Land Acquisition Act - enhancement of Market value - by applying principle of 12% increase per year on the market value as the 12% per annum increase which courts have often found to be adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case.” - Apex court enhanced the compensation =
When 12% per annum increase applies =
in Udho Das vs. State of Haryana 2010 (8) SCR 900:
“….Concededly, the Act also provides for the payment of
the solatium, interest and an additional amount but we are of the
opinion, and it is common knowledge, that even these payments do
not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts
of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price
and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and
the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum
increase which courts have often found to be adequate in
compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners
whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of
the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is
often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being
urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case.”
7. His last submission was that in any case, the matter had now
been set at rest by recent judgment of this Court in Asharfi & Ors.
Vs. State of Haryana 2013 (5) SCC 527 where similar submissions, which
are made by the appellants herein, have been accepted by the court.
We are of the view that the matter does not require elaborate
discussion inasmuch as the acquisition of land in Fatehabad District
itself, which was acquired in the year 1993 was the subject matter of
consideration in the case of Asharfi (supra).
In that case,
The Court fixed the compensation @ Rs.3.50 per square yard
as on 1993 and the following discussion ensued in this behalf in Para
15 of the judgment.
10. It is clear from the above that price of land in the said area
in 1991 was fixed @ Rs.420/- per square yard. The Court had applied
the formula of 12% per year in the valuation of land and on that basis
fixed the market rate at approximately Rs.520/- per square yard after
taking a deduction of one-third, the valuation was arrived at Rs.350/-
per square yard in the year 1993. =
Going by the formula adopted in the aforesaid judgment, 12% per
annum increase can be applied on the value of land determined as
Rs.520/- per square yard in the year 1993, upto the year 2001 when the
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the instant
case.
However, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that from 1993 to
2001, there was a period when instead of increase in the land price,
there was attrition in the land rates.
Therefore, we would like to
enhance the value by applying the formula of 12% per annum increase
for a period of 4 years, instead of taking entire period 1993 and 2001
(and this would not be treated as a precedent).
When calculated in
this manner, the valuation of the land in the year 2001 shall come to
Rs.770/- per square yard.
After making a deduction of one-third
therefrom the net valuation comes to Rs.514/- per square yard.
Compared to the land value of this very area in 1993 which was fixed
at Rs.350/- per square yards, we have increased the same by about 50%
over a period of 7 years or so, which we think, is quite reasonable as
this much compensation is legitimately due to the appellants. We,
accordingly, fix the compensation @ Rs.514/- per square yard for the
acquired land of the appellants.
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11030/2013
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3711 of 2011)
Kashmir Singh
…Appellant(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors.
…Respondent(s)
With
C.A.No11031/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3743/2011
C.A.No.11032/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3776/2011
C.A.No.11033/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3791/2011
C.A.No.11034/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3901/2011
C.A.No.11035/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3909/2011
C.A.No.11036/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3911/2011
C.A.No.11037/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3914/2011
J U D G M E N T
A.K.SIKRI,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In all these appeals, challenge is laid to the judgment of the
High Court pronounced on 20th September 2010, whereby number of
appeals filed for enhancement of compensation under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’) were
dismissed by the High Court.
The land of the appellants was acquired
by the Government of Haryana, which falls in the Revenue Estate of
Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana. The Land
Acquisition Collector (LAC) had assessed the market value of the
acquired land @ Rs.2,75,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs.1,75,000/- per
acre for Tibba/Tall and Rs.3,25,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land.
The appellants had filed objections to the said determination of
compensation by the LAC and the matter was referred to the learned
Additional District Judge, Fatehabad under Section 18 of the LA Act.
The learned ADJ passed the award dated 21.2.2006. Vide this award, he
categorized the land into two categories, namely category-A and
category-B and fixed the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for
category-A and Rs.6,50,000/- per acre for category-B. Still
dissatisfied and aspiring for further enhancement of the compensation,
the appellants filed Regular First appeal from the aforesaid orders of
the learned ADJ. However, these appeals have been dismissed holding
that the compensation as fixed by the learned ADJ is appropriate and
does not call for any further enhancement. Feeling aggrieved, present
appeals have been filed. Since the land of all the appellants is
situate in Revenue Estate of Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana and
is acquired by the same Notification, facts pertaining to the said
Notification apply to all these appellants. The only difference is in
the quantum of land which was owned by these appellants and has been
taken away by the State in acquisition. Therefore, taking general
note of the particulars of acquisition and the nature of land, would
serve the purpose.
3. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was issued on 11.1.2001. This was published in official gazette on
08.01.2002. The land is situate in revenue estate of Tohana, District
Fatehabad, Haryana. The public purpose mentioned was the construction
of godowns and rice mills at Tohana, for HAFED (Haryana State Co-
operative Supply and Market Federation Ltd.). In pursuance to the
Land Acquisition Collector’s Award dated 19.9.2003, the acquired lands
were taken possession on 17.12.2003.
The Reference Court under
Section 18 of the Act vide its award dated 21.2.2006 assessed the
compensation @ Rs.8/- Lac per acre and Rs.6.50 Lac per acre by
categorizing the acquired land in two categories, viz. Category-A and
Category-B. Under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, the escalation was
fixed at 12% per annum on the assessed compensation. The other
statutory benefits were also allowed thereby.
The appeals filed by
land owners before the High Court, seeking enhancement of
compensation and the appeal filed by HAFED seeking reduction of
compensation are decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide
a common judgment dated 20.9.2010. Appeals of both the parties have
been dismissed as noted above.
4. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court would reveal that
though the appellants had produced on record certain sale deeds and
other documents showing higher value of the land, the High Court chose
to rely upon only one document, namely, Ex.P-15 which is a conveyance
deed registered for sale by Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation (HSIDC) to the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC). Vide
this Conveyance Deed 34,475 square meters of land was sold by the
HSIDC to CWC @ Rs.150/- per square meter. The allotment letter issued
in this behalf was dated 4.9.2001 and from this the High Court
inferred that process for sale must have been started much prior
thereto. In the instant case, since the Notification under Section 4
of the LA Act is dated 11.1.2001, in the opinion of the High Court, it
was the most approximate date to the aforesaid sale of land in favour
of CWC. The High Court also found that the land sold to CWC is
located at a link road whereas the land of the appellants which was
acquired by the Government was located at a crossing of five roads and
thus lands sold of HSIDC to CWC was better located. The High Court,
thus, relied upon the said sale deed on the basis of which it has
concluded that the assessment of compensation by the learned ADJ is
most appropriate.
5. In an endeavour to find fault with the aforesaid approach of the
High Court, Mr. Singla, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that the High Court committed an error in relying
upon the said solitary document and in the process ignore other more
relevant documents which had been produced by the appellants. He
submitted that the acquired land is strategically located which the
landowners have proved by producing on record the site plans, Ex.P-6
and Ex.P-28. The acquired land is located near the industrial area.
There are many commercial establishments located near the acquired
like viz. FCI godwon, CWC godown, HUDA Colony, Grain Market of Tohana,
Mirch Mandi, Railway Station. The land is situated in the fast
developing area of Tohana town and all the civil facilities are
available there. The acquired land is situated on a State Highway
close to industrial and residential area. The valuation of the land
considering the same merely of agricultural kind is not fair as it had
great future potential. Mr. Singla specifically referred to Ex.P-1
and Ex.P-4 which are the Government documents and as per these
documents even the State agencies had been mentioning the value of
acquired land @ Rs.7/- Lac per acre. He also referred to Ex.P-18
which shows the allotment of commercial plot of 100 square yards by
HUDA @ Rs.1193/- per square yard. His submission was that though
these arguments and the aforesaid referred documents were specifically
taken note of by the High Court but not dealt with and completely
ignored. Mr. Singla also drew our attention to the following findings
of the Reference Court regarding the nature of the land:
“…….After careful consideration of the case law relied upon by
both the parties and after appreciating the evidence brought on
record by both the parties, it is held that in view of the cogent
and reliable oral as well as documentary evidence coupled with
the admissions of RW1, it is clearly proved on the file that as
far as the location and potentiality of industrial, commercial
and industrial nature and it was not simply agricultural land as
found by the learned Land Acquisition Collector while fixing the
market rate and as such, the market rate granted by the Land
Acquisition Collector was much less than the prevailing rate at
that time.”
