Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 3825 of 2018, Judgment Date: Apr 16, 2018

                                                               

    REPORTABLE

                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3807-3825 OF 2018
                        (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35281-35299
                                                 OF 2016)

                    Mohammad Yusuf and Others Etc. Etc.            .... Appellant(s)

                                 Versus

                    State of Haryana and Others.                  .... Respondent(s)
                                              WITH

                     CIVIL APPEAL No.3826 OF 2018
  (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3585 OF 2017

                               AND
                  CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3827-3859 OF 2018
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 4413-4445 OF 2017


                                             JUDGMENT

                    R.K.Agrawal,J

                    1)      Leave granted.

                    2)      The above appeals have been filed against the impugned

                    common judgment and order dated 03.06.2016 passed by
  Signature Not Verified

  Digitally signed by
  ASHA SUNDRIYAL
  Date: 2018.04.16
  15:10:08 IST
  Reason:
                    learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

                    at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 6617 of 2012 (O&M) and other

                                                                                   1
connected matters whereby the High Court partly allowed the

appeal filed by the appellants herein while dismissing the

cross appeals of the respondent-State.

3)     Brief Facts:-

(a)    The Government of Haryana, Revenue Department, vide

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’) dated 18.10.2005 has

notified the land of Village Ferozpur Namak, Tehsil Nuh,

District Mewat for the construction of Mini Secretariat at

District Mewat, admeasuring 372 karnals 2 marlas (i.e. 46

acres 4 karnals and 2 marlas). Consequently, the Government

of    Haryana,   vide   Notification   dated   25.05.2006,   issued

declaration that the land is required for a public purpose.

(b)    Notice under Section 9 of the LA Act was issued to all the

landholders and interested persons. The Land           Acquisition

Collector (LAC), Nuh, Mewat, vide Award No. 1 dated

05.11.2007 assessed the market value of the acquired land at

the uniform rate of Rs 16 lakhs per acre along with 30%

solatium and 12% additional amount to the landholders.

 

                                                                  2
(c)   Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed a Reference

under Section 18 of the LA Act which was registered as LA

Case No. 394/01.12.10/19.09.11 before the Land Acquisition

Collector-cum-SDO(C) Nuh, Mewat.         On 28.08.2012, the

Reference Court, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 72,00,000

lakhs per acre and applied the development cut at the rate of

55% and a further cut of 5% on account of waiting period,

totaling to 60%. Thus, the compensation was determined at

Rs. 28,80,000/- per acre along with the statutory benefits.

(d)   Being not satisfied, the appellants herein preferred a

Regular First Appeal (RFA) being No. 6617 of 2012 alongwith

other set of appeals before the High Court. Respondent-State

also filed cross appeals before the High Court. Learned single

Judge of the High Court, vide common judgment and order

dated   03.06.2016,   partly   allowed   the   appeals   of   the

landholders by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 64,80,000

per acre along with other benefits while dismissing the cross

appeals filed by the respondent-State.

 


                                                                3
(e)    The landholders, being aggrieved by the judgment and

order dated 03.06.2016, has preferred these appeals by way of

special leave before this Court.

4)     Heard Mr. R.S. Suri, learned senior counsel for the

appellants and Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for

the respondent-State and perused the records.

Point(s) for consideration:-

5)     The short point of consideration arises before this Court

is    as   to   whether     in    the   light   of   present    facts   and

circumstances of the case, any interference is sought for by

this Court?

Rival contentions:-

6)     At the outset, learned senior counsel for the appellants

argued that the High court failed to consider that the land

acquired had great future potential for being developed as

residential     as   well    as     commercial       area,     hence,   the

compensation ought to have been awarded accordingly.

Learned senior counsel further contended that the assessment

of the compensation has not been done considering the

following factors like potential value, location of land, future

                                                                          4
prospects, the development of land in question and the likely

injury to be sustained by the appellants herein for loss of their

future earnings etc. It was also contended that the High Court

has not considered the facts that the acquired land has

immense potential which is situated at a distance of half

kilometers from the Nuh City, and also situated within 30 kms

from the cyber city and could be directly approachable from

Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.

7)   Further, the Reference Court allowed a cut of 55% on

account of development for raising infrastructural activities

and other amenities and a cut of 5% on account of waiting

period which was reduced by the High Court to 10% which is

also not in accordance with law vis-à-vis the fact that the

acquired land has all the infrastructural facilities on the date

of Notification.

8)   Per     contra,   learned   senior    counsel     for   the

respondent-State submitted that the High Court has rightly

determined the compensation while condoning the potentiality

of the area and also after having regard to the sale deeds of

adjoining areas and a cut of 10% on the assessed value of the

                                                                5
acquired land has been applied in accordance with law

vis-à-vis the fact that the acquired land has all the

infrastructural facilities on the date of Notification.

