and on the other hand, the appeals filed by the

State deserved to be allowed by the High Court by

reducing  the  rate  of  acquired  land  fixed  by  the

Reference Court and restoring the rate fixed by the

LAO  that  being  the  fair  market  rate  of  the  land

rightly  fixed  by  the  LAO,  i.e.,  Rs.12,50,000/-  per

acre.  

19. It is essentially with this factual background,

the  entire  controversy  on  the  question  of

re-determination  of  the  rate  of  acquired  land

payable  to  the  landowners  is  made  the

subject-matter of  these appeals at the instance of

the landowners and the State.

20. Therefore,  the  question  that  arises  for

consideration in this bunch of appeals, is whether

18

the  High  Court  was  right  in  partly  allowing  the

landowners’  appeals  and  thereby  was  justified  in

further  enhancing  the  rate  of  compensation  from

Rs.43,17,841/- per acre to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.

In other words,  the  question is  whether  the  High

Court was justified in dismissing the State's appeals

and thereby was justified in not reducing the rate of

acquired  land  fixed  by  the  Reference  Court  and

restoring the rate (Rs.12,50,000/- per acre) fixed by

LAO.

21. To put it in yet another words, what is the fair

market value of the acquired land in question - (1)

Rs.12,50,000/- per acre as fixed by the LAO; or (2)

Rs.43,17,841/- per acre as fixed by the Reference

Court; or (3) Rs.62,11,700/- per acre as fixed by the

High  Court  or  lastly  any  other  rate  between

Rs.12,50,000/-  per  acre  and  Rs.62,11,700/-  per

acre  or  more  than  Rs.62,11,700/-  per  acre

19

prevailing on the date of acquisition i.e. 11.01.2005

and 17.11.2005.

22. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

23. As mentioned above, the submission of learned

counsel for the different landowners in support of

their respective appeals was more or less common.

According to them, there is overwhelming evidence

adduced by the landowners to prove the potentiality

of the land on the date of acquisition (11.01.2005

and 17.11.2005) which, in fact, found acceptance to

the High Court while enhancing the rate of acquired

land.

24.  It  was  urged  that  having  regard  to  the

situation,  proximity  and  the  surroundings  of  the

acquired area which was already developed much

prior to the date of the acquisition coupled with the

fact  that  at  least  one  sale  deed  out  of  the  four

exemplar  sale  deeds  filed  by  the  landowners

20

(Exs-P1,  P-10,  P-12,  P-13 and P-14)  to  prove  the

real  market  value  of  the  acquired  land  as

contemplated under  Section 23 of  the  Act  should

have been made basis by the High Court for fixing

the rate of acquired land and had it been done then

the  rate  of  acquired  land  would  have  been  more

than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.  

25. All  the  learned  counsel  for  the  landowners

then took us through the evidence with a view to

show  the  potentiality  in  the  acquired  land,  its

situation,  location,  proximity  with  the  well

developed areas and its surrounding places and on

that  basis  urged  that  a  case  for  further

enhancement in the rate of the acquired land, i.e.,

more  than  Rs.62,11,700/-  per  acre  is  made  out

and, therefore, this Court should allow the appeals

filed by the landowners and suitably enhance the

21

rate  of  acquired  land  for  determining  the

compensation payable to each landowner.  

26. In  reply,  learned  counsel  for  the  State  of

Haryana  contended  that  the  High  Court  erred  in

allowing the landowners’ appeals and further erred

in dismissing the State's appeals.  

27. According to learned counsel, the landowners’

appeals  were  liable  to  be  dismissed  whereas  the

State's appeals deserved to be allowed by the High

Court by setting aside the award of the Reference

Court.  

28. His  submission  was  that  the  High  Court

cursorily disposed of the appeals without deciding

any issue though involved in the  appeals  thereby

causing  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  the  State  in

particular.  