6. He further referred to the following observation from the judgment of
this Court in Udho Das vs. State of Haryana 2010 (8) SCR 900:
“….Concededly, the Act also provides for the payment of
the solatium, interest and an additional amount but we are of the
opinion, and it is common knowledge, that even these payments do
not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts
of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price
and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and
the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum
increase which courts have often found to be adequate in
compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners
whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of
the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is
often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being
urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case.”
7. His last submission was that in any case, the matter had now
been set at rest by recent judgment of this Court in Asharfi & Ors.
Vs. State of Haryana 2013 (5) SCC 527 where similar submissions, which
are made by the appellants herein, have been accepted by the court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for Haryana State Co-operative Supply
and Market Federation Ltd. (HAFED), on the other hand, submitted that
the High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant documents
even including sale deed on which the appellants relied upon, but
found that the only relevant document for the purpose of arriving at
just compensation was Ex.P-15. He submitted that in preferring to make
this document as the basis for compensation, the High Court has given
cogent reasons and therefore judgment of the High Court cannot be
faulted with. His submission was that the learned ADJ had suitably
enhanced the compensation by increasing it quite substantially than
what was granted by the LAC. His further submission was that reliance
on allotment letter dated 8.10.2002 (Ex.P-18) during the course of
arguments, was totally misconceived as this was not even pleaded in
the memo of SLP filed or the memo of appeals filed before the High
Court. In any case, the relevant date for determination of market
price of the land was 11.1.2001 when Notification under Section 4 of
the LA Act was issued and relying upon two allotment letters were of
subsequent dates which were issued more than 17 months after the date
of issuance of Section 4 Notification. Therefore, relying upon these
documents was totally misplaced. Referring to the question of law
framed in the SLP, he further submitted that the earlier arguments
advanced were neither raised in the SLP nor argued before the courts
below and therefore the appellants cannot be allowed to take fresh
plea for the first time in this Court. It was also his submission
that the judgment relied upon by the appellants had no application to
the facts of the present case.
9. We are of the view that the matter does not require elaborate
discussion inasmuch as the acquisition of land in Fatehabad District
itself, which was acquired in the year 1993 was the subject matter of
consideration in the case of Asharfi (supra).
In that case, the court
had dealt with various Notifications issued by different State
Governments acquiring lands in their respective States. It included
acquisition of lands situated in Fatehabad, District Hissar, Harayana
as well. The Court fixed the compensation @ Rs.3.50 per square yard
as on 1993 and the following discussion ensued in this behalf in Para
15 of the judgment.
10. It is clear from the above that price of land in the said area
in 1991 was fixed @ Rs.420/- per square yard. The Court had applied
the formula of 12% per year in the valuation of land and on that basis
fixed the market rate at approximately Rs.520/- per square yard after
taking a deduction of one-third, the valuation was arrived at Rs.350/-
per square yard in the year 1993.
The relevant portion of the
judgment, in this behalf reads as under:
In regard to the 157.20 acres of land situated in Fatehabad,
District Hisar, Haryana, acquired for utilisation and development
of residential and commercial purposes in Sector 3, Fatehabad,
the compensation in respect thereof has been questioned in Civil
Appeals Nos. 319-52 of 2011 by one Mukesh and a number of appeals
have been tagged with the said matter, including the one filed by
the Haryana Urban Development Authority, being SLPs (C) Nos.
26772-79 of 2009 (now appeals). As indicated hereinbefore, in
para 25, the Collector had awarded compensation at a uniform rate
of Rs 1,81,200/- per acre along with statutory benefits. The
Reference Court determined the compensation at the uniform rate
of Rs 206 per square yard. The High Court modified the said award
and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs 260 per square yard
for the land acquired up to the depth of 100 meters abutting
National Highway No. 10. The value of the rest of the acquired
land was maintained at Rs 206 per square yard. The area in
question being already developed to some extent, a cut of 50% on
the value is, in our view, excessive.