9)    Learned senior counsel further submitted that the

compensation awarded is adequate in terms of principles

incorporated under Section 23 of the LA Act as also

interpreted by this Court in a catena of cases. Learned senior

counsel finally contended that the amount of compensation

has been awarded considering the factors like potential value

location of land, future prospects, the development of land in

question and the likely injury to be sustained by the

appellants, if any, and no interference is sought for by this

Court in the matter.

Discussion:-

10)   The   intention   behind   the   enactment    of    the   Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 was to acquire land for welfare purposes

and to compensate the owners adequately. It is well known

fact that the Right to Property is a Constitutional Right (earlier

it was a Fundamental Right until 1978) as provided under

Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. The term

                                                                   6
“compensation” was interpreted by this Court in a number of

cases that it is to be “a just equivalent of what the owner has

been deprived of.” Hence, the acquisition must pass the test of

compensation being reasonable, just and fair. The term justice

as enshrined in the preamble includes justice in economic

terms and the term economic justice in itself mandatorily

requires compensation to be adequate.

11)   In   a   catena   of   cases,   this   Court   has   held   that

compensation should be adequate and there must be no

injustice with the land owners since they stand deprived from

their very vital right i.e., Right to Property. At the same time, it

is also to be kept in mind that no hypothetical view shall be

taken as it may be harmful to the public exchequer in case of

acquisition for public purposes. Hence, courts must maintain

balance between both the parties.            In the cases of land

acquisitions, generally courts confronted with the short but

important question that what ought to be the ideal market

value for the acquired land. This Court, in Major General

Kapil Mehra and Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 2

SCC 262 while dealing with the matter held as under:-

                                                                     7
      “10. Market Value: First question that emerges is what would
      be the reasonable market value which the acquired lands are
      capable of fetching. While fixing the market value of the
      acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to
      keep in mind the following factors:- (i) existing geographical
      situation of the land; (ii) existing use of the land; (iii) already
      available advantages, like proximity to National or State
      Highway or road and/or developed area and (iv) market value
      of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or
      adjacent or very near to the acquired land.”

 

12)     For the purpose of deciding compensation of land in case

of acquisition, Section 23 of the LA Act is the fundamental

section which says that some vital factors to be considered

while      determining compensation. At this juncture, it is

pertinent to re-produce the said section herein below:


        23.    Matters to be          considered in       determining
        compensation.-(1)       In   determining     the   amount     of
        compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this
        Act, this court shall take into consideration-
        First, the market value of the land at the date of the
        publication of the notification under section 4,sub-section(1);
        Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by
        reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which
        may be on the land at the time of the Collector’s taking
        possession thereof;
        Thirdly, the damage ( if any) sustained by the person
        interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of
        the land, by reason of severing such land from his other
        land;
        Fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person
        interested, at the time of Collector’s taking possession of the
        land ,by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his
        other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner,
        or his earnings;

 

                                                                            8
      Fifthly , if , in consequence of the acquisition of the land by
      the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change
      his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses
      (if any) incidental to such change; and
      Sixthly, the damage (if any) Bonafide resulting from
      diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the
      publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time
      of the Collector’s taking possession of the land.

 

13)   On a plain reading of Section 23 of the LA Act, it is

evident that the compensation has to be calculated according

to the value of the land to the owner and the question to be

considered is whether the person from whom the land was

taken was to lose by having it taken from him. The probable

use to which the land might be put was necessarily an element

to    be   taken        into   consideration     for    calculating     the

compensation       of     acquired   land.     The     land   owners    get

compensation on the basis of the value of the land, in its

actual condition at the time of the publication of the

Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act.

14)   In the instant case, the appellants contented and invited

our attention to the fact that the valuation of the acquired

land should be assessed on urban land criteria since land had

all basic amenities like water, sewer, electricity and telephone


                                                                          9
lines were already present on the date of Notification under

Section 4 of the LA Act. However for being an urban area,

there must be some other facilities like commercial activities,

population growth, education activities, paying capacity of

people, healthy public transport, infrastructure etc. It is also a

well established rule that in the cases of calculation of

compensation, there cannot be a straight jacket formula,

hence, each case has to be dealt in the light of circumstances

of each case. Common sense is the best and most reliable

guide.

