REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4295-4297 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.3726-3728 of 2016)
ALI MOHAMMAD BEIGH AND ORS. …Appellants
Versus
STATE OF J & K
...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated
24.09.2013 and 15.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at
Srinagar dismissing CIA No.211 of 2009 along with Cross Appeal No.64 of
2011 and Review Petition Civil No. 07 of 2013 affirming the compensation
of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal awarded to the appellants by the Reference
Court.
3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as follows:
Notification dated 16.06.1997 was issued by the Collector, Lakes and
Waterways Development Authority (LAWDA), Srinagar vide No.C-
LDA/452-64, under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition
Act for the acquisition of land measuring 505 Kanal 06 Marlas situated at
Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar, for the construction and
development of housing colony for the resettlement of dislocated families
of the Dal dwellers. On 01.06.1999, a Final Award was passed by the
Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act
vide No. G-LDA 293-98 in respect of land measuring 505 Kanal 06 Marlas
situated at Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar. The Land Acquisition
Officer assessed the compensation amount payable to the applicants/estate
holders at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Kanal Abi-Bagh, Rs.1,40,000/- per
Kanal for Abi-Awal and Rs.1,30,000/- for Gair-Mumkin. On 01.06.1999,
Collector passed the Final Award fixing compensation rates: (i) Abi-Bagh ?
irrigated Orchard land (Rs.1.50 lacs per Kanal); (ii) Abi-Awal ?
agricultural land (Rs.1.40 lacs per Kanal); and (iii) Gair-Mumkin ? Barren
land (Rs.1.30 lacs per Kanal).
4. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Collector, LAWDA,
Srinagar, the appellants sought reference to the District Judge/Reference
Court to establish their claims for enhanced compensation. The Reference
Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2008 held that the appellants are entitled
to get compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal and also awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per Kanal on account of fencing.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Reference Court,
State filed appeal CIA No.211 of 2009. Claimants have filed Cross Appeal
bearing No.64 of 2011, seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs.4,00,000/-
per Kanal. The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal. The Cross Appeal
filed by the appellants was also dismissed by the High Court holding that
the appellants have not led any evidence which could have been the basis
for enhancing compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal as has been done in
other cases. The review petition filed by the appellants also came to be
dismissed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their Cross Appeal and the
review, the appellants have filed these appeals.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the case of
Reference No.5 of 2002 titled Shamim Ahmed Dar and Ors. vs. Collector,
LAWDA, the Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/-
per Kanal for the acquired land situated in the same village Chandapora
where the acquired land of the appellants was also situated and while so
the Reference Court erred in not granting the same rate of compensation,
that is at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal to the appellants. Learned
counsel further contended that Reference Court was not right in
discriminating the appellants by granting compensation to them only at the
rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal while in the case of adjacent land owners
compensation has been fixed at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–State submitted that
the appellants have failed to adduce evidence to justify their claim qua
compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- granted to the land owners. On
the contrary, it was submitted that the land owners in Reference No.5 whose
compensation has been enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/- have proved their case by
adducing evidence in support of the said enhanced compensation. It was
urged that the case of the appellants can in no way be compared with
Reference No.5 and other cases inasmuch as in the said reference, land
owners have clearly proved the rate at Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal as per the
market rate and the High Court rightly dismissed the Cross Appeal of the
appellants and the impugned judgment warrants no interference.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused
the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
9. Admittedly, the land measuring 65 Kanal ½ Marla of the appellants
herein comprising of Khasra Nos. 115, 363/118, 179, 155, 197, 155, 90, 157,
100, 372/112, 102, 172, 173, 14 4 Min, 198, 148 and 194 covered by
Reference No.15/2002 was acquired for the purpose of resettlement of Dal
dwellers in the year 1997-1999. In or about the same time, the lands
adjacent to the land of the appellants in Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and
Pazwalpora were also acquired for the same purpose of resettlement of Dal
dwellers by various references. Comparative table of the details of
acquisition of lands of the appellants and the other land acquired in
Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora is as under:
|Village |S.4(1) |S.6 |Final Award |Reference Court |
| |Notificatio|Declaration | |Award |
| |n | | | |
|Chandapora |10.01.1997 |02.06.1997 |01.06.1999 |Reference |
| | | | |No.15/2002 |
| | | | |DOA 31.10.2008 |
| | | | |Reference |
| | | | |No.5/2002 |
| | | | |DOA 03.11.2008 |
|Bhagi-Chand|24.06.1997 |05.07.1997 |01.06.1999 |Reference |
|apora | | | |1/2003 |
| | | | |6/2002 |
| | | | |DOA 03.11.2009 |
|Pazwalpora |16.06.1997 |05.07.1997 |14.07.1999 |Reference |
| | | | |No.7/2002 |
| | | | |DOA 03.11.2009 |
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention towards
the fact that the villages of Chandapora, Bhagichandapora and Pazwalpora
are situated adjacent to each other and share a common border/boundary with
each other. The inter se distance between these villages is not much,
however, centre to centre distance between these villages is less than half
a kilometre. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the Site
Plan showing inter se location of these villages and the land acquired
there from by the Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir in the year
1999, for the public purpose of re-settlement of Dal dwellers, which was
obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [RTI Act]. In response
to the information sought by the appellants under the RTI Act,
communication dated 08.12.2015 was sent stating that the villages of
Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora are situated adjacent to each
other and shared a common border/boundary with each other. The Site Plan
showing the location of the villages of Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and
Pazwalporas also fortifies the information furnished that the above three
villages are situated adjacent to each other and share a common
border/boundary with each other.
