LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Thursday, August 25, 2011

land acquisition act – Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors: situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. 14) On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum,


                                       1








                                                       REPORTABLE






                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA






                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION






                  CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7258   OF 2011


             [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.1578 of 2007]






Chakas                                        ....Appellant





                    Versus






State of Punjab & Ors.                         ....Respondents






                       W I T H






C.A.No.7259/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.659 of 2007];


C.A.No.7260/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.5447 of 2007];


C.A.No.7261/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.3319 of 2007];


C.A.No.7262/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.4982 of 2007];


C.A.No.7263/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.8073 of 2007];


C.A.No.7264/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.8649 of 2007];


C.A.No.7265/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.8653 of 2007];


C.A.No.7266/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.9210 of 2007];


C.A.No.7267/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.12156 of 2007];


C.A.No.7268/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.12765 of 2007];


C.A.No.7269/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.14818 of 2007];


C.A.No.7270/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.7253 of 2007];


C.A.No.7272/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.14422 of 2007];


C.A.No.7271/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.14424 of 2007];


C.A.No.7273-7304/2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.1798-1829 


of 2008];


C.A.No.7305/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.11844 of 2008];


C.A.No.7306-7315/2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.9426-9435 


of 2008];


C.A.No.7316/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.21198 of 2008];


C.A.No.7317/2011[Arising out of SLP(C) No.5427 of 2009];



                                                2








                           A N D 


C.A.No.7318-7322/2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.10838-10842


                                           of 2010];










                          J U D G M E N T










Deepak Verma, J.






1. Leave granted.






2. Question as to what would be proper, adequate, just 






  and   reasonable   compensation   to   be   awarded   to   the 






  appellant   for   the   land   acquired   by   the   respondent 






  State,   has   once   again   cropped   up   for   our 






  consideration in this and the connected appeals.






3. In this appeal, the land owner, whose land  has been 






  acquired   by   the   State   of   Punjab   is   before   us   for 






  enhancement   of   compensation   awarded   to   him   by   the 






  High Court and the beneficiary respondent No. 3 M/s. 






  Nahar   Industries   Infrastructure   Corporation   Ltd. 






  (hereinafter         shall         be         referred         to         as         'the 






  Corporation')   has   preferred   separate   appeals   for 



                                          3








      reduction   of   the   compensation   awarded   to   the 






      appellant   by   the   High   Court.     Since   both   set   of 






      appeals   arise   out   of   the   common   judgment   and   order 






      pronounced   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   Regular 






      First   Appeal   No.   1072   of   1999   in   the   High   Court   of 






      Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on 03.05.2006, they 






      have   been   heard   analogously   and   are   being   disposed 






      of by this common judgment and order.






4. It   may   be   noted   that   for   the   sake   of   brevity   and 






      convenience,   facts   of   appeal   arising   out   of   SLP(C) 






      No.1578 of 2007 have been taken into account.






5.      Short   facts,   shorn   of   unnecessary   details   are 






mentioned hereinbelow:






          Respondent   No.   1   -   State   of   Punjab,   for   the 






purposes of setting up of an Industrial Focal Point in 






Tehsil   Rajpura   District   Patiala   issued   a   notification 






on 13.11.1992 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 






Act   (hereinafter   shall   be   referred   to   as   'the   Act') 






for   acquiring            550.03   acres   in   villages   Lalru, 



                                         4








Jalalpur, Lehli, and Hassanpur of the aforesaid Tehsil 






and   District.     The   public   purpose   mentioned   in   the 






same was for Industrial Focal Point.  Subsequently, by 






issuance   of   another   notification   under   Section   6   of 






the   Act,   on   08.04.1993,   the   aforesaid   land   was 






declared to have been acquired.   Thereafter, the Land 






Acquisition Collector started the process of computing 






the   amount   of   compensation   to   be   awarded   to   the   land 






owners.   The   Land   Acquisition   Officer   pronounced   his 






award on 12.9.1994 fixing different rates per acre for 






the   lands   of   four   villages.     The   appellant   and   other 






land   owners   feeling   highly   dissatisfied   with   the 






amount   of   compensation   so   assessed   by   the   Land 






Acquisition         Officer,         preferred         references         under 






Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court at Patiala.






