HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus SATPAL & OTHERS ETC. ETC. on 9 February 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab& Haryana at Chandigarh in the respective first appeals, by which forEthe land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 for villages BadhMalik, Pritampura and Rasoi, the High Court has enhanced thecompensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre and for the land acquired videnotification dated 05.03.2007 for the aforesaid villages, the High Courthas assessed and awarded the compensation @ Rs. 45,00,000/- perFacre, the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure DevelopmentCorporation Limited (for short, ‘HSIIDC’) has preferred the presentappeals.

2. A large chunk of land situated at villages Badh Malik, Jatheri,Pritampura, Akbarpur Barota, Rasoi etc. in District Sonipat, Haryanacame to be acquired for the purpose of construction of the ExpressGHighway known as “Kundli – Manesar – Palwal Highway (for short,‘KMP’) connecting National Highway No.1 in District Sonipat, Haryana,by different notifications. In the present appeals, we are concerned withthe land acquired vide notifications dated 30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007 ofvillages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi. The lands were acquiredHfor the expansion of industrial sector 39 also.

2.1 The Land Acquisition Officer determined and awardedcompensation @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court enhancedthe compensation to Rs. 19,00,000/- per acre for villages Badh Malikand Rasoi with respect to the land acquired vide notification dated30.06.2005. The Reference Court did not enhance the amount ofcompensation so far as village Pritampura is concerned.

With respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007,the Reference Court did not enhance the amount of compensation inrespect of villages Badh Malik and Pritampura, however, enhanced theamount of compensation to Rs. 23,00,000/- per acre for village Rasoi.

2.2 In the first round of litigation before the High Court, the HighCourt enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 40,00,000/- per acreup to depth of 4 acres and Rs.30,40,000/- per acre beyond that withrespect to the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005.

Similarly, in the first round of litigation before the High Court, theHigh Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 50,00,000/-per acre up to depth of 4 acres and Rs. 38,00,000/- per acre beyond thatwith respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007. Thejudgments and orders passed by the High Court were the subject matterof Civil Appeals before this Court being Civil Appeal No. 12847/2017and Civil Appeal No. 20050/2017 along with other allied appeals. Byjudgments and orders dated 6.9.2017 & 28.11.2017, this Court disposedof the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the High Court andremitted the matters to the High Court for a fresh decision. This Courtdid not approve adoption of belting system by the High Court by observingthat being an acquisition for an Express Way passing through differentparcel of land, there is no need or justification for adopting the beltingsystem. This Court also observed that if the land value is to be fixed forKMP project acquisition, the relevant factors which are to be noted aremainly the value that was prevalent in the locality prior to 13.08.2004.

2.3 That thereafter on remand, in the second round of litigationbefore the High Court, by the impugned common judgment and order,the High Court has assessed and determined and awarded compensation@ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre with respect to the land acquired videnotification dated 30.06.2005 and has enhanced the amount ofcompensation to Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre with respect to the land acquiredvide notification dated 5.3.2007.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court with respect to the landsacquired vide notifications dated 30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007, HSIIDC haspreferred the present appeals.

At this stage, it is required to be noted that so far as theBlandowners’ appeals against the very impugned common judgment andorder are concerned, the same had been dismissed earlier by this Courtvide order dated 13.01.2010 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil)Diary No. 36995/2019 and other allied special leave petitions. Therefore,so far as the landowners are concerned, the impugned common judgmentand order passed by the High Court had attained finality and the presentCappeals are required to be considered at the instance of HSIIDC only.Arguments of the learned counsel for the land acquired videnotification dated 30.06.2005

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants hasDvehemently submitted that the High Court has seriously erred in enhancingthe amount of compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre with respect tothe land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005. It is submitted thatwhile enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acrefor the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, the High Courthas relied upon the builder’s sale deeds produced as Exhibits P43 & P44Eand has not considered the sale deeds produced by the State. It issubmitted that the High Court has wrongly interpreted Section 25 of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’) and has notconsidered the sale deeds produced by the State.

