REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.2846 OF 2017
Bijender & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Anr. …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2847-2848,
2849, 2850, 2851, 2852, 2853- 2872,
2873-2877, 2878-2882, 2883-2887,
2888-2893, 2894, 2895, 2896,2897, 2898,
2899, 2900-2904, 2905, 2906, 2907-2910,
2911, 2912, 2913-2914, 2915, 2916,2917,
2918-2929, 2930, 2931-2932, 2933-2950,
2951,2952-2954,2955 OF 2017
AND
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.17338-17354 OF 2017
@ S.L.P.(c) Nos.29181-29197 of 2016
1
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted in the special leave petitions.
2) These appeals are directed against the
common final judgments and orders dated
22.12.2015, 22.03.2016 and 03.05.2016 passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in R.F.A. Nos.5300, 2807-2809, 2806,
4762, 4764, 4756, 3751, 3759, 3760, 3766, 3768,
3776, 3777, 3785, 3788, 3794, 3798, 3800, 3805,
4839, 4841, 4842, 4843, 4844, 7299, 8756, 4840,
4846, 4838, 3767, 4757, 4752, 4746, 4744, 7323,
1515, 4753, 5980, 4751, 4745, 4809, 2549, 2548,
5910, 4810, 4754, 5911, 5913, 5912, 6307, 6283,
5542, 5908, 4747, 4760, 4758, 4763, 4759, 6308,
6309, 4748, 4749, 4755, 6306, 5909, 3999/2014,
314 & 809/2015, 3600, 2779, 4750, 3762, 3767,
3791, 3792, 3795, 3797, 3801, 4837, 4838, 4840,
4845, 4846, 4771, 4766, 4767, 2778, 2808, 2940,
2
2941, 2942, 2943, 2945, 2946, 3085, 3120, 3121,
3997, 3998, 4000, 4001, 4003, 5226, 7214, 4264,
7253, 3988, 2547, 4263, 1516, 2771, 2772, 2773,
2774, 2775, 2777, 3687, 4307, 4416, 4417, 4418,
4419, 4421, 2776, 2778 & 4808/2014 whereby the
High Court while disposing of the said appeals
partly allowed the appeals and upheld the awards of
the Land Acquisition Officer insofar as it relates to
assessment of compensation @ Rs.33,00,000/- per
acre for the land up to the depth of 2 acres in
Safidon-Jind Road, Safidon bye-pass and Gair
Mumkin kind of land whereas it enhanced the
compensation from Rs.18,00,000/- per acre to
Rs.24,75,000/- per acre from for the land beyond 2
acres.
3) Facts of the case are taken from C.A. No.2846
of 2017 (Bijender & Ors. vs. State of Haryana &
Anr.) need mention, in detail, to appreciate the
controversy involved in these appeals.
3
4) The land of the appellants measuring 18362
sq. yds. equivalent to 30 kanal 07 marla being
1122/37/15 share out of total acquired land
measuring 100 kanal 11 marla from the total land
measuring 185 kanal 15 marla of khewat No.1396
khata nos.1658 and 1659 revenue estate of Safidon,
situated at a village Saifdon, District Jind, Haryana
was acquired. The land was acquired for the
development and utilization of commercial and
residential for HUDA Sectors 7, 8 and 9 in Safidon
City in Distt. Jind vide three Notifications. Along
with the land of the appellants, the State also
acquired land belonging to several landowners alike
the appellants.
5) Notification bearing
No.LAC(H)-2007-NTLA/376 on 23.08.2007 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the “the Act”) was issued
for the acquisition of 142 acres of land in village
4
Singhpura, for public purpose, namely, for the
development of residential, commercial Sector 7,
Safidon.
6) Notification bearing
No.LAC(H)-2007-NTLA/379 on 23.08.2007 under
Section 4 of the Act was issued for the acquisition of
249.49 acres land in villages Safidon, Singhpura,
Rampura, Ratta Khera and Khera Khemawati for
public purpose, namely, for the development of
residential, commercial sector 8 at Safidon.
7) Notification bearing
No.LAC(H)-2007-NTLA/382 on 23.08.2007 under
Section 4 of the Act was issued for the acquisition of
167.79 acres of land in village Safidon, Khera
Khemawati for the public purpose, namely, for the
development of residential and commercial sector 9
at Safidon.
8) The said notifications were published in the
newspapers. The objections to the said notifications
5
were also invited. However, the objections filed by
the landowners were rejected by Collector finding no
merit therein under Section 5A of the Act.
9) This was followed by 3 declarations made and
published under Section 6 of the Act on 21.08.2008
bearing No. LAC(H)-2008-NTLA/423 in respect of
the land measuring 74.10 acres of land in village
Singhpura, LAC(H)-2008-NTLA/426 in respect of
the land measuring 199.57 acres of land in village
Safidon, Singhpura, Rampura, Ratta Khera and
Khera Khemawati and LAC(H)-2008-NTLA/429 in
respect of the land measuring 150.97 acres in
village Safidon and Khera Khemawati.
10) The Collector held an enquiry. He applied the
Belting System for determining the market rate of
land and, accordingly, classified the land in parts.
On 19.08.2010, the Collector passed 3 Awards. By
Award No.3 in respect of the land in village
Singhpura, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded
6
compensation @ Rs.33 lacs per acre for the land up
to the depth of 2 acres from Safidon-Jind Road and
Safidon Bye-Pass Road and Gair Mumkin and for
the land classified as “Nehri, Chahi”, he awarded
Rs. 18 lacs per acre. The landowners were also
awarded 30% solatium and additional amount @
12% per annum from the date of notification under
Section 4 of the Act till the Award as provided under
Section 23 of the Act.
11) By Award No.4 in respect of the acquisition of
land in village Safidon, Singhpura, Rampura, Ratta
Khera and Khera Khemawati, the Land Acquisition
Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.33 lacs per acre
for the land up to the depth of 2 acres from
Safidon-Jind Road and Safidon Bye-Pass Road and
Gair Mumkin and @ Rs.18 lacs per acre for “Nehri,
Chahi” Land. The landowners were also awarded
30% Solatium and additional amount @ 12% p.a.
from the date of notification under Section 4 of the
7
Act till the award as provided under Section 23 of
the Act.