11. In cases of acquisition of land in Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora in
Reference Nos.1/2003, 6/2002 and 7/2002, the Reference Court, after
referring to the evidence adduced by the claimants thereon and also after
referring to assessment of market rate by Tehsildar at Rs.4,00,000/- per
Kanal, held that the land owners are entitled to compensation for the
acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal with solatium
(Jabirana) at the rate of 15% apart from interest @ 6% per annum on the
enhanced compensation in excess to the sum awarded by the Collector, LAWDA.
12. As noted earlier, village Chandapora is situated adjacent to villages
Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora; while so, there was no reason why the
Reference Court differentiated the land of the appellants-land owners of
the acquired land in Chandapora land Reference No.15/2002 by awarding
lesser compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. On a perusal of the judgment of the
Reference Court in Reference No.15 of 2002, it is seen that the witnesses
were examined by the appellants to substantiate their case that the market
rate of the land in village Chandapora in the year 1998 was about
Rs.8,00,000/- per Kanal. Though the Tehsildar of the area recommended
Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal, the witnesses have stated that the compensation
fixed by Tehsildar was not reliable and not based on any material. The
appellants have also produced a sale deed by one Mr. Bansilal under which
he sold a small strip of land measuring 1360 sq. feet in the vicinity of
the acquired land for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But the Reference Court
discarded the evidence of witness Bansilal on the ground that under the
sale deed only a small area of land was sold and the sale deed cannot be
taken to be a representative character of the entire land. In our view,
the Reference Court was not right in discarding the said sale deed which
was supported by oral evidence of the witnesses, to substantiate their
claim that the market rate assessed by the Tehsildar at Rs.2,50,000/- was
not a fair compensation.
13. When the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired
lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same
purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners
unless there are strong reasons. In Union of India vs. Bal Ram and Another
(2010) 5 SCC 747, this Court held that if the purpose of acquisition is
same and when the lands are identical and similar though lying in different
villages, there is no justification to make any discrimination between the
land owners to pay more to some of the land owners and less compensation to
others. The same was the view taken in Union of India vs. Harinder Pal
Singh and Others. (2005) 12 SCC 564, where this Court held as under:-
“15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties and we see no justification to interfere with the
decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which,
in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of the
lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a
uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to
us that while the lands in question are situated in five different
villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to
choose between one stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a
stage of development and the different villages are capable of being
developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where
the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs
40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local
circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to
interfere with the same.
16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the market
value of the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur which were acquired
at the same time as the lands in the other five villages was correctly
taken to be a comparative unit for determination of the market value of the
lands comprising the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition
proceedings under consideration…….”
14. When the lands are acquired at the same time and for the same purpose
that is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the lands situated in three
different villages namely, Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora, and
since the land is similar land, it would be unfair to discriminate between
the land owners and other references and the appellants who are the land
owners in Reference No.15 and pay less that is Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal to
the appellants and pay more to other land owners that is Rs.4,00,000/- per
Kanal. Impugned judgments of the High Court in CIA No. 211/2009 and Cross
Appeal No. 64/2011 are to be set aside by enhancing the compensation to
Rs.4,00,000 per Kanal. As a sequel to this, the order passed in review is
also to be set aside.
15. In the result, the impugned judgments are set aside and these appeals
are allowed. It is held that the appellants are at par with other land
owners whose lands were acquired in Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora in other
references, and hence they are also entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal with 15% solatium (Jabirana) and all other
statutory benefits. No costs.