6.    The   matter   was   accordingly   referred   to   the 






Additional District Judge, Patiala for working out the 






amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant 






and   other   such   similarly   situated   appellants.     Both 



                                    5








the   parties led evidence before the Reference Court. 






On   the   basis   of   the   evidence   so   adduced   by   the 






parties, the Reference Court was pleased to assess the 






value of the entire acquired land in four villages at 






a   uniform   rate   and   consequently   held   that   the   land 






owners   were   entitled   to   receive   compensation   of   Rs. 






1.5 lakh per acre,  besides the individual claims made 






by   land   owners   with   regard   to   super   structure,   trees 






and   other   facilities     available   in   their   respective 






lands   were   also   taken   into   consideration.     The   land 






owners   were   also   held   entitled   for   the   statutory 






benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act.






7.    Still   not   being   satisfied   with   the   amount   of 






compensation   so   awarded   to   them,   the   land   owners 






preferred   appeals   before   the   High   Court   under   Section 






54 of the Act, whereas the beneficiary respondent No. 






3   herein   the   Corporation   also   preferred   appeals 






purportedly, for reduction of the compensation awarded 






to   the   appellant.   The   Learned   Single   Judge   heard   the 



                                                         6








matters   together   and   disposed   of   by   the   common 






judgment   and   order,   which   is   being   impugned,   once 






again by both sides on a variety of grounds.  






8.      We   have   accordingly   heard   Mr.   L.   Nageswara   Rao, 






Senior   Advocate   ably   assisted   by   M/s   Navin   Chawla, 






Gaurav   Kaushik,   Tushar   Singh   praying   for   further 






enhancement   of   compensation   and   Mr.   Anil   Grover,   AAG, 






Punjab   with   Mr.   Kuldip   Singh   and   Mr.   Neeraj   Kumar 






Jain,   Senior   Advocate   with   Mr.   Sanjay   Singh   Advocate 






for   the   respondent   Corporation   at   length   and   perused 






the records.






9.      Certain   dates   material   for   deciding   the   said 






appeal are mentioned hereinbelow:








1     Notification under Section 4 of the  Issued on 13.11.1992       For acquisition of 550.03 acres 


      Act                                                             of land




2     Notification under Section 6 of the  Issued on 08.04.1993


      Act




3     Award of Land Acquisition           Passed on 12.09.1994


      Officer




4     Award of the Reference Court        Dated 07.12.1998            Amount of compensation at 


                                                                      Rs.1.50 lakhs per acre




5     Judgment and order of the High      Pronounced on 03.05.2006    Fixing the rate of compensation 


      Court                                                           at Rs.2.75 lakhs per acre.



                                      7








10.    Shri   L.   Nageswara   Rao,   Senior   Advocate   appearing 






for   the   appellant   contended   before   us   that   the   High 






Court   committed   a   grave   error   in   computation   of   the 






base price on the strength of the average price worked 






out   from   the   sale   deeds   Exh.   P.1,   P.2,   P.3,   P.8,   and 






P.15   and   further   committed   another   grave   error   in 






deducting amounts from the same.  According to him, in 






the   process,   the   amount   of   compensation   awarded   is 






much lower than what should have been awarded.  On the 






other   hand,   learned   counsel   for   respondent   Mr.   Anil 






Grover, AAG, Punjab and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Senior 






Advocate   appearing   for   respondent   No.3   submitted   that 






the   appellant   has   only   been   able   to   prove   the   market 






value of the land from the sale deed at Rs. 2.85 lacs 






per   acre.     He   further   contended   that   there   was   no 






mistake   committed   by   the   Court   in   taking   out   the 






average   price   for   working   out   the   amount   of 






compensation to be awarded to the appellant.  



                                     8








11.    Learned   counsel   for   respondent   No.   3   Mr.   Neeraj 






Kumar   Jain   strongly   contended   before   us   that   the 






Corporation has preferred appeals for deduction of the 






amount,   primarily   on   the   ground   that   more   deductions 






should   have   been   made   than   what   was   allowed   by   the 






High Court and in any event no case has been made out 






for   further   enhancement   of   amount   of   compensation, 






which is already exorbitant and higher.