12) By Award No.5 in respect of acquisition of land
in village Safidon and Khera Khemawati, the Land
Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.33
lacs per acre for the land upto the depth of 2 acres
from Safidon-Jind Road and Safidon Bye-pass Road
and Gair Mumkin and Rs.18 lacs per acre for
“Nehri, Chahi” land. The landowners were also
awarded 30% Solatium and additional amount @
12% p.a. from the date of notification under Section
4 of the Act till the Award as provided under Section
23 of the Act.
13) Being dissatisfied with the Awards, the
landowners filed Reference Petitions under Section
18 of the Act before the Additional District Judge,
Jind praying for enhancement of the compensation
contending inter alia that the market value of the
land at the time of acquisition was much higher
8
than what was offered by the Collector in his
Awards. According to the appellants (landowners),
the market value was to the tune of Rs.5000/- per
sq. yds.
14) The Additional District Judge by its common
Award dated 17.12.2013 dismissed all 305 reference
petitions and, in consequence, upheld the Awards
passed by the Collector. In other words, the
Reference Court was of the view that the rate at
which the compensation was determined by the
Collector by applying the Belting System in working
out the compensation was just and proper and as
per Section 23 of the Act. The Reference Court,
therefore, did not enhance the compensation
awarded by the Collector. All the reference petitions
were accordingly dismissed.
15) Aggrieved by the said Awards, the landowners
filed separate Regular First Appeals before the High
Court praying for enhancement of the
9
compensation.
16) By impugned judgments dated 22.12.2015,
22.03.2016 and 03.05.2016, the High Court partly
allowed the appeals. The High Court held that the
Awards of the Collector assessing compensation
@Rs.33 lacs per acre for the land up to the depth of
2 acres on Safidon Jind Road, Safidon bye-Pass
road does not call for any interference and hence
they were upheld. However, so far as the other
category of land (Nehri, Chahi) beyond 2 acres from
the road was concerned, the High Court modified
the Award and enhanced the compensation from
Rs.18 lacs to Rs.24,75,000/- per acre. The High
Court determined the market rate at Rs.
48,40,000/- per acre and then reducing by 33%
worked out to Rs.32,42,800/- per acre, i.e.,
Rs.33,00,000/- per acre so far as Safidon-Jind land
was concerned. So far as other land for which the
Collector had awarded Rs.18 lacs per acre, the High
1
Court deducted 25% and thus worked out to
Rs.24,75,000/- per acre.
17) Aggrieved by the said judgments, the
landowners have filed these appeals by way of
special leave before this Court.
18) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
19) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
(landowners) while assailing the legality and
correctness of the impugned judgments mainly
argued three points.
20) In the first place, learned counsel argued that
the High Court having accepted in principle that the
acquired land is a developed land and has
potentiality in all respects coupled with the fact that
it is surrounded by upcoming activities in any town
erred in not properly determining the market value
of the land as required under Section 23 of the Act
read with law laid down by this Court in several
cases.
1
21) In the second place, learned counsel argued
that the appellants (landowners) had filed as many
as 59 Sale deeds of the adjacent and nearby areas
having a similar quality of land alike the acquired
land before the Reference Court. Learned counsel
urged that out of 59 sale deeds, two pieces of land
were sold at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per square yard
whereas remaining lands were also sold at different
rates ranging between Rs.200/- to Rs.4,500/- per
square yard.
22) It was, therefore, his submission that since the
highest rate in the comparable sales is usually
preferred for determining the market value of the
acquired land, the High Court should have taken
Rs.4,500/- per square yard to be the basis for
determining the market value of the acquired land.
23) In the third place, learned counsel argued that
the Collector, Reference Court and the High Court
erred in applying the Belting System for determining
1
the market value of the acquired land which,
according to learned counsel, wrongly resulted in
classifying the acquired land in two parts and, in
consequence, resulted in applying two rates for two
parcels of the lands. One rate was for the land
which is abutting the main road, whose rate was
more as compared to the other land, and the land
which is in interior from the main road, whose rate
was less.
24) It was his submission that the Collector and
the Reference Court failed to give any justifiable
reasons as to why they choose to apply the Belting
System for determining the market value of the
acquired land. Similarly, according to learned
counsel, the High Court also did not deal with this
issue though raised by the appellants before the
High Court in their appeals.
25) In reply, learned counsel for the respondent
(State) supported the impugned judgments and
1
contended that the market value of the acquired
land determined by the High Court which resulted
in partially enhancing the rate in relation to one
class of land which is in interior from Rs.18 lacs to
Rs.24,75,000/- per acre, is just and proper and
does not call for any further enhancement and nor
the other class of land (Rs.33,00,000/- per acre)
calls for any further enhancement and the same
was rightly upheld by the High Court.
26) Learned counsel then pointed out several
infirmities in the 59 comparable sale deeds relied on
by the appellants and contended that these sale
deeds should not be relied on for determining the
market rate of the acquired land for the following
reasons.
27) First, all the 59 sale deeds pertained to very
small pieces of land wherein the lands were sold in
square yards, whereas the acquired land in question
is very large and measures in acres (around 300
1
acres or so). In other words, according to learned
counsel, there is no comparison between the lands,
which is the subject matter of the sale deeds relied
on by the appellants (claimants), and the acquired
land in question.
28) Second, some claimants, whose lands were
acquired in these acquisition proceedings, had sold
their part of the acquired lands in very small
measures few months before the date of acquisition
only with an intention to create evidence so that
they may get the compensation for their acquired
land at the same rate at which they sold their land.
29) In other words, according to the learned
counsel, such sales could not be regarded as
genuine sales between the seller and the buyer and
were, in fact, the bogus sales brought into existence
with a sole purpose to claim more compensation for
their acquired lands.
30) Learned counsel, lastly, contended that there
1
is no case made out by the appellants (landowners)
to question the Belting System applied by the
Courts below for determining the market rates of
the acquired land inasmuch as having regard to the
nature of the land and other factors, the Belting
System was properly applied. Learned counsel,
therefore, contended that the impugned judgments
deserve to be upheld calling no interference.
31) Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeals in part and, in
consequence, modify the impugned judgments by
partially enhancing the compensation payable to the
appellants for their acquired land to the extent
indicated below.
32) Coming first to the question as to whether the
Courts below were justified in applying the "Belting
System” for determining the market rates of the
acquired land in question?
1
33) We are of the considered opinion that keeping
in view the nature, extent, size, surrounding and
location of the acquired land, the Courts below were
justified in applying Belting System for determining
the market rate of the acquired land.
34) One cannot dispute that the Belting System is
a judicially accepted method for determining the fair
market value of the acquired land. It is applied in
appropriate cases when different parcels of lands
with different survey numbers belonging to different
owners and having different locations are acquired
which put together comprises of a large chunk of
land. Such chunk cannot be taken as a compact
block.
35) The acquired land having a frontage abutting
the highway/main road always has a better value as
compared to the land, which is away from the
highway/main road. Indeed, farther the land from
the highway/main road, lesser the value of such
1
land. In such a situation, where large pieces of land
having different locations are acquired, Belting
System is considered apposite for determining the
market value of the lands. (see – Union of India &
Ors. vs. Mangatu Ram & Ors. 1997 (6) SCC 59 and
Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure
Corporation Limited vs. G. Mohan Reddy & Ors.
2010 (15) SCC 412).
36) In Belting System, the acquired land is usually
divided in two or three belts depending upon the
facts of each case. The market value of the front
belt abutting the main road is taken to fetch
maximum value whereas the second belt fetches
two third or so of the rate determined in relation to
the first belt and the third belt, if considered proper
to carve out, fetches half or so of the maximum. It
is again depending upon facts of each case.
37) Similarly, this Court has consistently held on
the question as to what is fair and reasonable
1
market value of any acquired land on the date of its
acquisition. It is held that such a question is always
a question of fact and its answer depends on the
nature of evidence, circumstances and probabilities
appearing in each case.
38) It is held that one of the guiding factors in
such cases is the conduct of a hypothetical willing
vendor, who would offer the land and a willing
purchaser in normal human conduct, would be
willing to buy the land as a prudent man in normal
market condition on the date of the notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act but not an anxious
buyer dealing at arm's length nor facade or fictitious
sales brought about in quick succession or
otherwise to inflate the market value.
39) It is held that when the Courts are called upon
to fix the market value of the land in compulsory
acquisition, one of the types of evidence of the value
of the property is the sale of the acquired land to
1
which the claimant is a party and in its absence,
the sale of the neighboring lands.
40) It is held that the transactions relating to
acquired land of recent dates or in the
neighbourhood lands that possessed of similar
potentiality or fertility or other advantageous
features are considered to be relevant piece of
evidence.
41) It is held that in proof of the sale transactions,
the relationship of the parties to the transactions,
the market conditions, the terms of the sale and the
date of the sale are to be looked into. These
features need to be established by examining either
the vendor or vendee and if they are not available,
the attesting witnesses who have personal
knowledge of the transaction etc. The original or
certified copies of the sale deeds are required to be
tendered in evidence to prove such facts. One of the
underlying principles to fix a fair market value with
2
reference to comparable sale is to reduce the
element of speculation.
42) It is held that in comparable sale, the features
are (1) it must be within a reasonable time of the
date of the notification (2) it should be a bona fide
transaction (3) it should be a sale of the land
acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired and
(4) it should possess similar advantages.
43) These factors should be established by
adducing material evidence by examining the
parties to the sale or persons having personal
knowledge of the sale transactions. The proof
thereof focuses on the fact whether the transactions
relied on are genuine and bona fide transactions or
not.
44) It is further held that it is the paramount duty
of the Courts of facts to subject the evidence to
close scrutiny with a view to objectively assess the
evidence tendered by the parties on proper
2
considerations thereof in its correct perspective to
arrive at a reasonable market value. The attending
facts and circumstances in each case always
furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the
acquired land. The neighbourhood lands possessed
of similar potentialities or same advantageous
features/circumstances available in each case are
also to be taken into account.
45) Indeed, it is held that the object of the
assessment of the evidence is to enable the Courts
to arrive at a fair and reasonable market value of
the lands and in that process, sometimes the Courts
are required to trench on the border of the
guesswork but mechanical assessment has to be
eschewed.
46) It is also held that Judges are required to draw
from their experience and the normal human
conduct of the parties as to which transaction is
bona fide and genuine sale transaction because that
2
is one of the guiding factors in evaluating the
evidence.
47) It is also held that the amount awarded by the
Land Acquisition Collector forms an offer and that it
is for the landowners to adduce relevant and
material evidence to establish that the acquired
lands are capable of fetching higher market value
and the amount offered by the Land Acquisition
Collector is inadequate and that he proceeded on
wrong principle. (See - Periyar and Pareekanni
Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1991(4) SCC 195).
48) This Court also examined the question as to
how the Courts should judge the potentiality of the
acquired land and what are the relevant
consideration, which should be taken into
consideration for deciding the potentiality of the
land.
49) It is held that potentiality means capacity or
possibility for changing or developing into state of
2
actuality. The question as to whether the land has
a potential value or not is primarily one of fact
depending upon its condition, situation, user to
which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put
and whether it has any proximity to residential,
commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The
existing amenities such as water, electricity,
possibility of their further extension, whether near
about town is developing or has prospect of
development need to be taken into consideration.
50) It is also held that the value of the smaller
plots, which is always on the higher side, is usually
not taken into consideration for determining the
large block of the land. One of the reasons being
that the substantial area of the large block is used
for development of sites like laying out the roads,
drains sewers, water and electricity lines and
several civic amenities and to provide these
facilities, lot of time is consumed. The deduction is,
2
therefore, made, which ranges from 20% to 50% or
in appropriate cases even more. (See – Atma
Singh(Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. vs. State of
Haryana & Anr. 2008 (2) SCC 568).
51) Keeping the aforementioned well settled
principles of law in consideration, let us recapitulate
the facts of the case hereinbelow to examine the
issue arising in the case.
