Supreme Court of India
BHAG SINGH ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. on 5 May 2022
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
A
BHAG SINGH ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4070 - 4075 of 2012)
B
MAY 05, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6 and 18 – Acquisition ofland (situated in village Sohana) vide notification in question dated26-10-1990 – Compensation of Rs.4 lakhs per acre awarded byCReference Court, upheld by High Court – Challenge before SupremeCourt – Relevance, if any, of subsequent notification dated 11-11-1993, wherein compensation of Rs.8 lakhs per acre was awarded –Whether determination of market value subsequent to the notificationin question would be relevant – Held: Though appreciation in priceDcan be presumed, but the market value cannot be assessed byapplying suitable deduction in the market value of the land acquiredby a subsequent notification – When the later notification was issued,development activities had already been taken place in view of twoearlier notifications – It was not the percentage of increase in themarket value but increase due to development which had taken placeEon account of earlier notifications – Therefore, market value of theland in question cannot be based upon the land acquired videnotification dated 11-11-1993 and when there were other interveningnotifications – Alternatively, if one examines market value of landacquired vide earlier notification dated 4-2-1981 in village SohanaF(wherein compensation of Rs.1.25 lakhs per acre was awarded),after giving yearly increase of 10% per annum, even then the marketvalue arrived at (corresponding to year 1990) would be Rs.2.94lakhs per acre, which is not more than market value of Rs. 4 lakhsper acre determined by High Court – Reference Court had awardedcompensation of Rs.4 lakhs per acre in respect of land situated inGanother village (Village Lakhnaur), which was also acquired videsame notification – Such determination was not appealed againsteither by the land owners or by the State – High Court rightly reliedupon such determination to assess market value of land in questionat Rs.4 lakhs per acre – No interference warranted.H
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is an undisputed fact that there is no saleinstance in respect of land situated in Village Sohana after thefirst notification dated 4.2.1981 till the notification in questiondated 26.10.1990. Though, in respect of acquisition of land videnotification dated 11.11.1993, the compensation assessed is Rs.8lakhs per acre which is more than two years later and in between,there is acquisition of land vide notification dated 25.7.1991. Thequestion now is as to whether determination of market valuesubsequent to the notification would be relevant to determinethe market value of the land acquired more than two years earlier.It is found that though appreciation in price can be presumed,but the market value cannot be assessed by applying suitablededuction in the market value of the land acquired by a subsequentnotification. When the later notification is issued, the developmentactivities had already been taken place in view of the earlier twonotifications. Therefore, it is not the percentage of increase inthe market value but increase due to the development which hastaken place on account of earlier notifications. Therefore, marketvalue of the land cannot be based upon the land acquired videnotification dated 11.11.1993 and when there were othernotifications intervening on 26.10.1990 and 25.7.1991.[Para 14][149-E, G-H; 150-A-B]
2. Alternatively, even if one examines the market value ofthe land acquired vide notification dated 4.2.1981 in Village Sohanaafter giving yearly increase of 10% per annum, even then themarket value arrived at (corresponding to the year 1990) is notmore than market value determined by the High Court.[Paras 16, 17][150-C; 150-E]
3. The Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.4lakhs per acre in respect of land situated in another village (VillageLakhnaur), acquired vide the same notification. Suchdetermination has not been appealed against either by the landowners or by the State. The High Court has rightly relied uponsuch determination to assess the market value of the land at Rs.4lakhs per acre. [Para 18][150-F-G]
AB
C
DE
FG
H
ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.4070-4075 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2010 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFAs No4911 of 2009, 1778 of2007 and 5565, 5566, 3612, 3613 of 2008.B
With
Civil Appeal Nos.4076-4082, 4086 And 4083-4084 of 2012.
Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv., Jitesh Malik, Ms. AnishaDahiya, Satish Kumar, Satyapal Khushal Chand Pasi, Mrs. B. SunitaCRao, Advs. for the Appellants.
Shailesh Madiyal, Sudhanshu Prakash, Om Prakash Shukla, Ms.Vanshaja Shukla, Pratik Samajpati, Ms. Aniruddha Purushotham, A. K.Sharma, R. K. Rathore, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ms. Samten Doma, KuldipSingh, Yash Pal Dhingra, B. V. Balaram Das, Ms. Anukriti Pareek, B.DKrishna Prasad, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, 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. The present appeals are directed against orders dated 2.8.2010and 21.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana atEChandigarh whereby the appeals of the land owners and that of theUnion were dismissed, maintaining the compensation of Rs.4 lakhs peracre awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar inreference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894[1].
