SURENDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. on 25 January 2018

SURENDER SINGH

v.

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 885 of 2018)

JANUARY 25, 2018

[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Acquisition oflarge chunk of land measuring around 520 acres 02 Kanals and13.5 Marlas situated in 15 villages – Compensation determined atuniform rate applicable to entire acquired land – On appeals byland owners for seeking further enhancement and by the Stateseeking restoration of order of LAO, held: High Court erred indetermining one flat market rate of the acquired land withoutconsidering the potentiality and the quality of acquired land situatedin each village, its nature and the basis, the market rate of the landsituated in each village prior to the date of acquisition or its nearproximity, the size of the land, the actual distance of each villagequa any other nearby big developed city, town or areas – Fair marketvalue of acquired land cannot be decided in isolation on the basisof only one factor – Matter remanded to reference court for freshadjudication – Since matter is remanded for fresh adjudication,landowners are held entitled to refund of court fee paid by them –Court Fees Act, 1870 – s.13.

Disposing of the appeals and remanding the matter toReference Court, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the impugned judgment, the High Courtessentially based its decision or, proceeded to decide the appealsby making the decision of this Court in Pran Sukh case to be thebasis to examine the question as to whether the rate of acquiredland fixed by the LAO and Reference Court was fair or not. TheHigh Court, however, noticed from the facts involved in the caseof Pran Sukh that the land situated in one village-Kasan alongwith its some adjoining villages was acquired on 15.11.1994 bythe State and this Court determined the compensation payableto the landowners of Kasan village at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/-per acre. The High Court felt that Rs.20,000,00/- per acre should

581

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

Abe taken as the base price for determining the rate of acquiredland in question. The High Court perhaps did this after havingnoticed that some part of the acquired land in these appeals wassituated in Kasan village and, therefore, took the rate of Kasanvillage land as basis for determining the rate of acquired landalso. The High Court accordingly gave annual increase of 8% toBRs.20,00,000/- and worked out the rate at Rs.62,11,700/- per acrefor the entire acquired land in question by applying one uniformrate. [Paras 31 to 33] [590-C-G]

Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v.

Pran Sukh & Others (2010) 11 SCC 175 – referred to.C1.2 The approach of the High Court in the facts of thesecases does not appear to be right inasmuch as the High Courtfailed to take into consideration that the acquired land, in thesecases, was a huge chunk of land measuring around 520 acres, 2kanals and 13.5.marlas. Second, the entire acquired land was notDsituated in village Kasan but it was spread over in 15 villages.Third, there was no evidence to show much less any finding ofthe High Court as to what was the actual distance among the 15villages against one another, the location, situation/area of eachvillage, whether any development had taken place and, if so, itstype, nature and when it took place in any of these villages, theEpotentiality and the quality of the acquired land situated in eachvillage, its nature and the basis, the market rate of the landsituated in each village prior to the date of acquisition or in itsnear proximity, whether small piece of land or preferably big chunkof land, the actual distance of each village qua any other nearby

Fbig developed city, town or a place, whether any activity is beingcarried on in the nearby areas, their details. Fourth, whether theacquired land in the case of Pran Sukh in village Kasan and theacquired land in question are similar in nature or different and, ifso, how and on what basis, their total distance etc. These werethe issues which had material bearing while determining the rateGof the acquired land in question. [Paras 34 to 36] [590-G-H; 591-A-D]

1.3 The High Court, in the absence of any evidence on anyof these issues, could not have determined one flat market rateof the acquired land in question by applying one isolated rate ofHone land situated in one village Kasan and adding 8% annual increase from 1994 in such rate and made it applicable to theentire lands situated in 15 different villages. It is only when theevidence had been adduced by the parties to the lis on theseissues, the Court would have been in a position to apply its mindobjectively as to which method should be applied fordetermination of the rate, i.e., whether belting system or flat ratesystem or different rates for different lands depending upon thequality of land situated in different villages etc. [Paras 37, 38][591-E-F]

2. The fair market value of the acquired land cannot bedecided in isolation on the basis of only one factor. There areseveral other factors, which govern the determination of the rate.These factors need to be proved with sufficient evidence. TheCourts have made sincere endeavor to determine the fair marketrate of the acquired land and while determining has taken intoaccount all relevant aspects of the case. It is the duty of thelandowners and the State to adduce proper and sufficient evidenceto enable the Courts to arrive at a reasonable and fair marketrate of the acquired land prevalent on the date of acquisition.[Para 39] [591-G-H; 592-A]