We agree with Mr. Swarup
that resorting to the belting system by the High Court was
improper and that at best a standard cut of one-third would have
been sufficient to balance the smallness of the exhibits
produced.
It has been pointed out by Mr. Swarup that on a
comparative basis, the price of lands in the area in 1991 was on
an average of about Rs 420 per square yard.
Given the sharp rise
in land prices, the value, according to Mr. Swarup, would have
doubled to about Rs 800 per square yard by 1993.
Even if we have
to apply the formula of 12% increase, the valuation of the lands
in question in 1993 would be approximately Rs 527 per square
yard.
Imposing a deduction of one-third, valuation comes to about
Rs 350 per square yard, which, in our view, would be the proper
compensation for the lands covered in the case of Mukesh and
other connected matters.”
11. Going by the formula adopted in the aforesaid judgment, 12% per
annum increase can be applied on the value of land determined as
Rs.520/- per square yard in the year 1993, upto the year 2001 when the
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the instant
case.
However, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that from 1993 to
2001, there was a period when instead of increase in the land price,
there was attrition in the land rates.
Therefore, we would like to
enhance the value by applying the formula of 12% per annum increase
for a period of 4 years, instead of taking entire period 1993 and 2001
(and this would not be treated as a precedent).
When calculated in
this manner, the valuation of the land in the year 2001 shall come to
Rs.770/- per square yard.
After making a deduction of one-third
therefrom the net valuation comes to Rs.514/- per square yard.
Compared to the land value of this very area in 1993 which was fixed
at Rs.350/- per square yards, we have increased the same by about 50%
over a period of 7 years or so, which we think, is quite reasonable as
this much compensation is legitimately due to the appellants. We,
accordingly, fix the compensation @ Rs.514/- per square yard for the
acquired land of the appellants.
12. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
………………………………J.
(Surinder Singh Nijjar)
……………………………….J.
(A.K.Sikri)
New Delhi,
December 13, 2013
When 12% per annum increase applies =
in Udho Das vs. State of Haryana 2010 (8) SCR 900:
“….Concededly, the Act also provides for the payment of
the solatium, interest and an additional amount but we are of the
opinion, and it is common knowledge, that even these payments do
not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts
of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price
and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and
the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum
increase which courts have often found to be adequate in
compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners
whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of
the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is
often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being
urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case.”
7. His last submission was that in any case, the matter had now
been set at rest by recent judgment of this Court in Asharfi & Ors.
Vs. State of Haryana 2013 (5) SCC 527 where similar submissions, which
are made by the appellants herein, have been accepted by the court.
We are of the view that the matter does not require elaborate
discussion inasmuch as the acquisition of land in Fatehabad District
itself, which was acquired in the year 1993 was the subject matter of
consideration in the case of Asharfi (supra).
In that case,
The Court fixed the compensation @ Rs.3.50 per square yard
as on 1993 and the following discussion ensued in this behalf in Para
15 of the judgment.
10. It is clear from the above that price of land in the said area
in 1991 was fixed @ Rs.420/- per square yard. The Court had applied
the formula of 12% per year in the valuation of land and on that basis
fixed the market rate at approximately Rs.520/- per square yard after
taking a deduction of one-third, the valuation was arrived at Rs.350/-
per square yard in the year 1993. =
Going by the formula adopted in the aforesaid judgment, 12% per
annum increase can be applied on the value of land determined as
Rs.520/- per square yard in the year 1993, upto the year 2001 when the
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the instant
case.
However, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that from 1993 to
2001, there was a period when instead of increase in the land price,
there was attrition in the land rates.
Therefore, we would like to
enhance the value by applying the formula of 12% per annum increase
for a period of 4 years, instead of taking entire period 1993 and 2001
(and this would not be treated as a precedent).
When calculated in
this manner, the valuation of the land in the year 2001 shall come to
Rs.770/- per square yard.
After making a deduction of one-third
therefrom the net valuation comes to Rs.514/- per square yard.
