Supreme Court of India
HARI RAM (DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. AND ANR. versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER GURGAON AND ORS. on 20 October 2022
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
AHARI RAM (DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. AND ANR.
v.
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR CUMDISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER GURGAON AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7762 of 2022)
B
OCTOBER 20, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4 – Compensation –Enhancement of – Land in question came to be acquired under theCprovisions of the 1894 Act for setting up of Liquified PetroleumGas Plant – Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded thecompensation @ Rs.5,30,000 per acre for irrigated lands and Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for non-irrigated lands – Reference Court fixedcompensation at Rs.5,30,000/- per acre for both irrigated as wellDas the non-irrigated land – The High Court enhanced the amountof compensation to Rs.7,00,000/- per acre – Before the High Courtand the Reference Court, the landowners had heavily relied uponthe sale exemplars/sale instances produced as Ex. P1 to Ex.P4 –The High Court discarded the sale instances Exs. P1, P3 and P4relied upon on behalf of the landowners by observing that there isEa price variation between the sale deeds produced as Ex. P1 andthe sale deeds produced as Exs. P3 and P4, thus opined that saledeeds produced as Exs. P3 and P4 are not genuine – On appeal,held: The sale deeds Exs. P1, P3 and P4 were by and/or in favourof a company and the variation in the prices mentioned in the Exs.FP1, P3 and P4 cannot be a ground to hold Exs. are not genuine –Exs. P3 and P4 are with respect to the smaller parcel of landconsidering that there has to be a proper deduction – Looking atLocation, potentiality and the purpose of acquired lands, not muchdevelopment was required like the housing scheme and/or as requiredfor other similar purposes, therefore, if 35% is deducted consideringGthe evaluation with respect to Sale Deed at Ex. P4, the same can besaid to be just, reasonable and proper compensation to the originallandowners – Therefore, the original landowners shall be entitledto Rs. 12,16,800/- per acre towards compensation for the landsacquired – High Court judgment and order is modified to the saidHextent.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The reasoning given by the High Courtdiscarding the sale exemplars/sale instances produced as Exs.P1, P3 and P4, this court is of the opinion that the High Court hascommitted a very serious error in discarding the sale instances/sale exemplars produced as Exs. P3 and P4. The High Court hasnot properly appreciated the fact that so far as the sale deed Ex.P1 is concerned, the same was executed by a company in favourof a private person and on the other hand, the sale deeds Exs. P3and P4 were executed in favour of a company. Therefore, whenafter purchasing the land, a company had sold the land the pricesare bound to be higher. Merely because the sale deeds Exs. P1,P3 and P4 were by and/or in favour of the company and there wasvariation in the prices mentioned in the Exs. P1, P3 and P4 cannotbe a ground to hold that the sale exemplars Exs. P3 and P4 arenot genuine and therefore required to be discarded. [Para 7][668-A-C]
2. It will be safe to rely upon and/or consider the sale deedsproduced as Exs. P3 and P4. However, at the same time,considering the fact that the Sale Deeds produced as Exs. P3 andP4 are with respect to the smaller parcel of land, there has to bea proper deduction on the ground of smaller area of the land anddevelopment. Looking to the location and the potentiality of thelands acquired and as the acquired lands were required to beused for Liquified Petroleum Gas Plant, not much developmentwas required like the housing scheme and/or as required for othersimilar purposes, therefore, if 35% is deducted considering theevaluation with respect to Sale Deed at Ex. P4, the same can besaid to be just, reasonable and proper compensation to the originallandowners. Therefore, the original landowners shall be entitledto Rs. 12,16,800/- per acre towards compensation for the landsacquired. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court is required to bemodified. [Para 8][668-D-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7762of 2022.
A
B
C
D
EF
G
AFrom the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2019 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No. 597 of 2004.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7764, 7766, 7765, 7763, 7770, 7771, 7767, 7768,7772, 7769 of 2022.B
Rakesh Dahiya, Aditya Dahiya, Satyavan Kudalwal, PulkitSrivastava, Siddharth Mittal, Prabhat Kumar, Kshitiz Chauhan, SahilAmarnath, Ms. Shilpa G. Mittal, Gaurav Kejriwal, Abdul Hamid,Abhimanyu Mahajan, Ms. Anubha Goel, Nagarkatti Kartik Uday,Ms. Prakriti Joshi, Mayank Joshi. Advs. for the Appellants.C
Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Priya Puri, Rishabh Sharma,Chandratanay Chaube, Ranjay Dubey, Sharad Puri, Samar Vijay Singh,Vipin Singh Bansal, Ms. Amrita Verma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DM. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana atChandigarh in First Appeal Nos. 597 of 2004 and other allied first appeals,by which the High Court has partly allowed the said first appeals andEhas enhanced the amount of compensation for the lands acquired to Rs.7,00,000/- per acre for irrigated and non-irrigated lands, the originallandowners have preferred the present appeals.
