C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

1    

          REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6308 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29319 of 2018)

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.         ...Appellants

Versus

Kanshi Ram & Ors.                      ...Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6309 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29320 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6310 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29327 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6311 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29330 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6312 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29332 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6313 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29333 of 2018)

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

2    

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6314 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29335 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6315 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29336 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6316 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29337 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6317 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29338 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6326 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29350 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6318 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29339 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6319 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29340 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6320 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29341 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6321 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29342 of 2018)

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

3    

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6322 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29344 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6323 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29346 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6324 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29347 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6325 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.29349 of 2018)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6327-6328 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.10089-10090 of 2019)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6331 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19584 of 2019  

@ D.No.22780 of 2019)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6332 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19587 of 2019  

@ D.No.22837 of 2019)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6330 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.18323 of 2019)   

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6329 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.18322 of 2019)  

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

4    

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6333 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19588 of 2019  

@ D.No.22850 of 2019)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6334 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19591 of 2019  

@ D.No.22851 of 2019)

J U D G M E N T

R.Subhash Reddy,J.  

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.  

3. All these Civil Appeals are filed, aggrieved by

the judgment  dated 31.07.2017 passed by the High Court

of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in R.F.A.No.202 of 2011

and batch, as such they are heard together and are

disposed of by this common judgment.  

4. There are two sets of appeals in this batch of

civil appeals.  One set of civil appeals is filed by

the State and the other set of civil appeals is filed

by the respondents-claimants of the land, for grant of

additional  interest  of  15%  per  annum  on  the

compensation  awarded  to  them.   For  the  purpose  of

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

5    

disposal  we  treat  the  Civil  Appeal  arising  out  of

S.L.P.(Civil) No.29319 of 2018 as the lead matter.

5. The Gram Panchayat, Namhol made a request to the

appellants for construction of the road from Namhol to

Bahadurpur.    In view of the request made by the Gram

Panchayat,  the  appellants  have  constructed  the  road

from  the village  Tepra, Sub  Tehsil Namhol,  District

Bilaspur.  It is stated that for the above said purpose

of construction of road, possession of the land was

taken in the year 1988.

6. When  the  possession  of  the  land  was  taken  for

construction of the road, some of the owners of the

land whose land was utilized for construction of road

approached the High Court and filed writ petition in

C.W.P.No.735 of 2004 complaining that their land was

utilized  for  public  purpose,  without  acquisition  of

land  in accordance  with law.  Pursuant to  directions

issued  by  the  High  Court  in  the  aforesaid  writ

petition,  the  appellants  have  initiated  land

acquisition  proceedings,  to  acquire  18-15  bighas  of

land  situated at  Tepra village.   Notification  under

Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for

short,  ‘the  Act’)   was  published  in  the  Official

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

6    

Gazette on 30.7.2005.  After completing the necessary

formalities the Land Acquisition Officer has passed  a

common Award dated 08.05.2007 by assessing the market

value  of  the  acquired  land  on  the  basis  of

classification of land as under:-

Classification of land        Rate per Bigha 1.  Andrali Aval Rs.61,666.00

2.  Andrali Doem Rs.51,666.00

3. Baharli Aval Rs.41,666.00

4. Baharli Doem Rs.20,000.00

5. Khariyater & Banjer Rs.5,000.00

7. Not satisfied with the market rate fixed by  the

Land  Acquisition  Officer,  respondents-claimants  have

sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and their

claims  were  referred  to  the  District  Court.   The

Reference Court on the basis of the material placed

before it, enhanced the compensation by fixing uniform

rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha, for all categories of

land, irrespective of classification, along with other

consequential  benefits as  per the  provisions of  the

Act.  

8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Reference Court

fixing  compensation of  Rs.7.00 lakhs  per bigha,  the

appellants  have  preferred  R.F.A.No.202  of  2011  and

batch questioning the fixing of the market value of the

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

7    

acquired  land  by  uniform  rate  of  Rs.7.00  lakhs  per

bigha.  In the appeals preferred by the State, the

respondents  have  preferred  cross  objections  claiming

interest from the date of taking possession to the date

of publication of Section 4(1) Notification.  By the

impugned judgment the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at

Shimla by a common judgment dismissed the appeals filed

by  the  State  and  allowed  the  cross  objections  by

awarding interest @ 15% per annum on the market value

of the land fixed by the Reference Court, from 1.1.1989

till the date of Notification issued under Section 4(1)

of the Act i.e. 30.7.2005. Aggrieved by the judgment of

the High Court, appellants have filed these appeals.