2. The notification dated 26.10.1990 was published intending toFacquire 32 acres 6 kanal and 3 marlas of land in Village Sohana and 90acres 7 kanal and 18 marlas of land in Village Lakhnaur. The saidnotification was followed by a notification dated 6.11.1991 issued underSection 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector awardedcompensation of Rs.1,75,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the market valueGdetermined by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners soughtreference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court awardedcompensation of Rs.4 lakhs per acre apart from the compensation forsuper-structures. The said award of the amount of compensation wasbased upon a judgment dated 11.10.2002 (Ex.P/13) by the Reference H1 For short, the ‘Act’
Court pertaining to the same notification in respect of land situated inVillage Lakhnaur.
3. Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, learned senior counsel appearingfor the land owners in Civil Appeal Nos. 4076-4082 of 2012 and CivilAppeal Nos. 4083-4084 of 2012 argued that in respect of land acquiredvide subsequent notification dated 25.7.1991 for the land situated in VillageSohana, the Reference Court had awarded a compensation ofRs.5,96,000/- and in respect of another notification dated 11.11.1993, inrespect of land situated in Village Sohana, the Reference Court hasawarded Rs.6,96,000/- per acre. It was further contended that in termsof acquisition of land vide notification dated 27.9.1988 of Village Kambali,Rs.5,96,000/- per acre was awarded as compensation by the ReferenceCourt which was affirmed by the High Court in first appeal. The presentacquisition is more than 2 years later, therefore, the land owners areentitled to compensation on the basis of the amount of compensationawarded by the High Court in addition to the increase in prices for theperiod of 2 years. It was argued that Village Kambali and Village Sohanaare adjoining villages, therefore, the market value determined in respectof Village Kambali is a reasonable yardstick for determination of thecompensation in respect of land situated in Village Sohana.
4. On behalf of the State, it was argued that total land admeasuring123 acres 6 kanals 1 marla was subject matter of acquisition videnotification dated 26.10.1990 out of which 262 kanals and 3 marlas isthe land situated in Village Sohana and 728 kanals and 6 marlas of landis situated in Village Lakhnaur. Out of the total land acquired, 49 acres 4kanals and 18 marlas have been utilized by the Union for the purpose ofBorder Security Force whereas the rest of the land has been utilized bythe State. The Reference Court has relied upon determination ofcompensation vide Ex.P/13 in respect of land in Village Lakhnaur whichis part of the same notification by which the land in Village Sohana wasacquired. Therefore, the award of market value of land by the ReferenceCourt, as affirmed by the High Court, does not suffer from any error orillegality.
5. The appellants have filed a Lay-out Plan (Annexure P/20) beforethis Court. It shows that the land situated in Village Sohana and VillageMataur are close to each other whereas land situated at Village Kambaliand kambala are at quite a distance located near the ChandigarhInternational Airport. As per Map of Survey of India, the village Kumbra A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Ais the next village located on east of village Sohana whereas villageMouli is situated on south-east of Sohana. Village Kambala is furtheraway from Mauli. Kambali is located further on south-east. The distancefrom Sohana to Kambala and Kambali is more than 2 kms. Therefore,the compensation awarded for the land situated at Village Kambali cannotbe considered as a reasonable yardstick for determining the market valueBof land situated in Village Sohana.
6. The land of Village Sohana has been subject matter of acquisitionfor a number of times. First acquisition was in pursuance of a notificationdate 4.2.1981 under Section 4 of the Act. In respect of such land acquiredin Village Mataur and Sohana, the compensation awarded by the HighCCourt was Rs.1,25,000/- per acre vide Ex.P/8.
7. Another notification under Section 4 of the Act was publishedon 25.7.1991 in respect of acquisition of Land situated in Village Sohana.Compensation of Rs.5,96,000/- per acre was awarded by the learnedReference Court relying upon the determination of compensation of landDacquired in Village Kambali wherein the High Court in State of Punjabv. Mohinder Singh & Ors.[2] awarded compensation @ Rs.5,96,000/-per acre. The High Court’s judgment was based upon the fact that VillageKambali and Village Sohana are adjoining to each other and in closeproximity. The award of the Reference Court is subject matter ofEchallenge before the High Court in RFA No. 1786 of 2000 at the instanceof the State and is pending final decision. The land owners have filedcross-objections in the said appeal.