Compared to the land value of this very area in 1993 which was fixed
at Rs.350/- per square yards, we have increased the same by about 50%
over a period of 7 years or so, which we think, is quite reasonable as
this much compensation is legitimately due to the appellants. We,
accordingly, fix the compensation @ Rs.514/- per square yard for the
acquired land of the appellants.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11030/2013
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3711 of 2011)
Kashmir Singh
…Appellant(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors.
…Respondent(s)
With
C.A.No11031/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3743/2011
C.A.No.11032/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3776/2011
C.A.No.11033/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3791/2011
C.A.No.11034/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3901/2011
C.A.No.11035/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3909/2011
C.A.No.11036/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3911/2011
C.A.No.11037/2013 @ SLP(civil) No.3914/2011
J U D G M E N T
A.K.SIKRI,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In all these appeals, challenge is laid to the judgment of the
High Court pronounced on 20th September 2010, whereby number of
appeals filed for enhancement of compensation under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’) were
dismissed by the High Court.
The land of the appellants was acquired
by the Government of Haryana, which falls in the Revenue Estate of
Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana. The Land
Acquisition Collector (LAC) had assessed the market value of the
acquired land @ Rs.2,75,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs.1,75,000/- per
acre for Tibba/Tall and Rs.3,25,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land.
The appellants had filed objections to the said determination of
compensation by the LAC and the matter was referred to the learned
Additional District Judge, Fatehabad under Section 18 of the LA Act.
The learned ADJ passed the award dated 21.2.2006. Vide this award, he
categorized the land into two categories, namely category-A and
category-B and fixed the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for
category-A and Rs.6,50,000/- per acre for category-B. Still
dissatisfied and aspiring for further enhancement of the compensation,
the appellants filed Regular First appeal from the aforesaid orders of
the learned ADJ. However, these appeals have been dismissed holding
that the compensation as fixed by the learned ADJ is appropriate and
does not call for any further enhancement. Feeling aggrieved, present
appeals have been filed. Since the land of all the appellants is
situate in Revenue Estate of Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana and
is acquired by the same Notification, facts pertaining to the said
Notification apply to all these appellants. The only difference is in
the quantum of land which was owned by these appellants and has been
taken away by the State in acquisition. Therefore, taking general
note of the particulars of acquisition and the nature of land, would
serve the purpose.
3. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was issued on 11.1.2001. This was published in official gazette on
08.01.2002. The land is situate in revenue estate of Tohana, District
Fatehabad, Haryana. The public purpose mentioned was the construction
of godowns and rice mills at Tohana, for HAFED (Haryana State Co-
operative Supply and Market Federation Ltd.). In pursuance to the
Land Acquisition Collector’s Award dated 19.9.2003, the acquired lands
were taken possession on 17.12.2003.
The Reference Court under
Section 18 of the Act vide its award dated 21.2.2006 assessed the
compensation @ Rs.8/- Lac per acre and Rs.6.50 Lac per acre by
categorizing the acquired land in two categories, viz. Category-A and
Category-B. Under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, the escalation was
fixed at 12% per annum on the assessed compensation. The other
statutory benefits were also allowed thereby.
The appeals filed by
land owners before the High Court, seeking enhancement of
compensation and the appeal filed by HAFED seeking reduction of
compensation are decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide
a common judgment dated 20.9.2010. Appeals of both the parties have
been dismissed as noted above.
4. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court would reveal that
though the appellants had produced on record certain sale deeds and
other documents showing higher value of the land, the High Court chose
to rely upon only one document, namely, Ex.P-15 which is a conveyance
deed registered for sale by Haryana State Industrial Development
Corporation (HSIDC) to the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC). Vide
this Conveyance Deed 34,475 square meters of land was sold by the
HSIDC to CWC @ Rs.150/- per square meter. The allotment letter issued
in this behalf was dated 4.9.2001 and from this the High Court
inferred that process for sale must have been started much prior
thereto. In the instant case, since the Notification under Section 4
of the LA Act is dated 11.1.2001, in the opinion of the High Court, it
was the most approximate date to the aforesaid sale of land in favour
of CWC. The High Court also found that the land sold to CWC is
located at a link road whereas the land of the appellants which was
acquired by the Government was located at a crossing of five roads and
thus lands sold of HSIDC to CWC was better located. The High Court,
thus, relied upon the said sale deed on the basis of which it has
concluded that the assessment of compensation by the learned ADJ is
most appropriate.