12.   First   of   all,   we   would   like   to   deal   with   the 






location and potentiality of the acquired land.   From 






the   evidence   of   P.W   31   Charanjit   Singh,   Patwari   of 






Halqa   of   all   the   four   villages,     it   is   clearly   made 






out   that   all   these   villages   are   adjoining   each   other 






and   form   a   compact   block.     He   has   further   admitted 






that more than 80 to 85 industries near and adjoining 






the acquired land are already running and doing their 






business   since   long.     The   area   acquired   has   been 






reserved   for   industrial   purposes.     He   has   further 






deposed   that   if   the   land   had   not   been   acquired,   many 



                                     9








factories   would   have   sprung   up   in   the   acquired   land. 






The   details   of   the   industries   which   are   already 






running   in   vicinity   have   been   given   vividly   by   him. 






It   is   also   not   in   dispute   that   the   said   land   is 






situated on the Ambala-Chandigarh Highway.  






13.    The   evidence   of   other   government   officials,   who 






had appeared before the Reference Court, reflects that 






the   land   acquired   have   great   Industrial   potential   as 






more   than   80-85   big   industries   have   already   set   up 






their factories in the close vicinity to the acquired 






land.   They   have   admitted   that   the   acquired   land   is 






situated   on   the   main   Ambala-Chandigarh   Highway.     From 






the   evidence   adduced   by   respondent   Nos.   1   and   2,   it 






cannot be disputed that it was a valuable land for the 






land owners and it had great potential.  Obviously, in 






1992,   the   market   value   of   the   same,   at   the   time   of 






issuance   of   notification   under   Section   4   of   the   Act, 






would be much more than what has been awarded to them 






vide the impugned judgment.



                                                     10








14.     However,   the   question   which   still   remains   for 






consideration is, on what basis, should the amount of 






compensation   is   to   be   worked   out.     The   appellant   to 






prove his case with regard to market value of the land 






had   produced   many   sale   deeds   but   only   relevant 






following              five          sale         deeds              are           taken                into 






consideration:  








Exhibit No.    Dated of sale deed                 Price paid                     Price per acre




P.1            16.08.1990                         1,20,000                       3,02,157




P.2            16.08.1990                         1,50,000                       3,51,219




P.3            16.08.1990                         1,50,000                       3,51,219




P.8            20.04.1993                         17,34,000                      4,08,000




P.15           04.06.1990                         9,75,000                       2,99,041








15.     The   appellant   had   also   examined   the   vendors   of 






the   aforesaid   sale   deeds   to   show   the   genuineness   and 






correctness   of   the   same.     The   most   appropriate   sale 






deed   touching   the   issuance   of   notification   under 






Section 4 is Exh. P.8.  The base price of the land per 






acre   according   to   this   comes   to   Rs.   4,08,000/-.     The 






total area of the land so purchased was 20 Bighas and 






8   biswas.   Before   execution   of   the   sale   deed,   an 



                                     11








Agreement   to   Sell   dated   30.10.1992   (Exh.   P.45)   was 






executed   between   the   vendor   and   vendee.     As   required 






under   the   law,   permission   was   sought   from   the   Income 






Tax   Department   which   granted   a   Clearance   Certificate 






Exh. P.44. 






16.  It is also pertinent to mention here that the land 






so   sold   covered   under   (Exh.P.8)   sale   deed   neither 






belonged   to   any   of   the   land   owners   nor   they   had   any 






interest   whatsoever   in   the   said   deed.     Thus,   it   can 






safely be assumed that it was a genuine and bona-fide 






transaction between two parties, who had nothing to do 






with the acquisition of land of the appellant. It was 






not executed for the purposes of creating evidence as 






Agreement   to   sell   (Exh.   P.45)   is   dated   30.11.1992, 






before the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of 






the   Act.     On   the   said   date,   it   could   not   have   been 






imagined   that   the   adjoining   land   is   going   to   be 






acquired   shortly.     The   said   land   is   almost   abutting 






the   acquired   land.     It   is   also   manifest   that   the 



                                    12








Agreement   dated   13.10.1992   is   very   close   to   the 






notification   issued   on   13.11.1992   under   Section   4   of 






Act.     The   whole   transaction   executed   under   the   Sale 






deed Exh. P.8 fully proves and establishes the case of 






the   appellant.   As   per   this   sale   deed,   the   base   price 






of   the   land   would   come   to   Rs.   4,08,000/-   per   acre. 