The  respondents-claimants  also  preferred  appeals

claiming interest by way of damages @ 15% per annum on

the total compensation payable to the respondents, not

merely  on  the  market  value  as  awarded  by  the  High

Court.   

9. We have heard Sri Abhinav Mukerji learned counsel

appearing  for  the  appellants  and  Sri  B.S.  Banthia

learned counsel appearing for the respondents.  

10. In this batch of appeals, it is mainly contended

by Sri Abhinav Mukerji learned counsel appearing for

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

8    

the  State  of  Himachal  Pradesh,  that  though  a  large

extent of 18-15 bighas of land was acquired for the

purpose of constructing the road, the Reference Court

has fixed compensation @ Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha basing

on the sale deed Ex.PW-1/A of small chunk i.e. 1 biswa

of land and granted abnormal hike in the market value

of the acquired land.  It is also brought to our notice

that the Ex.PW-1/A dated 24.11.2004 is the land sold by

PW-2 Garja Ram to PW-3 Kuldip for a consideration of

Rs.50,000/- for one  biswa of land.  It is submitted

that PW-2 Garja Ram is also one of the claimants in the

acquisition proceedings. It is submitted by the learned

counsel that having regard to total extent of 18-15

bighas  of  land  which  was  under  acquisition,  the

Reference Court should not have relied on Ex.PW-1/A for

fixing the compensation @ Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha.  It

is  also  submitted  that  though  the  appellants  have

produced  a  comparable  sale  under  sale  deed  Ex.’RA’

dated  04.05.2001  under  which  4-51  bighas  of  land

situated in village Dabar Paragana Bahadurpur Tehsil

Sadar District Bilaspur was sold but the same was not

considered without assigning any valid reasons.  It is

also submitted by the learned counsel that the High

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

9    

Court committed an error in awarding damages @ 15% per

annum on the market value of land, from the date of

taking possession to the date of notification.

11. On  the  other  hand  it  is  submitted  by  Sri  B.S.

Banthia, learned counsel for the respondents that the

lands of the respondents-claimants who were all small

farmers were taken possession in the year 1988 and they

are not paid the market value of their lands by the

appellants.  It is submitted that in absence of any

other  comparable sale  in the  village, the  Reference

Court  and  the  High  Court  rightly  considered  the

document Ex.PW-1/A and fixed the compensation for the

acquired land @ Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha.  It is further

submitted  that  though  the  land  under   sale    deed

Ex.PW-1/A was sold at the rate of Rs.10.00 lakhs per

bigha, but the Reference Court after  deducting 30% has

fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.7.00

lakhs per bigha.  It is submitted that there is no

merit in the appeals preferred by the State.  Further

it is also contended by the learned counsel for the

respondents that the possession of the land in question

was taken as early as in the year 1988 and only after

directions  were  issued  in  the  writ  petition  in

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

10    

C.W.P.No.735 of 2004, Notification under Section 4(1)

of the Act was issued on 30.07.2005.  It is submitted

that the High Court while awarding additional interest

@ 15% per annum has committed error in awarding such

interest only on the market value of the land fixed by

the  Reference  Court,  instead  of  total  compensation

payable to the respondents-claimants.  

12.  At  the   outset  it  is  to  be  noted  that  even

according  to  the  case  of  the  respondents-claimants

possession of the land in question was taken in the

year  1988  for  constructing  the  road  and  only  after

directions  were  issued  in  C.W.P.No.735  of  2004

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act came to be

issued  on 30.07.2005.   The  Land Acquisition  Officer

after  collecting  necessary  material,  has  passed  a

common Award on the basis of the classification of the

land.  The Land Acquisition Officer has categorized the

land  into  5  categories  of  the  land  and  fixed

Rs.61,666.00 for Andrali Aval, Rs.51,666.00 for Andrali

Doem, Rs. 41,666.00 for Baharli Aval, Rs. 20,000.00 for

Baharli Doem and Rs.5,000.00 for Khariyater & Banjer.   

