Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. versus SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS. on 10 February 2023
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 443
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
V.
SUBHASH CHANDER & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 859 - 899 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 10, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Justcompensation –Determination of – Acquisition of land for publicpurpose – High Court awarded compensation for lands acquiredvide notification dated 13.01.2010 at Rs.2,98,54,720/- per acre withall statutory benefits – Whether while determining compensation,the High Court materially erred in taking into consideration and/orrelying upon the earlier judgment of Supreme Court in State ofHaryana Vs. Ram Chander which awarded Rs.2,38,00,000/- per acrefor lands acquired vide notification dated 25.01.2008 and thengranting a cumulative increase of 12 % – Held: In its’ said earlierdecision, Supreme Court determined compensation atRs.2,38,00,000/- per acre with the specific observation that thejudgment may not be treated as a precedent – However, even onmerits also, the Supreme Court considered and accepted saleinstances produced on behalf of land owners ranging between 2007and 2008 – Therefore, as such determination of compensation atRs. 2,38,00,000/- per acre with respect to land acquired videnotification issued on 25.01.2008 can be said to be the base andconsidering the time gap between 2008 notification and 2010notification, a suitable enhancement ranging between 8% to 15 ispermissible – In the facts and circumstances of the case andconsidering the sale instances produced on record, instead of 12%enhancement on Rs.2,38,00,000/- a 10% increase can be said to bejust compensation and may meet the ends of justice – In that viewof the matter, market value for the lands acquired vide notificationdated 13.01.2010 will be at Rs. 2,87,98,000/- per acre – Landowners concerned accordingly entitled to compensation at Rs.2,87,98,000/- per acre with all other statutory benefits availableunder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
443
A
B
CD
EF
GH
APehlad Ram v. HUDA (2014) 14 SCC 778 and RamraoShankar Tapsevs Maharashtra Industrial DevelopmentCorporation & Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 563 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
B(2022) 7 SCC 563relied onPara 5.2(2014) 14 SCC 778relied onPara 6
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 859-899 of 2023.
C
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2019 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA Nos.1100, 1215, 1611,1612, 1613, 1614, 2455, 2456, 2869, 3332, 3333, 3334, 3360, 3361, 4731,5589, 5726, 6360 of 2013, 1021, 1022 of 2014, 2350, 7075, 7103 of 2015,224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238,D309, 732 and 1158 of 2016.
With
Civil Appeal No.900 of 2023.
Nikhil Goel, Sr. AAG, Dr. Monika Gusain, Gagan Gupta, SiddharthEMittal, Kshitiz Chauhan, Ms. Shilpa G. Mittal, Ms. Manju Jetley, VishnuKant, Pravin Bahadur, Amir Agarwal, Saurabh Kumar, Ms. KanikaGomber, Anjani, Pardeep Dahiya, Ms. Mahima Benipuri, Atri RoyChowdhary, Abhay, Deepak Goel, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byF
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
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 dated 18.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjaband Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal (RFA) No. 1100/G2013 and other allied first appeals, by which, the High Court has allowedthe said first appeals in part preferred by the original land owners andhas enhanced the amount of compensation for the lands acquired atRs. 2,98,54,720/- per acre with all other statutory benefits, the State ofHaryana has preferred the present appeals.
H
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are asunder: -
H
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are asunder: - 2.1 That approximately 58 acres of large chunk of lands situatedat village Kherki, Majra came to be acquired for the public purposeunder the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The landacquisition officer declared the awards. At the instance of the originalland owners, references under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 were made.The reference court enhanced the compensation for notification dated13.01.2010 to Rs. 1,56,24,000/- per acre from Rs. 60 lakhs per acre asawarded by the land acquisition officer. The appeals preferred by theState against the judgment and award passed by the reference courtdetermining the compensation at Rs. 1,56,24,000/- came to be dismissed.However, by the impugned judgment and order taking into considerationthe amount of compensation enhanced by the High Court which cameto be modified by this Court to Rs. 2,38,00,000/- per acre with respect tothe lands acquired in the month of January, 2008 and granting 12%cumulative increase, the High Court has partly allowed the appealspreferred by the land owners and determined and awarded thecompensation at Rs. 2,98,54,720/- per acre.
2.2 Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court determining and awarding the compensation for the landsacquired vide notification dated 13.01.2010 at Rs. 2,98,54,720/- per acre,the State of Haryana has preferred the present appeals.
3. We have heard Shri Nikhil Goel, learned AAG, appearing onbehalf of the State of Haryana and learned counsel appearing on behalfof the respective original land owners.