8. Thereafter, the land situated at Village Sohana was also acquiredvide notification dated 11.11.1993. The Reference Court awardedFRs.6,96,000/- per acre. However, the amount of compensation wasenhanced to Rs.8 lakhs per acre in Harbachan Kaur & Ors. v. Stateof Punjab[3] vide order dated 23.8.2006.
9. In respect of land acquired vide notification under Section 4 ofthe Act dated 26.10.1990, the Reference Court relied upon determinationGof compensation vide Ex.P/13 by the Reference Court in respect of landin Village Lakhnaur which forms part of the same notification by whichthe land in Village Sohana was acquired. The said award had attainedfinality as no appeal was preferred against it.
2 RFA No. 625 of 1994H3 RFA No. 2322 of 1998
10. The argument is that land situated in Village Kambali is situatedin close proximity of land situated in Sohana, therefore, compensationassessed by the High Court in Mohinder Singh can be treated as basemarket value. As observed above, the two villages Kambali and Sohanaare not in close proximity but located at substantial distance as per theMap of Survey of India as also the lay-out plan produced by the landlord.Therefore, such judgment is not a helpful guide to determinecompensation.
11. Another appeal arising out of notification dated 25.7.1991 ispending before the High Court. Therefore, it would not be proper todiscuss the said award of the Reference Court.
12. In respect of the land acquired vide notification dated11.11.1993, the High Court has awarded compensation @ Rs.8 lakhsper acre. The argument is that suitable deduction should be made fromsuch determination of the market value of the land acquired videnotification dated 26.10.1990.
13. The Reference Court as well as the High Court has given afinding of fact that no sale instance produced by the parties are relevantfor determining the market value. Therefore, the only relevant basis isthe previous judgments.
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is anundisputed fact that there is no sale instance in respect of land situatedin Village Sohana after the first notification dated 4.2.1981 till thenotification in question dated 26.10.1990. The absence of sale deedsshows that there was no sale and purchase of the land which couldshow the potentiality of use of the land for residential, commercial orindustrial purposes. The Village Kambali and Kambala are not adjoiningto Village Sohana as per the Lay Out plan produced by the appellantsthemselves. The nearest village from Village Sohana is Mataur and notVillage Kambali or Kambala. Therefore, the market value determined inrespect of Village Kambali cannot be considered for determination ofcompensation. Though, in respect of acquisition of land vide notificationdated 11.11.1993, the compensation assessed is Rs.8 lakhs per acre whichis more than two years later and in between, there is acquisition of landvide notification dated 25.7.1991.
15. The question now is as to whether determination of marketvalue subsequent to the notification would be relevant to determine themarket value of the land acquired more than two years earlier. We findthat though appreciation in price can be presumed, but the market valuecannot be assessed by applying suitable deduction in the market value of A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
Athe land acquired by a subsequent notification. When the later notificationis issued, the development activities had already been taken place inview of the earlier two notifications. Therefore, it is not the percentageof increase in the market value but increase due to the developmentwhich has taken place on account of earlier notifications. Therefore,market value of the land cannot be based upon the land acquired videBnotification dated 11.11.1993 i.e., more than two years later of thenotification in question and when there were other notifications interveningon 26.10.1990 and 25.7.1991.
16. Alternatively, even if we examine the market value of the landacquired vide notification dated 4.2.1981 in Village Sohana after givingCyearly increase of 10% per annum, the increase in the base value wouldbe as under:
D
E
17. Thus, even then the market value is not more than marketvalue determined by the High Court.
18. The Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.4 lakhsFper acre in respect of land situated in Village Lakhnaur, acquired videthe same notification. Such determination has not been appealed againsteither by the land owners or by the State. The High Court has rightlyrelied upon such determination to assess the market value of the land atRs.4 lakhs per acre. In view of the said fact, we do not find any error inGthe orders passed by the High Court which may warrant interference inthe present appeals.
19. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit inthe appeals. The same are dismissed.
HBibhuti Bhushan Bose