…….…………...………J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
…………….……………J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
New Delhi;
March 21, 2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4295-4297 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.3726-3728 of 2016)
ALI MOHAMMAD BEIGH AND ORS. …Appellants
Versus
STATE OF J & K
...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated
24.09.2013 and 15.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at
Srinagar dismissing CIA No.211 of 2009 along with Cross Appeal No.64 of
2011 and Review Petition Civil No. 07 of 2013 affirming the compensation
of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal awarded to the appellants by the Reference
Court.
3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as follows:
Notification dated 16.06.1997 was issued by the Collector, Lakes and
Waterways Development Authority (LAWDA), Srinagar vide No.C-
LDA/452-64, under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition
Act for the acquisition of land measuring 505 Kanal 06 Marlas situated at
Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar, for the construction and
development of housing colony for the resettlement of dislocated families
of the Dal dwellers. On 01.06.1999, a Final Award was passed by the
Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act
vide No. G-LDA 293-98 in respect of land measuring 505 Kanal 06 Marlas
situated at Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar. The Land Acquisition
Officer assessed the compensation amount payable to the applicants/estate
holders at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Kanal Abi-Bagh, Rs.1,40,000/- per
Kanal for Abi-Awal and Rs.1,30,000/- for Gair-Mumkin. On 01.06.1999,
Collector passed the Final Award fixing compensation rates: (i) Abi-Bagh ?
irrigated Orchard land (Rs.1.50 lacs per Kanal); (ii) Abi-Awal ?
agricultural land (Rs.1.40 lacs per Kanal); and (iii) Gair-Mumkin ? Barren
land (Rs.1.30 lacs per Kanal).
4. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Collector, LAWDA,
Srinagar, the appellants sought reference to the District Judge/Reference
Court to establish their claims for enhanced compensation. The Reference
Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2008 held that the appellants are entitled
to get compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal and also awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- per Kanal on account of fencing.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Reference Court,
State filed appeal CIA No.211 of 2009. Claimants have filed Cross Appeal
bearing No.64 of 2011, seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs.4,00,000/-
per Kanal. The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal. The Cross Appeal
filed by the appellants was also dismissed by the High Court holding that
the appellants have not led any evidence which could have been the basis
for enhancing compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal as has been done in
other cases. The review petition filed by the appellants also came to be
dismissed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their Cross Appeal and the
review, the appellants have filed these appeals.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the case of
Reference No.5 of 2002 titled Shamim Ahmed Dar and Ors. vs. Collector,
LAWDA, the Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/-
per Kanal for the acquired land situated in the same village Chandapora
where the acquired land of the appellants was also situated and while so
the Reference Court erred in not granting the same rate of compensation,
that is at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal to the appellants. Learned
counsel further contended that Reference Court was not right in
discriminating the appellants by granting compensation to them only at the
rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal while in the case of adjacent land owners
compensation has been fixed at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–State submitted that
the appellants have failed to adduce evidence to justify their claim qua
compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- granted to the land owners. On
the contrary, it was submitted that the land owners in Reference No.5 whose
compensation has been enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/- have proved their case by
adducing evidence in support of the said enhanced compensation. It was
urged that the case of the appellants can in no way be compared with
Reference No.5 and other cases inasmuch as in the said reference, land
owners have clearly proved the rate at Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal as per the
market rate and the High Court rightly dismissed the Cross Appeal of the
appellants and the impugned judgment warrants no interference.
8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused
the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
9. Admittedly, the land measuring 65 Kanal ½ Marla of the appellants
herein comprising of Khasra Nos. 115, 363/118, 179, 155, 197, 155, 90, 157,
100, 372/112, 102, 172, 173, 14 4 Min, 198, 148 and 194 covered by
Reference No.15/2002 was acquired for the purpose of resettlement of Dal
dwellers in the year 1997-1999. In or about the same time, the lands
adjacent to the land of the appellants in Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and
Pazwalpora were also acquired for the same purpose of resettlement of Dal
dwellers by various references. Comparative table of the details of
acquisition of lands of the appellants and the other land acquired in
Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora is as under:
|Village |S.4(1) |S.6 |Final Award |Reference Court |
| |Notificatio|Declaration | |Award |
| |n | | | |
|Chandapora |10.01.1997 |02.06.1997 |01.06.1999 |Reference |
| | | | |No.15/2002 |
| | | | |DOA 31.10.2008 |
| | | | |Reference |
| | | | |No.5/2002 |
| | | | |DOA 03.11.2008 |
|Bhagi-Chand|24.06.1997 |05.07.1997 |01.06.1999 |Reference |
|apora | | | |1/2003 |
| | | | |6/2002 |
| | | | |DOA 03.11.2009 |
|Pazwalpora |16.06.1997 |05.07.1997 |14.07.1999 |Reference |
| | | | |No.7/2002 |
| | | | |DOA 03.11.2009 |
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention towards
the fact that the villages of Chandapora, Bhagichandapora and Pazwalpora
are situated adjacent to each other and share a common border/boundary with
each other. The inter se distance between these villages is not much,
however, centre to centre distance between these villages is less than half
a kilometre. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the Site
Plan showing inter se location of these villages and the land acquired
there from by the Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir in the year
1999, for the public purpose of re-settlement of Dal dwellers, which was
obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [RTI Act]. In response
to the information sought by the appellants under the RTI Act,
communication dated 08.12.2015 was sent stating that the villages of
Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora are situated adjacent to each
other and shared a common border/boundary with each other. The Site Plan
showing the location of the villages of Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and
Pazwalporas also fortifies the information furnished that the above three
villages are situated adjacent to each other and share a common
border/boundary with each other.