5. In an endeavour to find fault with the aforesaid approach of the
High Court, Mr. Singla, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants submitted that the High Court committed an error in relying
upon the said solitary document and in the process ignore other more
relevant documents which had been produced by the appellants. He
submitted that the acquired land is strategically located which the
landowners have proved by producing on record the site plans, Ex.P-6
and Ex.P-28. The acquired land is located near the industrial area.
There are many commercial establishments located near the acquired
like viz. FCI godwon, CWC godown, HUDA Colony, Grain Market of Tohana,
Mirch Mandi, Railway Station. The land is situated in the fast
developing area of Tohana town and all the civil facilities are
available there. The acquired land is situated on a State Highway
close to industrial and residential area. The valuation of the land
considering the same merely of agricultural kind is not fair as it had
great future potential. Mr. Singla specifically referred to Ex.P-1
and Ex.P-4 which are the Government documents and as per these
documents even the State agencies had been mentioning the value of
acquired land @ Rs.7/- Lac per acre. He also referred to Ex.P-18
which shows the allotment of commercial plot of 100 square yards by
HUDA @ Rs.1193/- per square yard. His submission was that though
these arguments and the aforesaid referred documents were specifically
taken note of by the High Court but not dealt with and completely
ignored. Mr. Singla also drew our attention to the following findings
of the Reference Court regarding the nature of the land:
“…….After careful consideration of the case law relied upon by
both the parties and after appreciating the evidence brought on
record by both the parties, it is held that in view of the cogent
and reliable oral as well as documentary evidence coupled with
the admissions of RW1, it is clearly proved on the file that as
far as the location and potentiality of industrial, commercial
and industrial nature and it was not simply agricultural land as
found by the learned Land Acquisition Collector while fixing the
market rate and as such, the market rate granted by the Land
Acquisition Collector was much less than the prevailing rate at
that time.”
6. He further referred to the following observation from the judgment of
this Court in Udho Das vs. State of Haryana 2010 (8) SCR 900:
“….Concededly, the Act also provides for the payment of
the solatium, interest and an additional amount but we are of the
opinion, and it is common knowledge, that even these payments do
not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts
of India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price
and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and
the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum
increase which courts have often found to be adequate in
compensation matters hardly does justice to those land owners
whose land have been acquired as judicial notice can be taken of
the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is
often upto 100% a year for land which has the potential of being
urbanized and commercialized such as in the present case.”
7. His last submission was that in any case, the matter had now
been set at rest by recent judgment of this Court in Asharfi & Ors.
Vs. State of Haryana 2013 (5) SCC 527 where similar submissions, which
are made by the appellants herein, have been accepted by the court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for Haryana State Co-operative Supply
and Market Federation Ltd. (HAFED), on the other hand, submitted that
the High Court has taken into consideration all the relevant documents
even including sale deed on which the appellants relied upon, but
found that the only relevant document for the purpose of arriving at
just compensation was Ex.P-15. He submitted that in preferring to make
this document as the basis for compensation, the High Court has given
cogent reasons and therefore judgment of the High Court cannot be
faulted with. His submission was that the learned ADJ had suitably
enhanced the compensation by increasing it quite substantially than
what was granted by the LAC. His further submission was that reliance
on allotment letter dated 8.10.2002 (Ex.P-18) during the course of
arguments, was totally misconceived as this was not even pleaded in
the memo of SLP filed or the memo of appeals filed before the High
Court. In any case, the relevant date for determination of market
price of the land was 11.1.2001 when Notification under Section 4 of
the LA Act was issued and relying upon two allotment letters were of
subsequent dates which were issued more than 17 months after the date
of issuance of Section 4 Notification. Therefore, relying upon these
documents was totally misplaced. Referring to the question of law
framed in the SLP, he further submitted that the earlier arguments
advanced were neither raised in the SLP nor argued before the courts
below and therefore the appellants cannot be allowed to take fresh
plea for the first time in this Court. It was also his submission
that the judgment relied upon by the appellants had no application to
the facts of the present case.