4. Shri Nikhil Goel, learned AAG, appearing on behalf of the Statehas vehemently submitted that while determining the compensation atRs. 2,98,54,720/- per acre for the lands acquired vide notification dated13.01.2010, the High Court has materially erred in taking intoconsideration and/or relying upon the judgment of this Court passed inCivil Appeal Nos. 11814-11864 of 2017 [State of Haryana Vs. RamChander (2017 SCC OnLine SC 1869)] with respect to the landsacquired vide notification issued in the month of January, 2008.
4.1 It is submitted that in the judgment and order passed by thisCourt in Civil Appeal Nos. 11814-11864 of 2017, this Court has specifically A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aobserved and held that the determination of compensation vide the saidjudgment at Rs. 2,38,00,000/- per acre shall not be treated as a precedentin any other case. It is submitted that therefore, while passing theimpugned judgment and order the High Court has materially erred intaking into consideration the amount awarded by this Court vide judgmentand order passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 11814-11864 of 2017 atBRs. 2,38,00,000/.
4.2 It is further submitted by Shri Nikhil Goel, learned AAG,appearing on behalf of the State that in the present case the prices of theland were decreasing which was taken note of by this Court.
C
4.3 It is further submitted that even otherwise considering thefact that with respect to the very village, lands came to be acquired from2008 onwards and therefore, the prices of the lands were artificiallyincreased. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court has materiallyerred in giving 12% rise on Rs. 2,38,00,000/- per acre which has beenawarded for notification dated 25.01.2008.D4.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the abovedecision, it is prayed to allow the present appeals.
5. While opposing the present appeals, learned counsel appearingon behalf of the land owners has submitted that once the appealsEpreferred by the State were dismissed and the impugned commonjudgment and order was passed in the appeals preferred by the landowners, it is not open for the State now to challenge the impugnedcommon judgment and order passed by the High Court.
F5.1 It is further submitted that even otherwise considering thesale instances produced on record right from 09.03.2007 till 31.03.2008there was increase in prices and therefore, the High Court has notcommitted any error in granting the enhancement of 12% on Rs.2,38,00,000/- per acre. It is submitted that as such no concrete evidencehas been laid down or no contrary sale instance were placed on recordGby the acquiring body showing the decrease in the market value between2008 and 2010.
5.2 Making the above submissions and relying upon the recentdecision of this Court in the case of Ramrao Shankar Tapse Vs.Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.;H
(2022) 7 SCC 563, by which, it was observed that a cumulative increaseof 10 to 15% per year in the market value of land may be accepted, it isprayed to dismiss the present appeals.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length. We have gone through the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court and we have also gonethrough and considered the earlier decision of this Court in the case ofCivil Appeal Nos. 11814-11864 of 2017 by which with respect to thelands acquired vide notification dated 25.01.2008, this Court determinedthe compensation at Rs. 2,38,00,000/- per acre. In the said judgment andorder, this Court has specifically observed that the said judgment maynot be treated as a precedent. However, it is required to be noted thateven on merits also, this Court considered and accepted the sale instancesproduced on behalf of the land owners ranging between 2007 and 2008.Therefore, as such determination of the compensation at Rs. 2,38,00,000/- per acre with respect to the land acquired vide notification issued on25.01.2008 can be said to be the base and considering the time gapbetween 2008 notification and 2010 notification, a suitable enhancementranging between 8% to 15 % is given which is held to be permissible asper the catena of decisions of this Court right from the decision in thecase of Pehlad Ram Vs. HUDA; (2014) 14 SCC 778 up to the recentdecision of this Court in the case of Ramrao Shankar Tapase (supra).However, at the same time considering the fact that in the present casewith respect to the very village, the acquisition proceedings came to beinitiated in the month of January, 2008, it will not be safe and/or prudentto grant the cumulative increase of 12%. In the facts and circumstancesof the case and even considering the sale instances produced on record,we are of the opinion that if instead of 12% enhancement on Rs.2,38,00,000/-, 10% increase is accepted it can be said to be a justcompensation and it may meet the ends of justice.
7. In that view of the matter, the market value of the land inquestion for the lands acquired vide notification dated 13.01.2010 will beat Rs. 2,87,98,000/- per acre.
8. Resultantly, the impugned common judgment and order passedby the High Court is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent byawarding the compensation at Rs. 2,87,98,000/- per acre. Present appealsare partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the original A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aland owners shall be entitled to the compensation at Rs. 2,87,98,000/-per acre with all other statutory benefits which may be available underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant – State of Haryana ishereby directed to deposit and/or pay the compensation to the originalland owner(s) at the market value of Rs. 2,87,98,000/- along with allother statutory benefits within a period of six weeks from today afterBdeducting whatever amount is already paid. Present appeals are partlyallowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
C