3. Both the parties failed to adduce sufficient evidence onseveral material issues, as a result, both the Courts below didnot record any finding on any of the material issues arising in thecase. The fair market rate of the acquired land can be determinedfor want of sufficient evidence. The Reference Court willaccordingly decide the rate of land as prevalent on the date ofacquisition on the merits. [Paras 41, 42 and 44] [592-C-D, F]

4. Since these cases are remanded to the Reference Courtfor fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law, theappellants (landowners) are entitled to get back the amount ofcourt fee paid by each appellant (landowner) on his appeal memobefore the High Court as also before this Court as provided underSection 13 of the Court Fees Act. The Registry is accordinglydirected to issue necessary certificate of refund of Court Feeamount, if paid by any of the landowner on his memo of appeal inthe High Court and in this Court under the Court Fees Act toenable the landowners to claim the refund of the court fee amountfrom the concerned State Treasury. [Paras 46, 47] [592-H; 593-A-B]

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2018] 1 S.C.R.

ACase Law Reference

(2010) 11 SCC 175referred to

Para 31

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 885 of

2018.

BFrom the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2016 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No. 1854 of 2012.

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 890, 896, 888, 889, 886, 887, 897-900, 909-912, 904, 891-895, 901-903, 905, 984-985, 1028-1034, 1140-1146,C920-952, 1035-1043, 914-915, 906-907, 1182, 987-992, 1049-1053,908, 972-981, 916-919, 913, 1057-1058, 953-971, 1012-1027, 986,1001-1002, 1180-1181, 1003-1009, 1055-1056, 982, 983, 1075, 1079,1078, 1010, 1011, 1138-1139, 1048, 1044-1047, 1068, 1066-1067, 1170-1179, 1059-1065, 1054, 1072, 1074, 1076, 1077, 1195-1196, 1073,1081, 1069, 1070-1071, 1150, 1080, 1132-1133, 1082-1131, 1134,D1183, 1186, 1184, 1185, 1187, 1190, 1197, 1188, 1189, 1169, 1136, 1135,1149, 1137, 1147-1148, 1151-1153, 1154-1158, 1191-1194, 1159-1168and 993-1000 2018.

Alok Sangwan, AAG, Brijender Chahar, Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.Ms. Jyoti Chahar, Karan Chahar, Shashi Bhushan, Vinay Garg, JasbirESingh Malik, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, Sunny Kadiyan, Dr. Monika Gusain,Ms. Arun K. Sinha, Mohinder Singh, Rakesh Singh, Sinha Shrey Nikhilesh,Ashwini Kumar, Raghav Kakar, Praveen Agrawal, Aditya Singh,Siddharth Mittal, Nayan Nepal, Ankit Swarup, Ms. Tanya Swarup, Ms.Shobha, Satyam Jyoti Saikia, Sandeep Kumar Lala, S.K. Sinha, RattanFLal, Ms. Seema Kashyap, Dr. M.S. Verma, N.N. Jha, Ms. RanjanaVohra, Mrs. Santosh Singh, Naresh Kaushik, Vardhman Kaushik, DevikSingh, Manoj Joshi, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Himanshu Gupta, Anil KumarTandale, Siddharth Jain, Gaurav Aggarwal, Umang Shankar, Gagan Gupta,Akshat Shrivastava, Inderjeet Yadav, Ms. Savita Devi, Shushant Mittal,Dr. Kailash Chand, Vijay K. Jain, Dr. Dinesh Rattan Bhardwaj, Dr.GAshutosh Garg, Siddharth Batra, Ravinder Kumar, Ajit Sharma, R.K.Shokeen, Roopansh Purohit, Siddharth Yadav, Ms. MadhumitaBhattacharjee, Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Anshuman Ashok, SwetankShantanu, Pratap Shankar, Ms. A. Shivani, Ms. Surabhi, Ram KishorSingh Yadav, Ankit Swarup, Ajit Sharma, Dr. Kailash Chand, Ms. UshaH

Nandini. V, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Ms. Priti Yadav, Vikas Verma, ShahidAkhtar, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the common final judgment andorder dated 05.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryanaat Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 1854 of 2012 etc.etc. whereby the HighCourt partly allowed the appeals filed by the appellants herein and therebyenhanced the compensation @ Rs.62,11,700/- per acre and otherstatutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referredto as “the Act”) and accordingly modified the Award dated 27.02.2012passed by the Reference Court, Gurgaon in LAC No. 551 of 2009/2011and other connected matters and, in consequence, dismissed the appealsfiled by the State.

3. In order to appreciate the entire controversy involved in thisbunch of appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts in detail.

4. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Act,the State of Haryana issued a Notification on 11.01.2005 for acquisitionof large chunk of land totaling around 520 acres 02 Kanals and 13.5Marlas situated in 15 villages in the State of Haryana. The acquisition inquestion was for the public purpose, namely, construction of ExpressHighway known as “KMP”. It was followed by another notificationissued on 17.11.2005 by the State under Section 4 of the Act for thesame public purpose in relation to the land situated in 4 villages.

5. The details of the acquisition, such as name of the villages andthe area of the land situated in each village are setout hereinbelow A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

6. This was followed by two declarations published by the StateDunder Section 6 of the Act. One was published on 31.05.2005. It was inrelation to first notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 11.01.2005whereas other declaration was published on 08.02.2006. It was in relationto second notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 17.11.2005.

7. This was followed by the initiation of the proceedings forEdetermination of compensation payable by the State to the landownerswhose lands were acquired in the acquisition proceedings in question.Notices to landowners were accordingly issued under Section 9 of theAct.

8. The Land Acquisition Officer held an enquiry as required underFSection 11 of the Act and passed separate awards in relation to the landssituated in different villages on 10.05.2006. The Land Acquisition Officerdetermined the uniform rate applicable to entire acquired land payableto every landowner. In his opinion, all the landowners, whose landswere acquired in the aforementioned 15 villages, were entitled to get thecompensation at the uniform rate of Rs.12,50,000/- per acre.G

9. Dissatisfied with the awards, the landowners filed theirobjections under Section 18 of the Act and prayed for making referenceto the Civil Court for fresh determination of the compensation and therate at which it was payable. As a consequence thereof, land referenceswere accordingly made and forwarded to the Reference Court for re-H

determination of the compensation under the Act. As many as 41 landreferences were made to the Reference Court.

10. By a common Award dated 27.02.2012, the Reference Court(Civil Court) partly allowed all the reference cases and enhanced therate of compensation at Rs.43,17,841/- per acre. In other words, theReference Court enhanced the rate from Rs.12,50,000/- per acre toRs.43,17,841/- per acre.

11. This determination gave rise to filing of first appeals by thelandowners as well as the State of Haryana in the High Court of Punjab& Haryana under Section 54 of the Act. As stated at the bar, in all, 556first appeals were filed in the High Court against the award of theReference Court out of which 258 appeals were filed by the landownersand remaining 298 appeals by the State.

12. So far as the appeals filed by the landowners were concerned,the landowners prayed therein for grant of more compensation thanwhat was awarded by the Reference Court. In other words, the case ofthe landowners in the High Court in support of their appeals was that theReference Court though was right in enhancing the rate of compensationbut was not right in awarding at the rate of Rs.43,17,841/- per acre.According to them, the rate of land determined by the Reference Courtshould have been much higher than Rs.43,17,841/- per acre because theacquired land had immense potential.

13. So far as the appeals filed by the State were concerned, thecase of the State in the appeals was that the Reference Court erred indetermining the market rate of the land at the rate of Rs.43,17,841/- peracre. According to the State, it was on higher side as compared to whatwas fixed by the LAO, i.e., Rs.12,50,000/- per acre which, in the factsand circumstances of the case, was just, proper and adequate with noscope of any further enhancement therein.

14. By impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed theappeals filed by the landowners and as a consequence thereof dismissedthe appeals filed by the State. The High Court while partly allowing thelandowners’ appeals further enhanced the rate of acquired land fromRs.43,17,841/- per acre to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.

15. In other words, in the opinion of the High Court, the fair marketrate of acquired land should be at Rs.62,11,700/- per acre and, therefore, ABC

D

E

F

G

H

Athe compensation be paid to each landowner for their acquired lands, atthe rate of Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.

16. Against this judgment of the High Court, the landowners aswell as the State both felt aggrieved and filed these appeals by way ofspecial leave in this Court.B

17. So far as the appeals filed by the landowners are concerned,their common case in their appeals is that the High Court was right inenhancing the rate of acquired land but was not right in confining it toRs.62,11,700/- per acre. According to them, the rate of acquired landshould have been much more than what was determined by the HighCCourt, i.e., Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.

18. So far as the appeals filed by the State are concerned, thecase of the State was that the High Court erred in further enhancing therate of acquired land to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. According to the State,there was no case made out for any further enhancement in the rate ofDthe acquired land and on the other hand, the appeals filed by the Statedeserved to be allowed by the High Court by reducing the rate of acquiredland fixed by the Reference Court and restoring the rate fixed by theLAO that being the fair market rate of the land rightly fixed by theLAO, i.e., Rs.12,50,000/- per acre.

E19. It is essentially with this factual background, the entirecontroversy on the question of re-determination of the rate of acquiredland payable to the landowners is made the subject-matter of theseappeals at the instance of the landowners and the State.

20. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in thisbunch of appeals, is whether the High Court was right in partly allowingFthe landowners’ appeals and thereby was justified in further enhancingthe rate of compensation from Rs.43,17,841/- per acre to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. In other words, the question is whether the High Court wasjustified in dismissing the State’s appeals and thereby was justified in notreducing the rate of acquired land fixed by the Reference Court andGrestoring the rate (Rs.12,50,000/- per acre) fixed by LAO.

21. To put it in yet another words, what is the fair market value ofthe acquired land in question - (1) Rs.12,50,000/- per acre as fixed bythe LAO; or (2) Rs.43,17,841/- per acre as fixed by the ReferenceCourt; or (3) Rs.62,11,700/- per acre as fixed by the High Court or lastly H

any other rate between Rs.12,50,000/- per acre and Rs.62,11,700/- peracre or more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre prevailing on the date ofacquisition i.e. 11.01.2005 and 17.11.2005.

22. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

23. As mentioned above, the submission of learned counsel forthe different landowners in support of their respective appeals was moreor less common. According to them, there is overwhelming evidenceadduced by the landowners to prove the potentiality of the land on thedate of acquisition (11.01.2005 and 17.11.2005) which, in fact, foundacceptance to the High Court while enhancing the rate of acquired land.

24. It was urged that having regard to the situation, proximity andthe surroundings of the acquired area which was already developedmuch prior to the date of the acquisition coupled with the fact that atleast one sale deed out of the four exemplar sale deeds filed by thelandowners (Exs-P1, P-10, P-12, P-13 and P-14) to prove the real marketvalue of the acquired land as contemplated under Section 23 of the Actshould have been made basis by the High Court for fixing the rate ofacquired land and had it been done then the rate of acquired land wouldhave been more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.

25. All the learned counsel for the landowners then took us throughthe evidence with a view to show the potentiality in the acquired land, itssituation, location, proximity with the well developed areas and itssurrounding places and on that basis urged that a case for furtherenhancement in the rate of the acquired land, i.e., more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre is made out and, therefore, this Court should allow the appealsfiled by the landowners and suitably enhance the rate of acquired landfor determining the compensation payable to each landowner.

26. In reply, learned counsel for the State of Haryana contendedthat the High Court erred in allowing the landowners’ appeals and furthererred in dismissing the State’s appeals.

27. According to learned counsel, the landowners’ appeals wereliable to be dismissed whereas the State’s appeals deserved to be allowedby the High Court by setting aside the award of the Reference Court.

28. His submission was that the High Court cursorily disposed ofthe appeals without deciding any issue though involved in the appealsthereby causing prejudice to the rights of the State in particular.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

29. Learned counsel then took us through the findings of the HighCourt and the issues raised by the State for proper determination of therates of the acquired land and on that basis pointed out the prejudicecaused due to casual approach of the High Court in deciding the appeals.

30. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalBof the entire record of the case, we are constrained to allow the appealsfiled by the State in part and set aside the impugned judgment of theHigh Court and also the award passed by the Reference Court and areinclined to remand the cases to the Reference Court (Civil Court) fordeciding the reference cases afresh on merits in the light of ourobservations/directions made hereinbelow.C

31. The need to remand these cases to the Reference Court hasoccasioned essentially for two reasons. First, it is clear from the perusalof the impugned judgment that the High Court essentially based its decisionor, we may say, proceeded to decide the appeals by making the decisionof this Court in Haryana State Industrial Development CorporationDvs Pran Sukh & Others [2010 (11) SCC 175] to be the basis to examinethe question as to whether the rate of acquired land fixed by the LAOand Reference Court is fair or not.

32. The High Court, however, noticed from the facts involved inthe case of Pran Sukh (supra) that the land situated in one village -Kasan along with its some adjoining villages was acquired on 15.11.1994Eby the State and this Court determined the compensation payable to thelandowners of Kasan village at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre.

33. The High Court felt that Rs.20,000,00/- per acre should betaken as the base price for determining the rate of acquired land inquestion. The High Court perhaps did this after having noticed that someFpart of the acquired land in these appeals is situated in Kasan villageand, therefore, it is ideal to take the rate of Kasan village land as basisfor determining the rate of acquired land also. The High Court accordinglygave annual increase of 8% to Rs.20,00,000/- and worked out the rateat Rs.62,11,700/- per acre for the entire acquired land in question byGapplying one uniform rate.