3.1 It is further submitted that even otherwise the High CourtFought to have appreciated that the lands acquired were all agriculturallands and therefore while assessing the compensation, the High Courtought not to have relied upon and/or considered the builder’s sale deeds.

3.2 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properlyappreciated the fact that in the surrounding areas, the lands were alreadyGunder acquisition commencing from the notification dated 13.08.2004. Itis submitted that therefore the market price/value of the lands as on13.08.2004 ought to have been considered. It is submitted that evenwhile remanding the matters to the High Court, this Court specificallyobserved that the value of the lands as on 13.08.2004 shall be thedeterminative factor. It is submitted that instead while assessing theH

HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTUREDEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. v. SATPAL [M. R. SHAH, J.]

compensation, the High Court has relied upon the sale deeds producedas Exhibits P43 & P44 dated 15.4.2005.

3.3 It is further submitted that even otherwise and assuming thatthe High Court was right in relying upon the sale deeds produced as Ex.P43 & P44, even in that case also and even as observed and held by theHigh Court in giving a 50% cut, the High Court ought not to have enhancedthe amount of compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre. It is submittedthat if the main of two sale deeds (Ex. P43 & P44) is taken and thereafter50% cut, as adopted by the High Court, is applied, in that case, thecompensation assessed would come to Rs. 24,43,693/- per acre. It issubmitted that therefore the High Court has committed a very seriousand grave error in determining and awarding compensation @ Rs.29,54,000/- per acre for the lands acquired vide notification dated30.06.2005.

Arguments of the learned counsel for the land acquired videnotification dated 05.03.2007

3.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the HSIIDC that the High Court has materially erred inenhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre withrespect to the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007.

3.5 It is submitted that considering the time gap of approximatelyone year and nine months and granting 8 to 12 percent cumulative increaseon the compensation awarded for the land acquired vide notificationdated 30.06.2005, the compensation awarded by the High Court @ Rs.45,00,000/- per acre is too excessive and can be said to be on muchhigher side.

3.6 It is submitted that as such for the land acquired videnotification dated 13.08.2004 of the very villages Badh Malik andPritampura, the High Court earlier determined and awarded compensation@ 21,00,000/- per acre and therefore considering the time gap ofapproximately two and half years and granting 8 to 12 percent increase,the amount awarded by the High Court at Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre isunsustainable.

4. All these appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned counselappearing on behalf of the original claimants/landowners.

4.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original landownershave vehemently submitted that in fact while determining thecompensation for the land acquired under both the notifications, the High A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACourt has not considered the other sale deeds except Ex. P43 & P44. Itis submitted that if other sale deeds would have been considered and thedevelopment in the surrounding areas would have been considered, theamount of compensation awarded by the High Court can be said to beon the lower side. It is submitted that as it is a case of compulsoryacquisition, the landowners are entitled to the just compensation on theBbasis of the fair market value. Reliance is placed on the decisions of thisCourt in the cases of General Manager, Oil and Natural GasCorporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another,reported in (2008) 14 SCC 745 (paras 13 & 14); Mehrawal KhewajiTrust (Registered), Faridkot and others v. State of Punjab and others,Creported in (2012) 5 SCC 432 (para 17).

4.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original landownershave relied upon the sale deeds produced as Ex. P4, P3, P6, P7 & P5 ofvillage Badh Malik and Badh Khalsa in support of their submission thatin October 2005 and in the year 2006, the market value of the land wasDmuch much higher.

4.3 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the presentappeals.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties atlength.EWe have gone through the impugned common judgment and order We have gone through the impugned common judgment and orderpassed by the High Court in detail and have also considered the reasoninggiven by the High Court by assessing and determining the compensation@ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre for the land acquired vide notification dated30.06.2005 and at Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre for the land acquired videnotification dated 5.3.2007.F

5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present casethe lands were acquired of villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi inDistrict Sonipat, Haryana, which were all agricultural lands and acquiredfor the purpose of industrial sector 39, Sonipat. It is also required to benoted that as such the time gap between the two notifications datedG30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007 would be approximately one year nine months.However, it is required to be noted that the acquisition with respect tothe land situated at villages Badh Malik and Pritampura came to beacquired initially vide notification dated 13.08.2004 and thereafter fromtime to time the notifications were issued and the lands came to beHacquired for different public purposes.