52) As mentioned above, the total land acquired
for development and utilization of commercial and
residential sector is situated in villages Safidon,
Singpura, Rampura, Ratta Khera & Khera
Khemawati in District Jind in State of Haryana.
The acquired land comprises of more than around
300 acres or so and is thus a very large in chunk.
The acquired land belonged to several landowners
and obviously so being so large in volume. One side
of the acquired land is abutting the road. The land
has surrounding with some kind of activities in
2
nearby areas and this shows that the acquired land
has some potential.
53) The Collector, therefore, taking into account all
these factors considered it proper to classify the
land on the basis of 2004-2005 revenue records in
two heads for determining the compensation. The
first head was in the name Nehri Chahi, i.e.,
canalling irrigated/water supplied from pipes in
which land measuring 82-49 acres was included
whereas the other parcel of land measuring around
117.08 acres, which is abutting the road, was
included in other head in the name - To the depth of
2 acres from Safidon-Jind Road & Safidon bye pass
Road and Gair Mumkin. - (see Award of the
Collector dated 19.8.2010 (annexure P-3). The
Collector made this classification by applying the
Belting System. It is pertinent to mention that it
was not objected by the landowners as would be
clear from Para 3 of the Award dated 19.8.2010.
2
54) Since the land included under the head, i.e.,
Safidon- Jind Road and Safidon Bye pass Road and
Gair Mumkin was abutting the road, the Collector
fixed its market rate at Rs.33,00,000/- (Thirty
Three Lacs) per acre up to the extent of the land
going inside 2 acres from the road.
55) So far as the land included in the first head,
i.e., Nehri- Chahi beyond 2 acres was concerned,
the Collector fixed its market rate at Rs.18,00,000/-
(Eighteen Lacs) per acre.
56) The Reference Court dismissed the reference
and upheld the rates fixed by the Collector. The
High Court, however, in an appeal filed by the
appellants (claimants), in the impugned judgments,
upheld the rate, i.e., Rs.33,00,000/- per acre so far
as it relates to the land included in the head. -
Safidon - Jind Road and Safidon Bye pass Road and
Gair Mumkin saying that this does not need any
enhancement but enhanced the rate from
2
Rs.18,00,000/- per acre to Rs.24,75,000/- per acre
insofar as it pertained to land beyond 2 acres
included in the head - Nehri Chahi.
57) We are of the considered opinion that the
Collector was justified in applying the Belting
System to the acquired land in question. Since the
acquired land was a large chunk of land having its
frontage abutting the roadside, the Belting System
was rightly applied to the acquired land for
determination of its fair market rate.
58) It is more so because we find that the
appellants too did not raise any objection before the
Collector and before the High Court and nor they
were able to point out to us as to why it was not
possible to apply the Belting System and what was
illegal in its application.
59) It is for all these reasons, we find no merit in
the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants when he questioned the application of
2
the Belting System to the acquired land for
determining its fair market value.
60) This takes us to examine the next question as
to whether the highest rate of Rs.4500/- per square
yard of the land of the nearby area out of 59 sale
deeds should be made basis for determining the
market rate of the acquired land. In our opinion, it
is not possible to accept this submission of the
learned counsel for the appellants though pressed
in service vehemently.
61) It is for the reason that firstly, the area sold in
each sale deed is very small as compared to the
acquired land. Secondly, the lands which were sold
by these sale deeds is in square yards and ranges
from 31.06 square yards to 440 yards whereas the
acquired area in question is in acres and comprises
of more than 300 acres. Thirdly, out of 59 sale
deeds, there are as many as 31 sale deeds wherein
the area comprises of less than 100 square yards.
2
Fourthly, except two sale deeds where 60 and 67
square yard of land was sold for Rs.4,500/- per
square yard, all other sale deeds value ranges
between Rs.200/- to Rs.2000/- per square yard.
Fifthly, there can be no comparison between the two
lands due to the extent of area which are two
extremes and lastly, since no sale deeds were filed
by the appellants showing market price of any large
chunk of land sold in acres at the relevant time, it is
not possible to place reliance on any of these sale
deeds for determining the market rate of the
acquired land by applying the same rate (Rs.4,500/-
per square yard). It is, in our opinion, neither
permissible and nor proper to rely solely upon the
rates of small plots and then determine the
compensation for a large chunk of acquired land as
in this case.
62) We have applied our mind keeping in view all
the relevant factors coupled with the law laid down
3
by this Court. Taking into consideration all the
relevant factors emerging from the evidence and the
findings of the Courts below on the issues such as -
the location of the acquired land, its surroundings,
nature, potentiality, rates of small plots, the
purpose of acquisition, development cost needed,
non availability of the sale deeds for large areas sold
in acres, etc., we are of the considered opinion that
just, fair and proper market value of the acquired
land in question on the date of issuance of Section 4
notification is determined at Rs.45,00,000/- (Forty
Five Lacs) per acre in place of Rs.33,00,000/-
(Thirty Three Lacs) per acre for the lands described
in detail in column 2 of the Award of the Collector
dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) at page 32 of the
SLP paper book of C.A.No. 2846/2017 and
Rs.35,00,000/- (Thirty Five Lacs) per acre in place
of Rs.24,75,000/- (Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Five
Thousand) per acre for lands described in detail in
3
column 1 of the said Award. In other words, the
appellants are held entitled to receive compensation
for the acquired land as described hereunder:
S.
No.
Class of Land Awarded
Amount
1. Nehri, Chahi Rs.35 lacs
2. To the depth of 2
acres from
Safidon-Jind Road
& Safidon Bye
Pass Road and
Gair-mumkin land
Rs.45 lacs
63) In addition to the aforesaid, the appellants are
also held entitled to statutory compensation as
provided in the Act and which the Courts below had
already awarded to the appellants. We uphold the
Award of such compensation. The two rates which
we have determined above would apply to entire
acquired land of all the appellants.
64) In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeals
succeed and are allowed in part. The impugned
judgments are partially modified in appellants’
3
favour by enhancing the compensation payable to
appellants (claimants/landowners) in respect of
their acquired land to the extent indicated above.
