RADHEY SHAM versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS on 17 October 2022

1022

[2022] 14 S.C.R. 1022

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 14 S.C.R.

RADHEY SHAM

A

v.

THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 7391 of 2022)

BOCTOBER 17, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]

Land Acquisition: s.4 notification issued on 29.08.2005 –Award made under s.11 – Reference made at the instance of landowners for enhancement of compensation - Reference court byCjudgment dated 31.05.2014 assessed market value at Rs.1000 persquare yard – Dissatisfied land owners filed appeals before HighCourt for enhancement of compensation – State accepted judgmentdated 31.05.2014 – High Court allowed appeals filed by land ownersand assessed the market value of acquired land at Rs.4173 perDsquare yard – Both landowners as well as the State preferred appealsbefore this Court – By judgment dated 16.05.2018, this Courtallowed the appeals preferred by the State and set aside the judgmentpassed by the High Court and remitted the matter to the High Courtfor fresh consideration – On remand, High Court remitted matter toReference Court by observing that some sale instances/saleEexemplars relied upon on behalf of the landowners were not takeninto consideration by Reference Court – On remand, ReferenceCourt assessed amount of compensation at Rs. 750/- per squareyard – Landowners as well as the State filed appeals before HighCourt – By the impugned judgment, High Court dismissedFlandowners appeals and allowed the State’s appeals and restoredthe award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the amountof compensation reduced between Rs. 166/- per square yard to Rs.200/- per square yard – Hence instant appeals by the originallandowners – Held: It is not in dispute that so far as the StateGovernment is concerned, the State did not challenge the commonGjudgment dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Reference Court assessingthe market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- per squareyard and it was the landowners who preferred appeals before theHigh Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation – Non-filing of the appeals by the State against the common judgment datedH31.05.2014 was also taken note of by this Court while disposing of the appeals by common judgment dated 16.05.2018 – Evenotherwise, on a fair reading of the judgment and order dated16.05.2018 passed by this Court and the subsequent order dated28.08.2019 passed by the High Court, the matter was remanded tothe Reference Court to consider the sale deeds for the purpose ofenhancement of the amount of compensation, while considering thesale deeds relied upon by the landowners – In any case, once thejudgment and order passed by the Reference Court dated 31.05.2014determining the compensation at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard attainedfinality so far as the State is concerned, the landowners shall beentitled to the compensation at least at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard– Now so far as the submission on behalf of the original landownersto enhance the amount of compensation beyond Rs. 1,000/- persquare yard is concerned, most of the sale deeds relied upon by thelandowners were much prior to the date of s.4 notification (rangingbetween 1992 to 1994) – Some of the sale deeds were post s.4notification – Only three to four sale deeds were nearer to s.4notification – However, all those sale deeds were with respect tosmall area of lands and even the price is also at variance – Therefore,it was not safe to determine the compensation relying upon thosesale deeds which are nearer to s.4 notification – The claimants/landowners entitled to compensation of the acquired land at leastat Rs. 1,000/- per square yard.

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The landowners shall be entitled to thecompensation considering the market value of the acquired landat least at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard as per the earlier judgmentand order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Reference Court. It isnot in dispute that so far as the State Government is concerned,the State did not challenge the common judgment and order dated31.05.2014 passed by the Reference Court assessing the marketvalue of the acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard and itwas the landowners who preferred appeals before the High Courtfor enhancement of the amount of compensation. Non-filing ofthe appeals by the State against the common judgment and orderdated 31.05.2014 was also taken note of by this Court whiledisposing of the appeals vide common judgment and order dated16.05.2018. Even otherwise, on a fair reading of the judgment ABC

DE

F

G

H

Aand order dated 16.05.2018 passed by this Court and thesubsequent order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the High Court,the matter was remanded to the Reference Court to considerthe sale deeds for the purpose of enhancement of the amount ofcompensation, while considering the sale deeds relied upon bythe landowners. In any case, once the judgment and order passedBby the Reference Court dated 31.05.2014 determining thecompensation at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard attained finality sofar as the State is concerned, the landowners shall be entitled tothe compensation at least at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard. [Paras5, 6][1089-B-F]C

2. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the originallandowners to enhance the amount of compensation beyond Rs.1,000/- per square yard is concerned, most of the sale deeds reliedupon by the landowners are much prior to the date of Section 4notification (ranging between 1992 to 1994). Some of the saleDdeeds are post Section 4 notification. Only three to four sale deedsare nearer to Section 4 notification. However, all those sale deedsare with respect to small area of lands and even the price is alsoat variance. Therefore, it is not safe to determine thecompensation relying upon those sale deeds which are nearer toSection 4 notification. The claimants/landowners shall be entitledEto compensation of the acquired land at least at Rs. 1,000/- persquare yard. [Paras 7, 8][1029-F-H; 1030-A-B]

Ashrafi and Others v. State of Haryana and Others(2013) 5 SCC 527 : [2013] 6 SCR 148 – referred to.

Case Law ReferenceF

[2013] 6 SCR 148referred toPara 2.2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7391of 2022.

From the Judgment and Orders dated 04.03.2022 of the HighGCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular First AppealNo. 2016 of 2021 (O&M).

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 7372, 7371, 7204-7222, 7346-7349, 7223-7230,H7233-7234, 7373-7390, 7350, 7351-7370 of 2022.

Abhinash Jain, Dy. AG, Alok Sangwan, AAG, Dr. Bharat BhushanParsoon, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Manoj Swarup, Sr. Advs., Dinesh K. Garg,Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Ishaan Tiwari, Dr. Monika Gusain,Hari Om Yaduvanshi, Miss. S. Harini, Sumit Kumar Sharma, AnuragKulharia, Sandeep, Apoorv Yadav, Vipul Dahiya, Ms. Sonam Priya, AyushKumar Singh, Anurag Mishra for M/s. Bakshi & Associates, SiddharthBatra, Ms. Aarzoo Aneja, Ms. Ira S. Mahajan, Ms. Shilpa Ohri, Ms.Archna Yadav, Ms. Shivani Chawla, Chinmay Dubey, Rhythm Katyal,Ms. Sakshi Shukla, Aniket Jain, Umang Shankar, Vidyut Kayarkar, SanjaySingh, Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Ms. Kanti Day, Aditya Jain, MohanLal Sharma, Sukant Vikram, M/s V. Maheshwari & Co., Advs. for theAppellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Punjab& Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 2016/2021 and other alliedFirst Appeals, by which the High Court has allowed the said First Appealspreferred by the respondents herein – State of Haryana and others andhas quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.05.2014passed by the Reference Court and has restored the awards declaredby the Land Acquisition Collector determining the amount of compensationwith respect to the lands acquired at village Hansi and Dhana, DistrictHisar, Haryana, the original landowners have preferred the presentappeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are asunder:

That the land situated at village Hansi and Dhana, District Hisar,Haryana admeasuring 229.13 acres and 20.77 acres respectively cameto be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1894’) for development of theresidential and commercial sectors – Sectors 3, 5 & 6 at Hansi. A commonnotification under Section 4 of the Act 1894 was issued on 29.08.2005.That declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued on29.08.2006. The land Acquisition Collector declared the award underSection 11 of the Act 1894 on 3.8.2007, vide award Nos. 1 & 2 for bothvillages, Hansi & Dhana, by adopting the belting method/system and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aassessed the market value of the land abutting the G.T. Road (Delhi-Hisar Road) at Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre up to the depth of 2 acres andfor the land abutting the Jind By-pass Road, at Rs. 10,00,000/- per acreup to the depth of 2 acres and for the remaining land, the market valuewas assessed at Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre.

B2.1 That at the instance of the landowners, the references weremade to the Reference Court. By common judgment and order dated31.05.2014, the Reference Court allowed the respective referencepetitions filed by the landowners and assessed the market value atRs.1,000/- per square yard (Rs. 48,20,000/- per acre).