29. Learned  counsel  then  took  us  through  the

findings of the High Court and the issues raised by

22

the State for proper determination of the rates of the

acquired  land  and  on  that  basis  pointed  out  the

prejudice  caused  due  to  casual  approach  of  the

High Court in deciding the appeals.

30. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of  the entire record of the

case, we are constrained to allow the appeals filed

by the  State  in  part  and set  aside  the  impugned

judgment  of  the  High  Court  and  also  the  award

passed by the Reference Court and are inclined to

remand  the  cases  to  the  Reference  Court  (Civil

Court)  for  deciding  the  reference  cases  afresh  on

merits  in  the  light  of  our  observations/directions

made hereinbelow.

31.  The  need  to  remand  these  cases  to  the

Reference Court has occasioned essentially for two

reasons.  First, it  is clear from the perusal of the

impugned judgment that the High Court essentially

23

based  its  decision  or,  we  may  say,  proceeded  to

decide the appeals by making the decision of this

Court  in  Haryana State Industrial  Development

Corporation vs  Pran  Sukh  &  Others [2010  (11)

SCC 175] to be the basis to examine the question as

to whether  the  rate  of  acquired land fixed by the

LAO and Reference Court is fair or not.  

32.  The  High  Court,  however,  noticed  from the

facts involved in the case of Pran Sukh (supra) that

the land situated in one village - Kasan along with

its  some  adjoining  villages  was  acquired  on

15.11.1994 by the State and this Court determined

the  compensation  payable  to  the  landowners  of

Kasan village at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre.

33. The  High Court  felt  that  Rs.20,000,00/-  per

acre  should  be  taken  as  the  base  price  for

determining the rate of acquired land in question.

The  High  Court  perhaps  did  this  after  having

24

noticed that some part of the acquired land in these

appeals is situated in Kasan village and, therefore,

it is ideal to take the rate of Kasan village land as

basis for determining the rate of acquired land also.

The High Court accordingly gave annual increase of

8% to Rs.20,00,000/- and worked out the rate at

Rs.62,11,700/- per acre for the entire acquired land

in question by applying one uniform rate.  

34. In our considered opinion, the approach of the

High  Court  in  the  facts  of  these  cases  does  not

appear  to  be  right  inasmuch  as  the  High  Court

failed  to  take  into  consideration  several  material

issues which arose in these cases and had bearing

on determination of the fair market rate of the land

in question under Section 23 of the Act.  

35.  First, the acquired land, in these cases, was a

huge chunk of land measuring around 520 acres, 2

kanals and 13.5.marlas. Second, the entire acquired

25

land was not situated in village Kasan but it  was

spread over in 15 villages as detailed above.  Third,

there is no evidence to show much less  any finding

of  the  High  Court  as  to  what  was   the  actual

distance among the 15 villages against one another,

the location, situation/area of each village, whether

any  development  had  taken  place  and,  if  so,  its

type, nature and when it took place in any of these

villages,  the  potentiality  and  the  quality  of  the

acquired  land  situated  in  each  village,  its  nature

and the basis,  the market rate of the land situated

in each village prior to the date of acquisition or in

its near proximity,  whether small piece of land or

preferably big chunk of land, the actual distance of

each village qua any other nearby big developed city,

town  or   a  place,  whether  any  activity  is  being

carried  on  in  the  nearby  areas,  their  details.

Fourth, whether the acquired land in  the case of

26

Pran  Sukh  (supra)  in  village  Kasan  and  the

acquired land in question are similar in nature or

different and, if  so,  how and on what basis,  their

total distance etc.  

36. These were, in our view, the issues which had

material bearing while determining the rate of the

acquired land in question.  

37. The High Court, in the absence of any evidence

on any of these issues, could not have determined

one flat market rate of the acquired land in question

by applying one isolated rate of one land situated in

one village Kasan and adding 8% annual increase

from 1994 in such rate and made it applicable to

the entire lands situated in 15 different villages.  