………...................................J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
October 27, 2017
3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.2846 OF 2017
Bijender & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Anr. …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2847-2848,
2849, 2850, 2851, 2852, 2853- 2872,
2873-2877, 2878-2882, 2883-2887,
2888-2893, 2894, 2895, 2896,2897, 2898,
2899, 2900-2904, 2905, 2906, 2907-2910,
2911, 2912, 2913-2914, 2915, 2916,2917,
2918-2929, 2930, 2931-2932, 2933-2950,
2951,2952-2954,2955 OF 2017
AND
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.17338-17354 OF 2017
@ S.L.P.(c) Nos.29181-29197 of 2016
1
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted in the special leave petitions.
2) These appeals are directed against the
common final judgments and orders dated
22.12.2015, 22.03.2016 and 03.05.2016 passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in R.F.A. Nos.5300, 2807-2809, 2806,
4762, 4764, 4756, 3751, 3759, 3760, 3766, 3768,
3776, 3777, 3785, 3788, 3794, 3798, 3800, 3805,
4839, 4841, 4842, 4843, 4844, 7299, 8756, 4840,
4846, 4838, 3767, 4757, 4752, 4746, 4744, 7323,
1515, 4753, 5980, 4751, 4745, 4809, 2549, 2548,
5910, 4810, 4754, 5911, 5913, 5912, 6307, 6283,
5542, 5908, 4747, 4760, 4758, 4763, 4759, 6308,
6309, 4748, 4749, 4755, 6306, 5909, 3999/2014,
314 & 809/2015, 3600, 2779, 4750, 3762, 3767,
3791, 3792, 3795, 3797, 3801, 4837, 4838, 4840,
4845, 4846, 4771, 4766, 4767, 2778, 2808, 2940,
2
2941, 2942, 2943, 2945, 2946, 3085, 3120, 3121,
3997, 3998, 4000, 4001, 4003, 5226, 7214, 4264,
7253, 3988, 2547, 4263, 1516, 2771, 2772, 2773,
2774, 2775, 2777, 3687, 4307, 4416, 4417, 4418,
4419, 4421, 2776, 2778 & 4808/2014 whereby the
High Court while disposing of the said appeals
partly allowed the appeals and upheld the awards of
the Land Acquisition Officer insofar as it relates to
assessment of compensation @ Rs.33,00,000/- per
acre for the land up to the depth of 2 acres in
Safidon-Jind Road, Safidon bye-pass and Gair
Mumkin kind of land whereas it enhanced the
compensation from Rs.18,00,000/- per acre to
Rs.24,75,000/- per acre from for the land beyond 2
acres.
3) Facts of the case are taken from C.A. No.2846
of 2017 (Bijender & Ors. vs. State of Haryana &
Anr.) need mention, in detail, to appreciate the
controversy involved in these appeals.
3
4) The land of the appellants measuring 18362
sq. yds. equivalent to 30 kanal 07 marla being
1122/37/15 share out of total acquired land
measuring 100 kanal 11 marla from the total land
measuring 185 kanal 15 marla of khewat No.1396
khata nos.1658 and 1659 revenue estate of Safidon,
situated at a village Saifdon, District Jind, Haryana
was acquired. The land was acquired for the
development and utilization of commercial and
residential for HUDA Sectors 7, 8 and 9 in Safidon
City in Distt. Jind vide three Notifications. Along
with the land of the appellants, the State also
acquired land belonging to several landowners alike
the appellants.
5) Notification bearing
No.LAC(H)-2007-NTLA/376 on 23.08.2007 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the “the Act”) was issued
for the acquisition of 142 acres of land in village
4
Singhpura, for public purpose, namely, for the
development of residential, commercial Sector 7,
Safidon.
6) Notification bearing
No.LAC(H)-2007-NTLA/379 on 23.08.2007 under
Section 4 of the Act was issued for the acquisition of
249.49 acres land in villages Safidon, Singhpura,
Rampura, Ratta Khera and Khera Khemawati for
public purpose, namely, for the development of
residential, commercial sector 8 at Safidon.
7) Notification bearing
No.LAC(H)-2007-NTLA/382 on 23.08.2007 under
Section 4 of the Act was issued for the acquisition of
167.79 acres of land in village Safidon, Khera
Khemawati for the public purpose, namely, for the
development of residential and commercial sector 9
at Safidon.
8) The said notifications were published in the
newspapers. The objections to the said notifications
5
were also invited. However, the objections filed by
the landowners were rejected by Collector finding no
merit therein under Section 5A of the Act.
9) This was followed by 3 declarations made and
published under Section 6 of the Act on 21.08.2008
bearing No. LAC(H)-2008-NTLA/423 in respect of
the land measuring 74.10 acres of land in village
Singhpura, LAC(H)-2008-NTLA/426 in respect of
the land measuring 199.57 acres of land in village
Safidon, Singhpura, Rampura, Ratta Khera and
Khera Khemawati and LAC(H)-2008-NTLA/429 in
respect of the land measuring 150.97 acres in
village Safidon and Khera Khemawati.
10) The Collector held an enquiry. He applied the
Belting System for determining the market rate of
land and, accordingly, classified the land in parts.
On 19.08.2010, the Collector passed 3 Awards. By
Award No.3 in respect of the land in village
Singhpura, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded
6
compensation @ Rs.33 lacs per acre for the land up
to the depth of 2 acres from Safidon-Jind Road and
Safidon Bye-Pass Road and Gair Mumkin and for
the land classified as “Nehri, Chahi”, he awarded
Rs. 18 lacs per acre. The landowners were also
awarded 30% solatium and additional amount @
12% per annum from the date of notification under
Section 4 of the Act till the Award as provided under
Section 23 of the Act.
11) By Award No.4 in respect of the acquisition of
land in village Safidon, Singhpura, Rampura, Ratta
Khera and Khera Khemawati, the Land Acquisition
Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.33 lacs per acre
for the land up to the depth of 2 acres from
Safidon-Jind Road and Safidon Bye-Pass Road and
Gair Mumkin and @ Rs.18 lacs per acre for “Nehri,
Chahi” Land. The landowners were also awarded
30% Solatium and additional amount @ 12% p.a.
from the date of notification under Section 4 of the
7
Act till the award as provided under Section 23 of
the Act.