According   to   us,   the   correct   base   price   would   be   Rs. 






4,08,000/- per acre.






17.    It   is   profitable   to   refer   to   the   following 






judgment   of   this   Court   on   this   issue.     (1969)   1   MLJ 






(SC) 45  Shri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur Vs.  






Collector   of   Madras.  Relevant   para   2   is   reproduced 






hereinbelow:






           "It seems to us that there is substance in 


           the   first   contention   of   Mr.   Ram   Reddy. 


           After   all   when   land   is   being   compulsorily 


           taken away from a person he is entitled to 


           say   that   he   should   be   given   the   highest 


           value   which   similar   land   in   the   locality 


           is   shown   to   have   fetched   in   a   bona   fide 


           transaction entered into between a willing 


           purchaser   and   a   willing   seller   near   about 


           the   time   of   the   acquisition.     It   is   not 


           disputed   that   the   transaction   represented 



                                     13








          by   Ex   Rule   19     was   a   few   months   prior   to 


          the   notification   under   Section   4,   that   it 


          was   a   bona   fide   transaction     and   that   it 


          was   entered   into   between   a   willing 


          purchaser   and   a   willing   seller.     The   land 


          comprised   in   the   sale   deed   is   11   grounds 


          and   was   sold   at   Rs.   1951   per   ground.     The 


          land   covered   by   Rule   27   was   also   sold 


          before the notification but after the land 


          comprised   in   Ex.   Rule   19   was   sold.     It   is 


          true   that   this   land   was   sold   at   Rs.   1096 


          per   ground.     This,   however,   is   apparently 


          because of two circumstances.   One is that 


          betterment levy at Rs.500/- per ground had 


          to   be   paid   by   the   vendee   and   the   other 


          that the land comprised in it is very much 


          more   extensive,   that   is   about   93   grounds 


          or   so.     Whatever   that   may   be,   it   seems   to 


          us   to   be   only   fair   that   where   sale   deeds 


          pertaining   to   different   transactions   are 


          relied   on   behalf   of   the   Government,   that 


          representing   the   highest   value   should   be 


          preferred   to   the   rest   unless   there   are 


          strong         circumstances           justifying         a 


          different   course.   In   any   case   we   see   no 


          reason   why   an   average   of   two   sale   deeds 


          should have been taken in this case."






18.     The   said   judgment   has   been     considered   by   this 






Court reported in (2008) 14 SCC 745    General Manager,  






Oil   and   Natural   Gas   Corporation   Ltd.   Vs.   Rameshbhai  






Jivanbhai   Patel   and   Anr.  wherein   the   Division   Bench 



                                                           14








has considered this aspect of the matter succinctly in 






para 13, 14 and 15 reproduced hereinbelow:






                13)        Primarily,   the   increase   in   land 


        prices   depends   on   four   factors:   situation 


        of   the   land,   nature   of   development   in 


        surrounding   area,   availability   of   land   for 


        development   in   the   area,     and   the   demand 


        for   land   in   the   area.     In   rural   areas, 


        unless there is any prospect of development 


        in   the   vicinity,   increase   in   prices   would 


        be   slow,   steady   and   gradual,   without   any 


        sudden spurts or jumps.  On the other hand, 


        in   urban   or   semi-urban   areas,   where   the 


        development is faster, where the demand for 


        land          is               high           and             where             there                is 


        construction   activity   all   around,   the 


        escalation   in   market   price   is   at   a   much 


        higher   rate,   as   compared   to   rural   areas. 


        In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid 


        development   and   high   demand   for   land,   the 


        escalations in prices have touched even 30% 


        to   50%   or   more   per   year,   during   the 


        nineties.