C2.2 Having not satisfied with the amount of compensationdetermined by the Reference Court, the landowners preferred firstappeals before the High Court for enhancement of compensation. Atthis stage, it is required to be noted that so far as the State is concerned,the State accepted the common judgment and order dated 31.05.2014passed by the Reference Court determining the amount of compensation/Dmarket value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard. Thatthe High Court, by common judgment and order dated 28.05.2016 passedin RFA No. 7324/2014 and other allied first appeals, allowed the saidfirst appeals preferred by the landowners and assessed the market valueof the acquired land at Rs. 4,173/- per square yard, relying upon theEdecision of this Court in the case of Ashrafi and Others v. State ofHaryana and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 527.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgmentand order passed by the High Court dated 28.05.2016 passed in RFANo. 7324/2014 and other allied first appeals, the original landowners asFwell as the State preferred appeals before this Court. By judgment andorder dated 16.05.2018, this Court allowed the appeals preferred by theState and set aside the judgment and order dated 28.05.2016 passed bythe High Court and remitted the matter to the High Court for freshconsideration. While setting aside the judgment and order dated28.05.2016 passed by the High Court, this Court observed that the HighGCourt committed an error in determining compensation at Rs. 4,173/-per square yard, considering the decision of this Court in the case ofAshrafi (supra). This Court observed that as the land in the case ofAshrafi (supra) was acquired in the year 1995 and was a very smallpiece of land and it was for a commercial purpose and in the presentHcase the land has been acquired in the year 2005 and thus there is a gap

of about 10 years between the two acquisitions, relying on such anacquisition of a decade ago may be unsafe.

2.4 That thereafter on remand, the High Court vide commonjudgment and order dated 28.08.2019 remitted the matter to the ReferenceCourt by observing that some sale instances/sale exemplars relied uponon behalf of the landowners were not taken into consideration by theReference Court. Therefore, the High Court remanded the matter tothe Reference Court by observing that it would be appropriate that theReference Court as such examines the issue threadbare and afterexamining the sale deeds produced from both sides comes to the conclusionthat what is the correct market value.

2.5 That thereafter on remand, the Reference Court assessed theamount of compensation at Rs. 750/- per square yard. The commonjudgment and order passed by the Reference Court on remand assessingthe compensation/market value at Rs. 750/- per square yard was thesubject matter before the High Court at the instance of the landownersas well as the State. By the impugned common judgment and order, theHigh Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by the landowners andallowed the appeals preferred by the State and has restored the awardpassed by the Land Acquisition Collector. By the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court, the amount of compensationis reduced between Rs. 166/- per square yard to Rs. 200/- per squareyard.

2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court, the original landownershave preferred the present appeals.

3. We have heard learned Senior Advocates/counsel appearingon behalf of the respective original landowners and Shri Alok Sangwan,learned Additional Advocate General along with Dr. Monilka Gusain,learned counsel for the State of Haryana.

3.1 Learned Senior Advocates/counsel appearing on behalf ofthe original landowners have vehemently submitted that as such the Stateaccepted the earlier judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 passed by theReference Court determining the market value at Rs. 1,000/- per squareyard and the landowners preferred appeals before the High Court forenhancement of compensation. It is submitted that once the State acceptedthe earlier judgment and order passed by the Reference Court, allowing A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe reference petitions, and determining the market value at Rs.1,000/-per square yard, the landowners are entitled to the compensation atleast at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard.

3.2 It is submitted that even while disposing of the appeals by thisCourt in the common judgment and order dated 16.05.2018, this CourtBalso specifically observed that the State had not preferred appeals and/or challenged the judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 passed by theReference Court and the original landowners preferred appeals forenhancement. It is therefore submitted that in that view of the matter,the High Court ought not to have allowed the appeals preferred by theState and reduced the amount of compensation below Rs. 1,000/- perCsquare yard, which as such was accepted by the State Government bynot preferring appeals at the relevant time.