12) By Award No.5 in respect of acquisition of land
in village Safidon and Khera Khemawati, the Land
Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.33
lacs per acre for the land upto the depth of 2 acres
from Safidon-Jind Road and Safidon Bye-pass Road
and Gair Mumkin and Rs.18 lacs per acre for
“Nehri, Chahi” land. The landowners were also
awarded 30% Solatium and additional amount @
12% p.a. from the date of notification under Section
4 of the Act till the Award as provided under Section
23 of the Act.
13) Being dissatisfied with the Awards, the
landowners filed Reference Petitions under Section
18 of the Act before the Additional District Judge,
Jind praying for enhancement of the compensation
contending inter alia that the market value of the
land at the time of acquisition was much higher
8
than what was offered by the Collector in his
Awards. According to the appellants (landowners),
the market value was to the tune of Rs.5000/- per
sq. yds.
14) The Additional District Judge by its common
Award dated 17.12.2013 dismissed all 305 reference
petitions and, in consequence, upheld the Awards
passed by the Collector. In other words, the
Reference Court was of the view that the rate at
which the compensation was determined by the
Collector by applying the Belting System in working
out the compensation was just and proper and as
per Section 23 of the Act. The Reference Court,
therefore, did not enhance the compensation
awarded by the Collector. All the reference petitions
were accordingly dismissed.
15) Aggrieved by the said Awards, the landowners
filed separate Regular First Appeals before the High
Court praying for enhancement of the
9
compensation.
16) By impugned judgments dated 22.12.2015,
22.03.2016 and 03.05.2016, the High Court partly
allowed the appeals. The High Court held that the
Awards of the Collector assessing compensation
@Rs.33 lacs per acre for the land up to the depth of
2 acres on Safidon Jind Road, Safidon bye-Pass
road does not call for any interference and hence
they were upheld. However, so far as the other
category of land (Nehri, Chahi) beyond 2 acres from
the road was concerned, the High Court modified
the Award and enhanced the compensation from
Rs.18 lacs to Rs.24,75,000/- per acre. The High
Court determined the market rate at Rs.
48,40,000/- per acre and then reducing by 33%
worked out to Rs.32,42,800/- per acre, i.e.,
Rs.33,00,000/- per acre so far as Safidon-Jind land
was concerned. So far as other land for which the
Collector had awarded Rs.18 lacs per acre, the High
1
Court deducted 25% and thus worked out to
Rs.24,75,000/- per acre.
17) Aggrieved by the said judgments, the
landowners have filed these appeals by way of
special leave before this Court.
18) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
19) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
(landowners) while assailing the legality and
correctness of the impugned judgments mainly
argued three points.
20) In the first place, learned counsel argued that
the High Court having accepted in principle that the
acquired land is a developed land and has
potentiality in all respects coupled with the fact that
it is surrounded by upcoming activities in any town
erred in not properly determining the market value
of the land as required under Section 23 of the Act
read with law laid down by this Court in several
cases.
1
21) In the second place, learned counsel argued
that the appellants (landowners) had filed as many
as 59 Sale deeds of the adjacent and nearby areas
having a similar quality of land alike the acquired
land before the Reference Court. Learned counsel
urged that out of 59 sale deeds, two pieces of land
were sold at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per square yard
whereas remaining lands were also sold at different
rates ranging between Rs.200/- to Rs.4,500/- per
square yard.
22) It was, therefore, his submission that since the
highest rate in the comparable sales is usually
preferred for determining the market value of the
acquired land, the High Court should have taken
Rs.4,500/- per square yard to be the basis for
determining the market value of the acquired land.
23) In the third place, learned counsel argued that
the Collector, Reference Court and the High Court
erred in applying the Belting System for determining
1
the market value of the acquired land which,
according to learned counsel, wrongly resulted in
classifying the acquired land in two parts and, in
consequence, resulted in applying two rates for two
parcels of the lands. One rate was for the land
which is abutting the main road, whose rate was
more as compared to the other land, and the land
which is in interior from the main road, whose rate
was less.
24) It was his submission that the Collector and
the Reference Court failed to give any justifiable
reasons as to why they choose to apply the Belting
System for determining the market value of the
acquired land. Similarly, according to learned
counsel, the High Court also did not deal with this
issue though raised by the appellants before the
High Court in their appeals.
25) In reply, learned counsel for the respondent
(State) supported the impugned judgments and
1
contended that the market value of the acquired
land determined by the High Court which resulted
in partially enhancing the rate in relation to one
class of land which is in interior from Rs.18 lacs to
Rs.24,75,000/- per acre, is just and proper and
does not call for any further enhancement and nor
the other class of land (Rs.33,00,000/- per acre)
calls for any further enhancement and the same
was rightly upheld by the High Court.
26) Learned counsel then pointed out several
infirmities in the 59 comparable sale deeds relied on
by the appellants and contended that these sale
deeds should not be relied on for determining the
market rate of the acquired land for the following
reasons.
27) First, all the 59 sale deeds pertained to very
small pieces of land wherein the lands were sold in
square yards, whereas the acquired land in question
is very large and measures in acres (around 300
1
acres or so). In other words, according to learned
counsel, there is no comparison between the lands,
which is the subject matter of the sale deeds relied
on by the appellants (claimants), and the acquired
land in question.
28) Second, some claimants, whose lands were
acquired in these acquisition proceedings, had sold
their part of the acquired lands in very small
measures few months before the date of acquisition
only with an intention to create evidence so that
they may get the compensation for their acquired
land at the same rate at which they sold their land.
29) In other words, according to the learned
counsel, such sales could not be regarded as
genuine sales between the seller and the buyer and
were, in fact, the bogus sales brought into existence
with a sole purpose to claim more compensation for
their acquired lands.
30) Learned counsel, lastly, contended that there
1
is no case made out by the appellants (landowners)
to question the Belting System applied by the
Courts below for determining the market rates of
the acquired land inasmuch as having regard to the
nature of the land and other factors, the Belting
System was properly applied. Learned counsel,
therefore, contended that the impugned judgments
deserve to be upheld calling no interference.
31) Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeals in part and, in
consequence, modify the impugned judgments by
partially enhancing the compensation payable to the
appellants for their acquired land to the extent
indicated below.
32) Coming first to the question as to whether the
Courts below were justified in applying the "Belting
System” for determining the market rates of the
acquired land in question?
1
33) We are of the considered opinion that keeping
in view the nature, extent, size, surrounding and
location of the acquired land, the Courts below were
justified in applying Belting System for determining
the market rate of the acquired land.
34) One cannot dispute that the Belting System is
a judicially accepted method for determining the fair
market value of the acquired land. It is applied in
appropriate cases when different parcels of lands
with different survey numbers belonging to different
owners and having different locations are acquired
which put together comprises of a large chunk of
land. Such chunk cannot be taken as a compact
block.
35) The acquired land having a frontage abutting
the highway/main road always has a better value as
compared to the land, which is away from the
highway/main road. Indeed, farther the land from
the highway/main road, lesser the value of such
1
land. In such a situation, where large pieces of land
having different locations are acquired, Belting
System is considered apposite for determining the
market value of the lands. (see – Union of India &
Ors. vs. Mangatu Ram & Ors. 1997 (6) SCC 59 and
Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure
Corporation Limited vs. G. Mohan Reddy & Ors.
2010 (15) SCC 412).
36) In Belting System, the acquired land is usually
divided in two or three belts depending upon the
facts of each case. The market value of the front
belt abutting the main road is taken to fetch
maximum value whereas the second belt fetches
two third or so of the rate determined in relation to
the first belt and the third belt, if considered proper
to carve out, fetches half or so of the maximum. It
is again depending upon facts of each case.
37) Similarly, this Court has consistently held on
the question as to what is fair and reasonable
1
market value of any acquired land on the date of its
acquisition. It is held that such a question is always
a question of fact and its answer depends on the
nature of evidence, circumstances and probabilities
appearing in each case.
38) It is held that one of the guiding factors in
such cases is the conduct of a hypothetical willing
vendor, who would offer the land and a willing
purchaser in normal human conduct, would be
willing to buy the land as a prudent man in normal
market condition on the date of the notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act but not an anxious
buyer dealing at arm's length nor facade or fictitious
sales brought about in quick succession or
otherwise to inflate the market value.
39) It is held that when the Courts are called upon
to fix the market value of the land in compulsory
acquisition, one of the types of evidence of the value
of the property is the sale of the acquired land to
1
which the claimant is a party and in its absence,
the sale of the neighboring lands.
40) It is held that the transactions relating to
acquired land of recent dates or in the
neighbourhood lands that possessed of similar
potentiality or fertility or other advantageous
features are considered to be relevant piece of
evidence.
41) It is held that in proof of the sale transactions,
the relationship of the parties to the transactions,
the market conditions, the terms of the sale and the
date of the sale are to be looked into. These
features need to be established by examining either
the vendor or vendee and if they are not available,
the attesting witnesses who have personal
knowledge of the transaction etc. The original or
certified copies of the sale deeds are required to be
tendered in evidence to prove such facts. One of the
underlying principles to fix a fair market value with
2
reference to comparable sale is to reduce the
element of speculation.
42) It is held that in comparable sale, the features
are (1) it must be within a reasonable time of the
date of the notification (2) it should be a bona fide
transaction (3) it should be a sale of the land
acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired and
(4) it should possess similar advantages.
43) These factors should be established by
adducing material evidence by examining the
parties to the sale or persons having personal
knowledge of the sale transactions. The proof
thereof focuses on the fact whether the transactions
relied on are genuine and bona fide transactions or
not.
44) It is further held that it is the paramount duty
of the Courts of facts to subject the evidence to
close scrutiny with a view to objectively assess the
evidence tendered by the parties on proper
2
considerations thereof in its correct perspective to
arrive at a reasonable market value. The attending
facts and circumstances in each case always
furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the
acquired land. The neighbourhood lands possessed
of similar potentialities or same advantageous
features/circumstances available in each case are
also to be taken into account.
45) Indeed, it is held that the object of the
assessment of the evidence is to enable the Courts
to arrive at a fair and reasonable market value of
the lands and in that process, sometimes the Courts
are required to trench on the border of the
guesswork but mechanical assessment has to be
eschewed.
46) It is also held that Judges are required to draw
from their experience and the normal human
conduct of the parties as to which transaction is
bona fide and genuine sale transaction because that
2
is one of the guiding factors in evaluating the
evidence.
47) It is also held that the amount awarded by the
Land Acquisition Collector forms an offer and that it
is for the landowners to adduce relevant and
material evidence to establish that the acquired
lands are capable of fetching higher market value
and the amount offered by the Land Acquisition
Collector is inadequate and that he proceeded on
wrong principle. (See - Periyar and Pareekanni
Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1991(4) SCC 195).
48) This Court also examined the question as to
how the Courts should judge the potentiality of the
acquired land and what are the relevant
consideration, which should be taken into
consideration for deciding the potentiality of the
land.
49) It is held that potentiality means capacity or
possibility for changing or developing into state of
2
actuality. The question as to whether the land has
a potential value or not is primarily one of fact
depending upon its condition, situation, user to
which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put
and whether it has any proximity to residential,
commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The
existing amenities such as water, electricity,
possibility of their further extension, whether near
about town is developing or has prospect of
development need to be taken into consideration.
50) It is also held that the value of the smaller
plots, which is always on the higher side, is usually
not taken into consideration for determining the
large block of the land. One of the reasons being
that the substantial area of the large block is used
for development of sites like laying out the roads,
drains sewers, water and electricity lines and
several civic amenities and to provide these
facilities, lot of time is consumed. The deduction is,
2
therefore, made, which ranges from 20% to 50% or
in appropriate cases even more. (See – Atma
Singh(Dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. vs. State of
Haryana & Anr. 2008 (2) SCC 568).
51) Keeping the aforementioned well settled
principles of law in consideration, let us recapitulate
the facts of the case hereinbelow to examine the
issue arising in the case.