           14)             On   the   other   extreme,   in   remote 


        rural   areas   where   there   was   no   chance   of 


        any  development  and  hardly  any  buyers,  the 


        prices             stagnated                       for             years             or         rose 


        marginally   at   a   nominal   rate   of   1%   or   2% 


        per   annum.     There   is   thus   a   significant 


        difference  in  increases  in  market  value  of 


        lands              in              urban/semi-urban                         areas                and 


        increases   in   market   value   of   lands   in   the 


        rural areas.  Therefore, if the increase in 


        market   value   in   urban/semi-urban   areas   is 


        about              10%             to         15%             per          annum,                the 



                                  15








corresponding   increases   in   rural   areas 


would   at   best   be   only   around   half   of   it, 


that is, about 5% to 7.5% per annum.   This 


rule   of   thump   refers   to   the   general   trend 


in   the   nineties,   to   be   adopted   in   the 


absence   of   clear   and   specific   evidence 


relating   to   increase   in   prices.       Where 


there   are   special   reasons   for   applying   a 


higher   rate   of   increase,   or   any   specific 


evidence relating to the actual increase in 


prices,   then   the   increase   to   be   applied 


would depend upon the same. 


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 


  acquisition   in   1970   or   1980   may   have 


  many   pitfalls.     This   is   because,   over 



                                     16








             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."






19.  The   Reference   Court   committed   a   grave   error   in 






deducting   50%   of   the   value   assessed   by   him,   towards 






development   charges   and   further   reduced   the   said 






amount   for   the   reasons   not   assigned   by   him.     The 






learned   Single   Judge   vide   the   impugned   judgment   has 






enhanced   the   amount   of   compensation   but   committed   an 






error in fixing the base price as 2,75,000/- per acre 






for   the   acquired   land,   applying   the   doctrine   of 






reasonable cut  to the average price worked out by him 






at   Rs.3,42,527/-   per   acre.     We   do   not   approve   of   the 






reasonings adopted either by the reference Court or by 






the   High   Court.     How   much   amount   is   to   be   deducted 






from the base price would depend on various factors. 






20.    As mentioned hereinabove, in the case in hand the 






bulk   of   the   land   that   is   almost   525   acres   has   been 



                                               17








given   to   respondent   No.3,   the   Corporation   for   setting 






up   its   own   industry   and   other   infrastructure   thereon. 






Thus,   the   lands   likely   to   be   used   towards   roads, 






sewage   and   other   such   facilities   would   be   minimum   as 






most   of   the   vacant   land   would   be   utilised   by 






respondent No. 3 for its own benefits. 






21.   Needless to say, once the industry is set up, it 






would   be   for   the   financial   benefit   and   gain   of 






respondent No.3 year after year.  Thus, looking to the 






matter from all angles, respondent No. 3 - Corporation 






would be a great beneficiary at the cost of depriving 






the   appellant   -   land   owner   of   his   sole   livelihood   of 






agriculture.






22.  Therefore,   it   is   neither   desirable   nor   proper   to 






deduct   more   than   10%   of   the   amount   in   the   base   price 






fixed by us at Rs. 4,08,000/-. We accordingly do so.  






23.       The   question   with   regard   to   the   deduction   to   be 






made         also         stands         settled          by         this         Court         in 






Atma   Singh   (dead)  through   Lrs.   and   Ors.   Vs.   State   of  



                                              18








Haryana   and   Another.  (2008)   2   SCC   568.   The   relevant 






portion   thereof  are reproduced herein below:






         "14) The   reasons   given   for   the   principle 


         that   price   fetched   for   small   pots   cannot 


         form   safe   basis   for   valuation   of   large 


         tracts         of      land,         according      to         cases 


         referred   to   above,   are   that   substantial 


         area is used for development of sites like 


         laying   out   roads,   drains,   sewers,   water 


         and   electricity   lines   and   other   civic 


         amenities.   Expenses   are   also   incurred     in 


         providing   these   basic   amenities.                           That 


         apart   it   takes   considerable   period   in 


         carving   out   the   roads   making   sewers   and 


         drains   and   waiting   for   the   purchasers. 


         Meanwhile the invested money is blocked up 


         and   the   return   on   the   investment   flows 


         after   a   considerable   period   of   time.     In 


         order   to   make   up   for   the   area   of   land 


         which is used in providing civic amenities 


         and   the   waiting   period   during   which   the 


         capital of the entrepreneur gets locked up 


         a   deduction   from   20%   onward,   depending 


         upon the facts of each case, is made.