34. In our considered opinion, the approach of the High Court inthe facts of these cases does not appear to be right inasmuch as theHigh Court failed to take into consideration several material issues whicharose in these cases and had bearing on determination of the fair marketrate of the land in question under Section 23 of the Act.H

35. First, the acquired land, in these cases, was a huge chunk ofland measuring around 520 acres, 2 kanals and 13.5.marlas. Second, theentire acquired land was not situated in village Kasan but it was spreadover in 15 villages as detailed above. Third, there is no evidence toshow much less any finding of the High Court as to what was theactual distance among the 15 villages against one another, the location,situation/area of each village, whether any development had taken placeand, if so, its type, nature and when it took place in any of these villages,the potentiality and the quality of the acquired land situated in each village,its nature and the basis, the market rate of the land situated in eachvillage prior to the date of acquisition or in its near proximity, whethersmall piece of land or preferably big chunk of land, the actual distance ofeach village qua any other nearby big developed city, town or a place,whether any activity is being carried on in the nearby areas, their details.Fourth, whether the acquired land in the case of Pran Sukh (supra) invillage Kasan and the acquired land in question are similar in nature ordifferent and, if so, how and on what basis, their total distance etc.

36. These were, in our view, the issues which had material bearingwhile determining the rate of the acquired land in question.

37. The High Court, in the absence of any evidence on any ofthese issues, could not have determined one flat market rate of the acquiredland in question by applying one isolated rate of one land situated in onevillage Kasan and adding 8% annual increase from 1994 in such rateand made it applicable to the entire lands situated in 15 different villages.

38. In our opinion, it is only when the evidence had been adducedby the parties to the lis on the aforementioned issues, the Court wouldhave been in a position to apply its mind objectively as to which methodshould be applied for determination of the rate, i.e., whether belting systemor flat rate system or different rates for different lands depending uponthe quality of land situated in different villages etc.

39. The fair market value of the acquired land cannot be decidedin isolation on the basis of only one factor. There are several other factors,which govern the determination of the rate. These factors need to beproved with sufficient evidence. It must appear that the Courts havemade sincere endeavor to determine the fair market rate of the acquiredland and while determining has taken into account all relevant aspects ofthe case. It is the duty of the landowners and the State to adduce proper AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aand sufficient evidence to enable the Courts to arrive at a reasonableand fair market rate of the acquired land prevalent on the date ofacquisition.

40. Taking into consideration the aforesaid infirmities, which wehave noticed, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial in theseBcases has not been satisfactory. We cannot countenance the cursorymanner in which both the Courts below proceeded to determine themarket rate of the acquired land. It has certainly caused prejudice toboth the parties.

41. We do not blame any party for prosecuting their case in whollyCunsatisfactory manner but the fact remains that both the parties failed toadduce sufficient evidence on several material issues, as a result, boththe Courts below did not record any finding on any of the material issuesarising in the case.

42. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find it difficult atDthis stage to determine the fair market rate of the acquired land for wantof sufficient evidence. If we do, it will cause prejudice to the parties.We, therefore, refrain from doing so.

43. In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeals filedby the State, set aside the impugned judgment and the award of theEReference Court (Civil Courts) and remand the cases to the ReferenceCourt for deciding all reference cases afresh on merits keeping in viewour observations made supra.

44. Parties would be at liberty to adduce additional evidence insupport of their respective stand both oral and documentary. TheReference Court will accordingly decide the rate of land as prevalent onFthe date of acquisition in the light of law laid down by this Court strictlyin accordance with law uninfluenced by any finding of the High Courtand this Court on the merits.

45. Parties to appear before the Reference Court on 05.02.2018to enable the Reference Court to proceed in the cases and ensure itsGdisposal within one year from the date of appearance of the parties asan outer limit. The original record of the case, if requisitioned here, besent back forthwith to the concerned Reference Court.

46. Since we have remanded these cases to the Reference Courtfor fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law, the appellantsH

(landowners) are entitled to get back the amount of court fee paid byeach appellant (landowner) on his appeal memo before the High Courtas also before this Court as provided under Section 13 of the Court FeesAct.

A

47. The Registry is accordingly directed to issue necessarycertificate of refund of Court Fee amount, if paid by any of the landownerBon his memo of appeal in the High Court and in this Court under theCourt Fees Act to enable the landowners to claim the refund of thecourt fee amount from the concerned State Treasury.

48. If for any reason, it is not possible for the Registry of thisCourt to issue refund certificate of the Court Fee amount paid by thelandowners (appellants) on their memo of appeals filed in the High Courton their respective appeal memo then the requisite certificate shall beissued by the concerned High Court as per the Rules in favour of eachappellant (landowner) under the Court Fees Act.

C

Devika Gujral

Matter remanded to Reference Court.

D

E

F

G

H