At this stage, it is required to be noted that even while remandingthe matter to the High Court, this Court vide judgment and order dated6.9.2017 specifically observed that if the land value is to be fixed forKMP project acquisition, the relevant factors which are to be noted aremainly the value that was prevalent in the locality prior to 13.08.2004.However, in the present case, the lands acquired are for the expansionof industrial sector 39, Sonipat and therefore the amount of compensationassessed and determined for the land acquired vide notification dated30.06.2005 acquired of very villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoican be said to be the governing factor even while determining thecompensation for the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007 asunder both the notifications the lands acquired are for the same publicpurpose, namely, development of industrial sector 39, Sonipat, Haryana.

6. Now so far as the land acquired vide notification dated30.06.2005 is concerned, the High Court has assessed and determinedcompensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre. While assessing anddetermining the compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre for the landacquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, the High Court has consideredthe sale deeds produced as Ex. P43 & P44. The High Court took intoconsideration the following sale deeds which are tabulated as under:

Thereafter, the High Court has observed that Ex. P43 & P44would be safe sale exemplars to fall back upon and after applying thecut off of 50%, the High Court has assessed the compensation @ Rs.29,54,000/- per acre.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A7. If we consider the main Ex. P43 & P44, which are the saledeeds dated 15.04.2005 and thereafter applying the cut off of 50%, themarket value of the land would come to Rs. 24,43,693/- per acre. Instead,without any adequate reasons, the High Court has assessed and enhancedthe amount of compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre. Therefore, theHigh Court has committed a very serious error in assessing andBdetermining the compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre for the landacquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005. After making the round figure,the landowners/claimants shall be entitled to compensation @Rs.24,50,000/- per acre with respect to the land acquired vide notificationdated 30.06.2005, with all other statutory benefits, which may be availableCunder the provisions of the 1894 Act.

8. Now so far as the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007is concerned, there shall be a corresponding increase looking to the timegap of approximately one year and nine months and giving 8 to 12 percentcumulative increase. However, the High Court has determined theDcompensation @ Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre on the basis of the sale deed(Ex. P4) by applying 10% cut. It is to be noted that so far as the firstnotification dated 30.06.2005 is concerned, the High Court has appliedthe cut of 50%. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that the sale deedproduced as Ex. P4 is dated 2.11.2006 and the acquisition of the samevillages commenced vide notification dated 30.06.2005 and thereforeEthe sale deed after the first notification dated 30.06.2005 could not havebeen the basis for assessing/determining the compensation with respectto the subsequent acquisition. On the contrary, giving 8 to 12 percentcumulative increase on the amount of compensation awarded for theland acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, would be a safe andFguiding factor. If that be so, compensation with respect to the land acquiredvide notification dated 5.3.2007, would come to Rs. 30,73,280/- per acre(Rs. 24,50,000/- + 12% increase = Rs.27,44,000/- + 12% increase =Rs.30,73,280/-).

To the aforesaid extent, the impugned common judgment and orderGpassed by the High Court is required to be modified and the presentappeals are required to be partly allowed accordingly.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals succeed in part. The impugned common judgment andorder passed by the High Court insofar as the land acquired videHnotification dated 30.06.2005 is concerned, is modified and it is ordered HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTUREDEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. v. SATPAL [M. R. SHAH, J.]

that the landowners/claimants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.24,50,000/- per acre (instead of Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre), with all otherstatutory benefits which may be available under the provisions of the1894 Act.

A

9.1 Insofar as the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007is concerned, the impugned common judgment and order is modified andBit is ordered that the landowners/claimants shall be entitled tocompensation @ Rs. 30,73,280/- per acre (instead of Rs. 45,00,000/-per acre) with all other statutory benefits which may be available underthe provisions of the 1894 Act.

10. The present appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.

C

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

Appeals partly allowed.

D

E

F

G

H