13. Not  satisfied  by  the  Award  passed  by  the  Land

Acquisition Officer, the respondents sought reference

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

11    

under Section 18 of the Act which was referred to the

District  Court.   The  Reference  Court  has  fixed  the

compensation by awarding uniform rate at Rs.7.00 lakhs

per bigha based on the Ex.PW-1/A dated 24.11.2004.

14. At this stage it is to be seen that C.W.P.No.735

of 2004 must have been filed in the first quarter of

the  year  2004  and  Ex.PW-1/A  is  dated  24.11.2004.

Under the sale deed Ex.PW-1/A only one biswa of land

was  sold  by  PW-2  Garja  Ram  to  PW-3  Kuldip,  for  a

consideration of Rs.50,000/-.  It is not in dispute

that PW-2 Garja Ram  is also a claimant in the land

acquisition proceedings in the impugned judgment.  When

the total land admeasuring 18-15 bighas of land was

acquired,  the  Reference  Court  and  the  High  Court

committed error in accepting document in Ex.PW-1/A, as

a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing the market

value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs

per  bigha.  As  no  other  documentary  evidence  is

available  on  record  and  further  in  view  of  the

allegation  of  the  appellants  that  the  sale  deed  in

Ex.’RA’  dated 04.05.2001  under which  4-51 bighas  of

land in adjoining village was sold in the year 2001, is

not considered without assigning valid reasons, we are

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

12    

of the view that these appeals filed by the State are

to  be  allowed  by  remitting  the  matter  for  fresh

consideration by the Reference/District Court. As much

as PW-2 is the vendor under Ex.PW-1/A, who is no other

than  one  of  the  claimants  in  the  land  acquisition

proceedings, such sale could not have been considered

as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing the

market value of large extent of land i.e. 18-15 bighas.

We  are  of  the  view  that  the  Reference  Court  has

committed error in relying on such document for fixing

the  compensation  at  the  rate  of  Rs.7.00  lakhs  per

bigha.  If no other comparable sales are available in

the same village it is always open to the Reference

Court  to  consider  sales  in  the  adjoining  villages

during the relevant period.  Even otherwise there are

other  methods  for  fixing  the  compensation.  Such

erroneous  fixation  of  market  value  at  the  rate  of

Rs.7.00  lakhs  per  bigha  as  fixed  by  the  Reference

Court, ought not to have been approved by the High

Court.  As such we are of the view that the appeals

filed by the State  deserve to be allowed, by remitting

the  cases  to  the  Reference  Court  for  fresh

adjudication.

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

13    

15. Accordingly,  for  the  aforesaid  reasons  all  the

appeals filed by the State are allowed by setting aside

the common judgment dated 31.07.2017 in R.F.A. No. 202

of  2011  and  batch.   Consequently  the  Award  of  the

Reference  Court  fixing  the  compensation  for  the

acquired land at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha,

also stands set aside and matters are remitted back for

fresh  consideration  by  the  District  Court  for

considering the references in accordance with law and

to pass fresh Award.  As much as the Notification under

Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 30.7.2005, we

direct  the Reference  Court to  dispose of  references

within  a  period  of  six  months  from  date  of  this

judgment.  We permit both the sides to adduce further

documentary  and  oral  evidence,  in  support  of  their

case.  As the appeals filed by the State are allowed by

this Court, the additional interest awarded at the rate

of 15% per annum from the date of Notification is also

set  aside.   It  is  open  to  the  Reference  Court  to

consider the claim of the claimants for award of the

additional interest from the date of taking possession

to the date of issuance of Section 4(1) Notification in

accordance with law.  We do not wish to express any

          C.A.Nos. @SLP (C ) No . 29319  of 2018 etc.etc.

14    

opinion on such claim, such claim is to be considered

independently in accordance with law.

16. As  much  as  the  appeals  filed  by  the  State  are

allowed,  the  batch  of  civil  appeals  filed  by  the

respondents-claimants are dismissed with no order as to

costs. It is made clear that the  compensation which is

already  paid  to  the  claimants,  will  be  subject  to

further orders to be passed by the Reference Court.

 .......................J.    [Abhay Manohar Sapre]

 .......................J.    [R. Subhash Reddy]

New Delhi, August 14, 2019.