38. In our  opinion,  it  is  only  when the  evidence

had been adduced by the parties to the  lis on the

aforementioned issues, the Court would have been

in  a  position  to  apply  its  mind  objectively  as  to

27

which method should be applied for determination

of the rate, i.e., whether belting system or flat rate

system  or  different  rates  for  different  lands

depending  upon  the  quality  of  land  situated  in

different villages etc.

39. The  fair  market  value  of  the  acquired  land

cannot be decided in isolation on the basis of only

one factor.  There are several other factors, which

govern the determination of the rate.  These factors

need to be proved with sufficient evidence.  It must

appear that the Courts have made sincere endeavor

to  determine  the  fair  market  rate  of  the  acquired

land and while determining has taken into account

all relevant aspects of the case. It is the duty of the

landowners  and  the  State  to  adduce  proper  and

sufficient evidence to enable the Courts to arrive at

a reasonable and fair market rate of  the acquired

land prevalent on the date of acquisition.  

28

40. Taking  into  consideration  the  aforesaid

infirmities,  which  we  have  noticed,  we  have  no

hesitation in holding that  the  trial  in these cases

has not been satisfactory.  We cannot countenance

the cursory manner in which both the Courts below

proceeded  to  determine  the  market  rate  of  the

acquired land.  It has certainly caused prejudice to

both the parties.

41.  We do not  blame any party  for  prosecuting

their case in wholly unsatisfactory manner but the

fact remains that both the parties failed to adduce

sufficient evidence on several material issues, as a

result,  both  the  Courts  below did  not  record any

finding on any of the material issues arising in the

case.

42. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find

it difficult at this stage to determine the fair market

rate  of  the  acquired  land  for  want  of  sufficient

29

evidence.   If  we do,  it  will  cause prejudice to the

parties.  We, therefore, refrain from doing so.

43. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow

the  appeals  filed  by  the  State,  set  aside  the

impugned judgment and the award of the Reference

Court  (Civil  Courts)  and remand the  cases to the

Reference  Court  for  deciding  all  reference  cases

afresh on merits keeping in view our observations

made supra.  

44. Parties would be at liberty to adduce additional

evidence in support of their respective stand both

oral  and  documentary.   The  Reference  Court  will

accordingly decide the rate of land as prevalent on

the date of acquisition in the light of law laid down

by  this  Court  strictly  in  accordance  with  law

uninfluenced by any finding of the High Court and

this Court on the merits.

30

45. Parties  to  appear  before  the  Reference  Court

on  05.02.2018  to  enable  the  Reference  Court  to

proceed in the cases and ensure its disposal within

one year from the date of appearance of the parties

as an outer limit.  The original record of the case, if

requisitioned  here,  be  sent  back  forthwith  to  the

concerned Reference Court.

46. Since  we  have  remanded these  cases  to  the

Reference Court for fresh adjudication on merits in

accordance  with  law,  the  appellants  (landowners)

are entitled to get back the amount of court fee paid

by each appellant (landowner) on his appeal memo

before the High Court as also before this Court as

provided under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act.

47.  The Registry is accordingly directed to issue

necessary certificate of refund of Court Fee amount,

if  paid  by  any  of  the  landowner  on his  memo of

appeal in the High Court and in this Court under

31

the  Court  Fees  Act  to  enable  the  landowners  to

claim the refund of the court fee amount from the

concerned State Treasury.  

48. If  for  any  reason,  it  is  not  possible  for  the

Registry of this Court to issue refund certificate of

the  Court  Fee  amount  paid  by  the  landowners

(appellants)  on their  memo of  appeals filed in the

High Court on their respective appeal memo then

the  requisite  certificate  shall  be  issued  by  the

concerned High Court as per the Rules in favour of

each  appellant  (landowner)  under  the  Court  Fees

Act.  

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

[R.K. AGRAWAL]             

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

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; January 25, 2018