JAI PARKASH ETC ETC versus UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH ETC ETC on 10 March 2022

1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group ofappeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

E

2. The relevant facts which are necessary for determination ofthe present appeals in a nutshell are as under:- 2.1 In all these cases a notification under Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 19.03.1999 by which the ChandigarhFAdministration sought to acquire 30.78 acres of land situated in VillageHallo Majra, HadbastNo.219 and 32.92 acres of land situated in VillageBehlana, HadbastNo.231, Union Territory, Chandigarh, for use byDefence Security Forces.That a notification under Section 6 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 23.03.1999.The Land AcquisitionOfficer declared the award dated 18.01.2000 and assessed the marketGvalue of the acquired lands of both the villages @ Rs.6,87,837/- peracre. That on reference, the learned Reference Court determined andenhanced the market value of the acquired landsof both the villages @Rs.9,65,000/- per acre. The judgment and award passed by the ReferenceCourt determining the market value of the lands @ Rs.9,65,000/- perHacre was the subject matter of appeals before the High Court.

2.2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that before the ReferenceCourt, the original claimants – appellants herein relied upon the saledeeds produced and exhibited as P-43, P-44 and P-73 and P-74. However,the learned Reference Court rejected the said sale transactions on theground that the said sale transactions are pertaining to small plots.Therefore, the learned Reference Court discarded the same. Beforethe High Court also the original claimants heavily relied upon the saleinstances at exhibit P-43, P-44 and P-73 and P-74.By the impugnedcommon impugned judgment and order, the High Court has held that theReference Court ought to have considered the sale transactions exhibitP-73 and P-74 and ought to have determined the market value of thelands acquired, after adopting some reasonable cut. After taking theaverage price of both the sale deeds – exhibit P-73 and P-74, the HighCourt determined the average price of Rs.22,57,000/- per acre. Thatthereafter after giving a cut of 50%, the High Court has determined themarket value of the acquired lands at Rs.11,28,580/- (round off toRs.11,30,000/-) per acre.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court in respective appeals,determining/assessing the market value of the lands acquired atRs.11,30,000/- per acre, the original claimants have preferred the presentappeals.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length.

4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the High Court hasrelied upon the sale instances exhibit P-73 and P-74 against which noappeals have been preferred by the Chandigarh Administration.Therefore, the findings recorded by the High Court that the sale instancesi.e. exhibit P-73 and P-74 can be best exemplars and which can beconsidered for determining and assessing the market value of the landsacquired, has attained finality.

5. Now the next question which would arise for consideration,would be,whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the HighCourt is justified in applying a deductionof 50% while determining/assessingmarket price?

5.1 It is to noted that as such nothing has been discussed by theHigh Court while applying a deduction of 50%. Therefore, in the normal A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acourse the appeals are required to be remanded to the High Court forapplying the proper cut. However, learned counsel appearing on behalfof the respective parties have prayed and requested to make theappropriate percentage of deduction by this Court instead of remandingthe matters to the High Court.

B6. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties and considering the location of the lands acquired andthat part of the acquired land abuts the National Highway No. 21 and atthe same time, the sale instances exhibit P-73 & P-74 pertaintocomparatively smaller plots as compared to the acquired lands (in allapproximately 63.70 acres of lands) a reasonable percentage of deductionCis required to be made while determining/assessing the market price.

7. Looking to the location and the purpose for which the landshave been acquired, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,we are of the opinion that if a deductionof 40 % is applied instead of50% as applied by the High Court, it will meet the end of justice and itDcan be said to be a fair market value for the acquired lands. Therefore,if a deductionof 40% is applied, it will come to Rs.13,54,200/- per acre.Thepresent appeals are required to be allowed in part to the aforesaid extent.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all thesepresent appeals are allowed in part. The impugned judgments and ordersEpassed by the High Court in respective Regular First Appeals are herebymodified to the extent of awarding Rs.13,54,200/- per acre towardscompensation for the acquired lands (instead of Rs.11,30,000/- per acreas assessed and awarded by the High Court). The land owners shallalso be entitled to all the statutory benefits available under the Act on theFenhanced amount of compensation. However, it is observed that so faras the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.1805-1806 of 2022, arising out ofthe impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in RFANo.1253 of 2004,is concerned, they shall not be entitled to any intereston 1033 days’ delay on the enhanced amount of compensation butsolatium is payable on the enhanced amount of compensation for theGperiod of delay i.e.,for the period of 1033 days in filing the Special LeavePetition before this Court. All these appeals are partly allowed to theaforesaid extent. In view of the above there shall be no order as tocosts.

HBibhuti Bhushan Bose