15)   It is a well settled law that when there are several

exemplars with reference to similar land, usually the highest

of the exemplars which is a bonafide transaction, will be

considered. In the present case, the Reference Court, in Para

20 held as under:-


      “…..Here in this case, applying the said authority to the facts
      and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered
      opinion that exemplar sale deed Exhibit P1 hold the fields in
      preference to the other sale deeds. Reason for exclusion of
      sale deeds Exhibit P2 to P3 is that sale deed Exhibit P1 is of
      the highest land 1 kanal 6 marlas and is of the highest
      amount, which is very close to the date of notification
      because vide sale deed Exhibit P1 dated 5.10.2005, land
      measuring 1 kanal 6 Marlas, whose nature was “Narmot”,

                                                                        10
      situated in village Ferozpur Namak, Tehsil Nuh, was sold for
      a sale consideration of Rs. 11,70,000/- by one Mahmood son
      of Inshe Khan in favour of Smt. Hanisha Khatoon wife of
      Mohammad Iqbal of the same village. The value per acre of
      the land, as per the said sale deed is calculated as Rs.
      72,00,000/- per acre. The said sale deed was executed on
      5.10.2005 whereas notification under Section 4 of the Act for
      the acquired land was published on 18.10.2005 and thus,
      this sale deed Exhibit P1 is proximate to the point of time
      from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of
      the Act. No iota of evidence could be led by the respondents
      to rebut the veracity of this sale deed. There is nothing on
      record to show that the sale deed is not Bonafide and a
      genuine transaction. In fact despite availing number of
      opportunities, the respondents failed to lead any evidence to
      rebut the evidence led by the petitioners.”


16)   On a perusal of the Map of the concerned area which is

produced on record by the appellants, we find that the

acquired land in the present case falls within the control area

of Nuh and newly constructed Nalhar Medical College is at a

distance of 3-4 kms from the acquired land. We also find that

the said acquired land is situated on Palwal Road from one

side and on Delhi Road on the other. However, it is a matter of

record that such acquired land is far away from D.C. office

and other offices. Also, Bus Stand as well as Nuh Town is

situated far away from the acquired land. Hence, acquired

land of Firozpur village in such terms cannot be said to be

situated very near to the urban area of Nuh Town. The

                                                                      11
appellants produced various sale deeds for the perusal of this

Court. The vital sale deed dated 05.10.2005, wherein land

admeasuring 1 kanal 6 Marlas, situated in village Ferozpur

Namak, Tehsil Nuh, was sold for a sale consideration of Rs.

11,70,000/- by one Mahmood s/o Inshe Khan in favour of

Smt. Hanisha Khatoon w/o Mohammad Iqbal of the same

village. If we calculate the value of per acre in terms of the

above sale deed then it stands at Rs 72 Lakhs per acre. It is

pertinent to mention here that the date of this sale deed is

05.10.2005 which is proximate to the date of Notification i.e.,

18.10.2005 under Section 4 of the LA Act.      In the present

case, after having regard to the circumstances of the case and

perusal of the sale deeds of adjourning area, we are of the

considered view that the compensation granted at the rate of

Rs. 72 lacs per acre is as per the law and no injustice has

been occurred to the appellants herein.

17)   Now coming to the point of development charges which

applied by the High court @10% on the assessed value of

acquired land. Appellants herein contended that the rate of

deduction as applied by the High Court was not required as

                                                             12
the acquired land is situated in the area already developed and

have all the potential for development. It is a matter of record

that    the   Reference   Court   determined    60%    (55%    as

development charges and 5% for waiting period) in totality

towards development charges which later on in appeal reduced

by the High Court to 10%. Deductions may be made for a

variety of reasons, which may differ in different cases.

However, in the backdrop of judicial precedents on this issue,

it is well settled position that all deductions should not

cumulatively be exceeded the upper benchmark of 75% and at

the same time, it should be kept in mind that no hypothetical

view shall be taken in order to calculate the percentage of the

development charges.

18)    In the present case, the appellants contended that the

acquired land has all basic facilities such as water, electricity,

sewer, telephone etc which respondent-State has not disputed.

These are, however, not enough to meet the purpose of

acquisition. To make such land suitable for the acquisition

purpose i.e. for the construction of Mini Secretariat at Nuh,

some further development is sine qua non. For calculating the

                                                                13
percentage of development charges, various factors need to be

taken into consideration such as location of land, facilities

available in nearby area, size of the land, purpose of

acquisition etc. The present acquired land of Firozpur Namak

village which is located at some distance from the Nuh Town

needs to be developed in proper manner like construction of

better and wide roads etc., to make it suitable for the

acquisition purposes. The fact that facilities already available

such as sewer, electricity etc., seems to be taken into

consideration   properly   while   reducing   the   development

charges by the High Court from 60% to 10%.

19)   In the case at hand, after giving our thoughtful

consideration   to   the   facts   and   circumstance   noticed

hereinabove, we are of the considered view that a cut at the

rate of 10 % is very reasonable towards development of

acquired land as some further development would obviously

be required to make it fit for the purpose for which it was

acquired.

 


                                                              14
20)   In view of above discussion, we are not inclined to

interfere with the impugned decision of the High Court.

Accordingly, the appeals are hereby dismissed leaving parties

to bear their own cost.


                          ………….………………………J.
                          (R.K. AGRAWAL)


                          .…....……..………………………………J.
                          (S. ABDUL NAZEER)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2018.

 


                                                           15

 

 

Mohammad Yusuf and Others Etc. Etc Versus State of Haryana and Others.