3.3 Some of the learned Senior Advocates/counsel appearing onbehalf of the original landowners have taken us to the sale deeds producedby the landowners. Relying upon those sale deeds, it is submitted thatDthe claimants shall be entitled to the amount of compensation at morethan Rs.1,000/- per square yard.

4. While opposing the present appeals, learned Additional AdvocateGeneral appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted thatonce the matter was remanded by this Court to the High Court andEthereafter by the High Court to the Reference Court for fresh decision,even thereafter the Reference Court assessed the amount ofcompensation at Rs. 750/- per square yard, vide common judgment andorder dated 29.01.2020. It is therefore submitted that merely because atthe relevant time and for whatever reasons the State did not preferFappeals against the judgment and order passed by the Reference Courtdated 31.05.2014 determining the compensation/market value at Rs.1,000/- per square yard, the original landowners shall not be entitled tothe compensation at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard.

4.1 It is submitted that by the impugned common judgment andGorder, the High Court has considered the sale deeds relied upon by theState as well as the sale deeds relied upon by the landowners andthereafter has come to the conclusion that the landowners have failed toproduce any convincing evidence to prove that the award passed by theLand Acquisition Collector was erroneous. It is submitted that thereforeno error has been committed by the High Court in allowing the appealsH

preferred by the State and in upholding the two different awards passedby the Land Acquisition Collector.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at lengthand considering the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, weare of the firm opinion that the landowners shall be entitled to thecompensation considering the market value of the acquired land at leastat Rs. 1,000/- per square yard as per the earlier judgment and orderdated 31.05.2014 passed by the Reference Court. It is required to benoted and it is not in dispute that so far as the State Government isconcerned, the State did not challenge the common judgment and orderdated 31.05.2014 passed by the Reference Court assessing the marketvalue of the acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard and it was thelandowners who preferred appeals before the High Court forenhancement of the amount of compensation. It is also required to benoted that non-filing of the appeals by the State against the commonjudgment and order dated 31.05.2014 was also taken note of by thisCourt while disposing of the appeals vide common judgment and orderdated 16.05.2018.

6. Even otherwise, on a fair reading of the judgment and orderdated 16.05.2018 passed by this Court and the subsequent order dated28.08.2019 passed by the High Court, the matter was remanded to theReference Court to consider the sale deeds for the purpose ofenhancement of the amount of compensation, while considering the saledeeds relied upon by the landowners. In any case, once the judgmentand order passed by the Reference Court dated 31.05.2014 determiningthe compensation at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard attained finality so faras the State is concerned, the landowners shall be entitled to thecompensation at least at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard.

7. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the originallandowners to enhance the amount of compensation beyondRs. 1,000/- per square yard is concerned, we have gone through andconsidered the sale deeds relied upon on behalf of the landowners. Mostof the sale deeds relied upon by the landowners are much prior to thedate of Section 4 notification (ranging between 1992 to 1994). Some ofthe sale deeds are post Section 4 notification. Only three to four saledeeds are nearer to Section 4 notification. However, all those sale deedsare with respect to small area of lands and even the price is also at AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Avariance. Therefore, it is not safe to determine the compensation relyingupon those sale deeds which are nearer to Section 4 notification.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons state above, we are ofthe firm opinion that the claimants/landowners shall be entitled tocompensation of the acquired land at least at Rs. 1,000/- per squareByard. It is reported that the State has already deposited/paid thecompensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per square yard which is nowsought to be recovered pursuant to the impugned common judgment andorder passed by the High Court restoring the awards passed by theLand Acquisition Collector determining the compensation/market valueranging from Rs. 166/- per square yard to Rs. 200/- per square yard.

C

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all theseappeals succeed in part. The impugned common judgment and orderdated 4.3.2022 restoring the awards passed by the Land AcquisitionCollector dated 3.8.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is held thatthe original landowners/claimants shall be entitled to the compensationDconsidering the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- persquare yard.

10. All these appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

EDevika Gujral

Appeals partly allowed.

F

G

H