9. We are of the view that the matter does not require elaborate
discussion inasmuch as the acquisition of land in Fatehabad District
itself, which was acquired in the year 1993 was the subject matter of
consideration in the case of Asharfi (supra).
In that case, the court
had dealt with various Notifications issued by different State
Governments acquiring lands in their respective States. It included
acquisition of lands situated in Fatehabad, District Hissar, Harayana
as well. The Court fixed the compensation @ Rs.3.50 per square yard
as on 1993 and the following discussion ensued in this behalf in Para
15 of the judgment.
10. It is clear from the above that price of land in the said area
in 1991 was fixed @ Rs.420/- per square yard. The Court had applied
the formula of 12% per year in the valuation of land and on that basis
fixed the market rate at approximately Rs.520/- per square yard after
taking a deduction of one-third, the valuation was arrived at Rs.350/-
per square yard in the year 1993.
The relevant portion of the
judgment, in this behalf reads as under:
In regard to the 157.20 acres of land situated in Fatehabad,
District Hisar, Haryana, acquired for utilisation and development
of residential and commercial purposes in Sector 3, Fatehabad,
the compensation in respect thereof has been questioned in Civil
Appeals Nos. 319-52 of 2011 by one Mukesh and a number of appeals
have been tagged with the said matter, including the one filed by
the Haryana Urban Development Authority, being SLPs (C) Nos.
26772-79 of 2009 (now appeals). As indicated hereinbefore, in
para 25, the Collector had awarded compensation at a uniform rate
of Rs 1,81,200/- per acre along with statutory benefits. The
Reference Court determined the compensation at the uniform rate
of Rs 206 per square yard. The High Court modified the said award
and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs 260 per square yard
for the land acquired up to the depth of 100 meters abutting
National Highway No. 10. The value of the rest of the acquired
land was maintained at Rs 206 per square yard. The area in
question being already developed to some extent, a cut of 50% on
the value is, in our view, excessive.
We agree with Mr. Swarup
that resorting to the belting system by the High Court was
improper and that at best a standard cut of one-third would have
been sufficient to balance the smallness of the exhibits
produced.
It has been pointed out by Mr. Swarup that on a
comparative basis, the price of lands in the area in 1991 was on
an average of about Rs 420 per square yard.
Given the sharp rise
in land prices, the value, according to Mr. Swarup, would have
doubled to about Rs 800 per square yard by 1993.
Even if we have
to apply the formula of 12% increase, the valuation of the lands
in question in 1993 would be approximately Rs 527 per square
yard.
Imposing a deduction of one-third, valuation comes to about
Rs 350 per square yard, which, in our view, would be the proper
compensation for the lands covered in the case of Mukesh and
other connected matters.”
11. Going by the formula adopted in the aforesaid judgment, 12% per
annum increase can be applied on the value of land determined as
Rs.520/- per square yard in the year 1993, upto the year 2001 when the
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the instant
case.
However, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that from 1993 to
2001, there was a period when instead of increase in the land price,
there was attrition in the land rates.
Therefore, we would like to
enhance the value by applying the formula of 12% per annum increase
for a period of 4 years, instead of taking entire period 1993 and 2001
(and this would not be treated as a precedent).
When calculated in
this manner, the valuation of the land in the year 2001 shall come to
Rs.770/- per square yard.
After making a deduction of one-third
therefrom the net valuation comes to Rs.514/- per square yard.
Compared to the land value of this very area in 1993 which was fixed
at Rs.350/- per square yards, we have increased the same by about 50%
over a period of 7 years or so, which we think, is quite reasonable as
this much compensation is legitimately due to the appellants. We,
accordingly, fix the compensation @ Rs.514/- per square yard for the
acquired land of the appellants.
12. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
………………………………J.
(Surinder Singh Nijjar)
……………………………….J.
(A.K.Sikri)
New Delhi,
December 13, 2013