52) As mentioned above, the total land acquired
for development and utilization of commercial and
residential sector is situated in villages Safidon,
Singpura, Rampura, Ratta Khera & Khera
Khemawati in District Jind in State of Haryana.
The acquired land comprises of more than around
300 acres or so and is thus a very large in chunk.
The acquired land belonged to several landowners
and obviously so being so large in volume. One side
of the acquired land is abutting the road. The land
has surrounding with some kind of activities in
2
nearby areas and this shows that the acquired land
has some potential.
53) The Collector, therefore, taking into account all
these factors considered it proper to classify the
land on the basis of 2004-2005 revenue records in
two heads for determining the compensation. The
first head was in the name Nehri Chahi, i.e.,
canalling irrigated/water supplied from pipes in
which land measuring 82-49 acres was included
whereas the other parcel of land measuring around
117.08 acres, which is abutting the road, was
included in other head in the name - To the depth of
2 acres from Safidon-Jind Road & Safidon bye pass
Road and Gair Mumkin. - (see Award of the
Collector dated 19.8.2010 (annexure P-3). The
Collector made this classification by applying the
Belting System. It is pertinent to mention that it
was not objected by the landowners as would be
clear from Para 3 of the Award dated 19.8.2010.
2
54) Since the land included under the head, i.e.,
Safidon- Jind Road and Safidon Bye pass Road and
Gair Mumkin was abutting the road, the Collector
fixed its market rate at Rs.33,00,000/- (Thirty
Three Lacs) per acre up to the extent of the land
going inside 2 acres from the road.
55) So far as the land included in the first head,
i.e., Nehri- Chahi beyond 2 acres was concerned,
the Collector fixed its market rate at Rs.18,00,000/-
(Eighteen Lacs) per acre.
56) The Reference Court dismissed the reference
and upheld the rates fixed by the Collector. The
High Court, however, in an appeal filed by the
appellants (claimants), in the impugned judgments,
upheld the rate, i.e., Rs.33,00,000/- per acre so far
as it relates to the land included in the head. -
Safidon - Jind Road and Safidon Bye pass Road and
Gair Mumkin saying that this does not need any
enhancement but enhanced the rate from
2
Rs.18,00,000/- per acre to Rs.24,75,000/- per acre
insofar as it pertained to land beyond 2 acres
included in the head - Nehri Chahi.
57) We are of the considered opinion that the
Collector was justified in applying the Belting
System to the acquired land in question. Since the
acquired land was a large chunk of land having its
frontage abutting the roadside, the Belting System
was rightly applied to the acquired land for
determination of its fair market rate.
58) It is more so because we find that the
appellants too did not raise any objection before the
Collector and before the High Court and nor they
were able to point out to us as to why it was not
possible to apply the Belting System and what was
illegal in its application.
59) It is for all these reasons, we find no merit in
the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants when he questioned the application of
2
the Belting System to the acquired land for
determining its fair market value.
60) This takes us to examine the next question as
to whether the highest rate of Rs.4500/- per square
yard of the land of the nearby area out of 59 sale
deeds should be made basis for determining the
market rate of the acquired land. In our opinion, it
is not possible to accept this submission of the
learned counsel for the appellants though pressed
in service vehemently.
61) It is for the reason that firstly, the area sold in
each sale deed is very small as compared to the
acquired land. Secondly, the lands which were sold
by these sale deeds is in square yards and ranges
from 31.06 square yards to 440 yards whereas the
acquired area in question is in acres and comprises
of more than 300 acres. Thirdly, out of 59 sale
deeds, there are as many as 31 sale deeds wherein
the area comprises of less than 100 square yards.
2
Fourthly, except two sale deeds where 60 and 67
square yard of land was sold for Rs.4,500/- per
square yard, all other sale deeds value ranges
between Rs.200/- to Rs.2000/- per square yard.
Fifthly, there can be no comparison between the two
lands due to the extent of area which are two
extremes and lastly, since no sale deeds were filed
by the appellants showing market price of any large
chunk of land sold in acres at the relevant time, it is
not possible to place reliance on any of these sale
deeds for determining the market rate of the
acquired land by applying the same rate (Rs.4,500/-
per square yard). It is, in our opinion, neither
permissible and nor proper to rely solely upon the
rates of small plots and then determine the
compensation for a large chunk of acquired land as
in this case.
62) We have applied our mind keeping in view all
the relevant factors coupled with the law laid down
3
by this Court. Taking into consideration all the
relevant factors emerging from the evidence and the
findings of the Courts below on the issues such as -
the location of the acquired land, its surroundings,
nature, potentiality, rates of small plots, the
purpose of acquisition, development cost needed,
non availability of the sale deeds for large areas sold
in acres, etc., we are of the considered opinion that
just, fair and proper market value of the acquired
land in question on the date of issuance of Section 4
notification is determined at Rs.45,00,000/- (Forty
Five Lacs) per acre in place of Rs.33,00,000/-
(Thirty Three Lacs) per acre for the lands described
in detail in column 2 of the Award of the Collector
dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) at page 32 of the
SLP paper book of C.A.No. 2846/2017 and
Rs.35,00,000/- (Thirty Five Lacs) per acre in place
of Rs.24,75,000/- (Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Five
Thousand) per acre for lands described in detail in
3
column 1 of the said Award. In other words, the
appellants are held entitled to receive compensation
for the acquired land as described hereunder:
S.
No.
Class of Land Awarded
Amount
1. Nehri, Chahi Rs.35 lacs
2. To the depth of 2
acres from
Safidon-Jind Road
& Safidon Bye
Pass Road and
Gair-mumkin land
Rs.45 lacs
63) In addition to the aforesaid, the appellants are
also held entitled to statutory compensation as
provided in the Act and which the Courts below had
already awarded to the appellants. We uphold the
Award of such compensation. The two rates which
we have determined above would apply to entire
acquired land of all the appellants.
64) In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeals
succeed and are allowed in part. The impugned
judgments are partially modified in appellants’
3
favour by enhancing the compensation payable to
appellants (claimants/landowners) in respect of
their acquired land to the extent indicated above.
………...................................J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
October 27, 2017
3