11. In cases of acquisition of land in Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora in
Reference Nos.1/2003, 6/2002 and 7/2002, the Reference Court, after
referring to the evidence adduced by the claimants thereon and also after
referring to assessment of market rate by Tehsildar at Rs.4,00,000/- per
Kanal, held that the land owners are entitled to compensation for the
acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal with solatium
(Jabirana) at the rate of 15% apart from interest @ 6% per annum on the
enhanced compensation in excess to the sum awarded by the Collector, LAWDA.
12. As noted earlier, village Chandapora is situated adjacent to villages
Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora; while so, there was no reason why the
Reference Court differentiated the land of the appellants-land owners of
the acquired land in Chandapora land Reference No.15/2002 by awarding
lesser compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. On a perusal of the judgment of the
Reference Court in Reference No.15 of 2002, it is seen that the witnesses
were examined by the appellants to substantiate their case that the market
rate of the land in village Chandapora in the year 1998 was about
Rs.8,00,000/- per Kanal. Though the Tehsildar of the area recommended
Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal, the witnesses have stated that the compensation
fixed by Tehsildar was not reliable and not based on any material. The
appellants have also produced a sale deed by one Mr. Bansilal under which
he sold a small strip of land measuring 1360 sq. feet in the vicinity of
the acquired land for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But the Reference Court
discarded the evidence of witness Bansilal on the ground that under the
sale deed only a small area of land was sold and the sale deed cannot be
taken to be a representative character of the entire land. In our view,
the Reference Court was not right in discarding the said sale deed which
was supported by oral evidence of the witnesses, to substantiate their
claim that the market rate assessed by the Tehsildar at Rs.2,50,000/- was
not a fair compensation.
13. When the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired
lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same
purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land owners
unless there are strong reasons. In Union of India vs. Bal Ram and Another
(2010) 5 SCC 747, this Court held that if the purpose of acquisition is
same and when the lands are identical and similar though lying in different
villages, there is no justification to make any discrimination between the
land owners to pay more to some of the land owners and less compensation to
others. The same was the view taken in Union of India vs. Harinder Pal
Singh and Others. (2005) 12 SCC 564, where this Court held as under:-
“15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties and we see no justification to interfere with the
decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which,
in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of the
lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a
uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to
us that while the lands in question are situated in five different
villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to
choose between one stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a
stage of development and the different villages are capable of being
developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where
the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs
40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local
circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to
interfere with the same.
16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the market
value of the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur which were acquired
at the same time as the lands in the other five villages was correctly
taken to be a comparative unit for determination of the market value of the
lands comprising the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition
proceedings under consideration…….”
14. When the lands are acquired at the same time and for the same purpose
that is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the lands situated in three
different villages namely, Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora, and
since the land is similar land, it would be unfair to discriminate between
the land owners and other references and the appellants who are the land
owners in Reference No.15 and pay less that is Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal to
the appellants and pay more to other land owners that is Rs.4,00,000/- per
Kanal. Impugned judgments of the High Court in CIA No. 211/2009 and Cross
Appeal No. 64/2011 are to be set aside by enhancing the compensation to
Rs.4,00,000 per Kanal. As a sequel to this, the order passed in review is
also to be set aside.
15. In the result, the impugned judgments are set aside and these appeals
are allowed. It is held that the appellants are at par with other land
owners whose lands were acquired in Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora in other
references, and hence they are also entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal with 15% solatium (Jabirana) and all other
statutory benefits. No costs.
…….…………...………J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
…………….……………J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
New Delhi;
March 21, 2017