         15)    The   question   to   be   considered   is 


         whether   in   the   present   case   those   factors 


         exist   which   warrant   a   deduction   by   way   of 


         allowance   from   the   price   exhibited   by   the 


         exemplars   of   small   plots   which   have   been 


         filed   by   the   parties.     The   land   has   not 


         been   acquired   for   a   housing   colony   or 


         government   office   or   an   institution.     The 


         land   has   been   acquired   for   setting   up   a 


         sugar   factory.     The   factory   would   produce 


         goods   worth   many   crores   in   a   year.     A 



                                  19








sugar   factory   apart   from   producing   sugar 


also produces many by-products in the same 


process.          One   of   the   by-products   is 


molasses,   which   is   produced   in   huge 


quantity.     Earlier,   it   had   no   utility   and 


its   disposal   used   to   be   a   big   problem. 


But now molasses is used for production of 


alcohol   and   ethanol   which   yield   lot   of 


revenue.     Another   by-product   begasse   is 


now   use   for   generation   of   power   and   press 


mud   is   utilized   in   manure.       Therefore, 


the   profit   from   a   sugar   factory   is 


substantial.   Moreover,   it   is   not   confined 


to   one   year   but   will   accrue   every   year   so 


long   as   the   factory   runs.                               A   housing 


board   does   not   run   on   business   lines. 


Once         plots         are              carved            out         after 


acquisition   of   land   and   are   sold   to 


public,   there   is   no   scope   or   earning   any 


money   in   future.     An   industry   established 


on   acquired   land,   if   run   efficiently, 


earns   money   or   makes   profit   every   year. 


The   return   from   the   land   acquired   for   the 


purpose   of   housing   colony,   or   offices,   or 


institution           cannot                even         remotely               be 


compared     with   the   land   which   has   been 


acquired   for   the   purpose   of   setting   up   a 


factory   or   industry.                         After   all   the 


factory   cannot   be   set   up   without   land   and 


if such land is giving substantial return, 


there   is   no   justification   for   making   any 


deduction   from   the   price   exhibited   by   the 


exemplars even if they are of small plots. 


It is possible that a part of the acquired 


land   might   be   used   for   construction   of 


residential   colony   for   the   staff   working 


in   the   factory.       Nevertheless,   where   the 



                                              20








          remaining   part   of   the   acquired   land   is 


          contributing             to         production         of         goods 


          yielding   good   profit,   it   would   not   be 


          proper to make a deduction in the price of 


          land shown by the exemplars of small plots 


          as   the   reasons   for   doing   so   assigned   in 


          various   decisions   of   this   court   are   not 


          applicable               in          the         case             under 


          consideration."






24.       In   the   light   of   the   aforesaid   contention   and 






taking cue from the settled position of law decided by 






this   Court   in   the   aforesaid   matters,   we   are   of   the 






firm opinion that the base price has to be fixed @ Rs. 






4,08,000/-   per   acre.     Keeping   in   mind   that   more   than 






525   acres   has   been   given   to   respondent   No.   3   - 






Corporation,   which   in   turn   has   set   up   its   factory,   a 






deduction   of   10%   on   the   aforesaid   amount   would   be 






reasonable.   Needless to say on the aforesaid amount, 






the appellant would be entitled for statutory benefits 






as   mandated   under   the   amended   provisions   of   the   Act. 






This   appeal   and   the   connected   appeals   filed   by   land 






owners   are   hereby   allowed   and   the   appeals   filed   by 






respondent No.3 are dismissed.



                                     21








25.    The   Reference   Court   is   hereby   directed   to 






recalculate   the   amount   of   compensation   to   be   awarded 






to the appellants and all such other land owners whose 






lands have been acquired in the light of the direction 






as contained hereinabove and to pay them the remainder 






amount   within   a   period   of   2   months   from   the   date   of 






communication of this order.






26.    For the foregoing reasons, this and the connected 






appeals   preferred   by   land   owners   are   hereby   allowed 






and those filed by the Corporation are dismissed with 






costs   throughout.       Counsel's   fee   quantified   at   Rs. 






10,000/- in each Appeal.










                                   .........................J.


                                   [DALVEER BHANDARI]










                                                                      






                                   .........................J.


                                   [DEEPAK VERMA]






New Delhi


August 24, 2011 



22