2. That the lands in question situated within the revenue estate ofVillage Bhondsi, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon came to be acquiredFunder the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafterreferred to as the “Act, 1894”) for setting up of Liquified Petroleum GasPlant at Bhondsi. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on19.06.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded thecompensation @ Rs. 5,30,000/- per acre for irrigated lands andRs. 2,00,000/- per acre for non-irrigated lands. The Reference CourtGfixed the compensation at Rs. 5,30,000/- per acre for both the irrigatedas well as the non-irrigated lands. By the impugned common judgmentand order, the High Court has determined and enhanced the amount ofcompensation to Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre. Feeling aggrieved anddissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed byHthe High Court determining the compensation for the lands acquired @
Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre, the landowners have preferred the present appealsfor enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of thelandowners as well as Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the beneficiaries – Indian Oil Corporation.
4. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by theHigh Court and even from the judgment and award passed by theReference Court, it appears that the landowners heavily relied upon thesale exemplars/sale instances produced as Ex. P1 to Ex. P10. However,the landowners have heavily relied upon the sale exemplars / sale instancesproduced as Ex. P1 to Ex. P4, which are as under:-
5. The acquiring body and the Indian Oil Corporation relied uponthe sale exemplars/sale instances produced as Ex. R1 to Ex. R13, moreparticularly, Ex. R.12, which was also relied upon and considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, the particulars of Ex. R12 is as under:-
6. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Courthas discarded the sale exemplars/sale instances Exs. P1, P3 and P4relied upon on behalf of the landowners by observing that the said saledeeds are by or in favour of the company, M/s. Orient Express Pvt. Ltd.and there is a price variation between the sale deeds produced as Ex.P1 and the sale deeds produced as Exs. P3 and P4. Therefore, the HighCourt opined that the sale deeds/sale exemplars produced as Exs. P3and P4 are not genuine. That thereafter, relying upon and consideringthe sale exemplar/sale deed produced as Ex. R12, the High Court haspartly allowed the appeals and enhanced the amount of compensation toRs. 7,00,000/- per acre, hence the present appeals are at the instance ofthe original landowners.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties and having gone through the impugned common A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Ajudgment and order passed by the High Court and the reasoning givenby the High Court discarding the sale exemplars/sale instances producedas Exs. P1, P3 and P4, we are of the opinion that the High Court hascommitted a very serious error in discarding the sale instances/saleexemplars produced as Exs. P3 and P4. The High Court has not properlyappreciated the fact that so far as the sale deed Ex. P1 is concerned, theBsame was executed by M/s. Orient Express Pvt. Ltd. in favour of aprivate person and on the other hand, the sale deeds Exs. P3 and P4were executed in favour of M/s Orient Express Pvt. Ltd. Therefore,when after purchasing the land, a company had sold the land the pricesare bound to be higher. Merely because the sale deeds Exs. P1, P3 andCP4 were by and/or in favour of the company and there was variation inthe prices mentioned in the Exs. P1, P3 and P4 cannot be a ground tohold that the sale exemplars Exs. P3 and P4 are not genuine and thereforerequired to be discarded.
8. In view of the above, it will be safe to rely upon and/or considerDthe sale deeds produced as Exs. P3 and P4. However, at the same time,considering the fact that the Sale Deeds produced as Exs. P3 and P4are with respect to the smaller parcel of land, there has to be a properdeduction on the ground of smaller area of the land and development.Looking to the location and the potentiality of the lands acquired and asthe acquired lands were required to be used for Liquified Petroleum GasEPlant, not much development was required like the housing scheme and/or as required for other similar purposes, therefore, if 35% is deductedconsidering the evaluation with respect to Sale Deed at Ex. P4, thesame can be said to be just, reasonable and proper compensation to theoriginal landowners. Therefore, the original landowners shall be entitledFto Rs. 12,16,800/- per acre towards compensation for the lands acquired.To the aforesaid extent, the impugned common judgment and order passedby the High Court is required to be modified.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all theseappeals succeed in part. The impugned common judgment and orderGpassed by the High Court is hereby modified and it is observed and heldthat the original landowners shall be entitled to the compensation @ Rs.12,16,800/- for the lands acquired with all other statutory benefits andthe interest, which may be available under the provisions of the Act,1894.
H
HARI RAM (DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. v. LAND ACQUISITIONCOLLECTOR CUM DIST. REVENUE OFFICER GURGAON [M. R. SHAH, J.]
All these appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.
Ankit Gyan(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
Appeals partly allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H