Balwan Singh (Dead) By Lrs. vs Versus The State of Haryana
Balwan Singh (Dead) By Lrs. vs Versus The State of Haryana
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEALLTE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3197-3216 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7879-7898/2022
@ Diary No. 392/2022)
Balwan Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc. Etc. …Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Haryana and Others …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3226 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.4430/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3227 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.4440/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3228 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.4718/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3358-3375 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7827-7844/2022
@ Diary No. 7303/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3403-3449 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7899-7945/2022
@ Diary No. 6160/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3450-3458 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7960-7968/2022
@ Diary No. 31210/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3399-3402 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7875-7878/2022
@ Diary No. 372/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3376-3398 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7850-7872/2022
@ Diary No. 619/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3225 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.2446/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3224 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.1553/2022)
1
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3217-3223 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.1380-1386/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3229-3230 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7093-7094/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3233-3234 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7369-7370/2022
@ Diary No. 3157/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3231-3232 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7355-7356/2022
@ Diary No. 3553/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3235-3357 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7553-7675/2022
@ Diary No. 6604/2022)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4068-4070 OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.8666-8668/2022
@ Diary No. 12858/2022)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Interlocutory Application No. 33721/2022 in Civil Appeals arising
from Diary No. 392/2022 is allowed in terms of prayer (a) and the names
of the proforma respondents are ordered to be deleted from the array of
parties, at the risk and responsibility of the appellants.
1A. As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of
appeals and, as such, in respect of the lands acquired of the same
village – Kheri Sadh, District Rohtak, Haryana, but in two different
2
phases, and village Baliyana, all these appeals are decided and
disposed of together by this common judgment and order.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
final judgment and order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 1113/2016 and other
allied First Appeals in respect of the lands acquired of village Kheri
Sadh, District Rohtak, Haryana, for which notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was
issued on 9.6.2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Phase
Acquisition’), both, the original claimants/landowners as well as the
acquiring body/State have preferred the present appeals.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 10.11.2021 passed in R.F.A. No. 1632/2016
and other allied First Appeals in respect of the lands acquired of village
Kheri Sadh, District Rohtak, Haryana, for which notification under
Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.02.2008 (hereinafter referred to as
the ’Second Phase Acquisition’), the original claimants/landowners have
preferred the present appeals.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 1.9.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 521/2017 and other allied first
appeals in respect of the land acquired of village Baliyana, District
3
Rohtak for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on
9.6.2006, the original claimants/landowners have preferred the present
appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 7850-
7872/2022 and 1553/2022.
Facts of the case pertaining to Village Kheri Sadh:
3. The lands situated at village Kheri Sadh, District Rohtak, Haryana
(First Phase Acquisition) came to be acquired under the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose, namely, for setting up
Industrial Model Township, Rohtak. Notification under Section 4 of the
Act was issued on 9.6.2006 proposing to acquire the lands situated in
the village Kheri Sadh, totally admeasuring 126 acres, 7 kanals and 10
marlas. The lands were acquired for public purpose, namely for setting
up Industrial Model Township, Rohtak. Notification under Section 6 of
the Act was issued on 11.01.2007. The Land Acquisition Officer
declared the award on 15.05.2007 determining the compensation at Rs.
16,00,000/- per acre.
3.1 References under Section 18 of the Act were made at the instance
of the original claimants/landowners. Relying upon the sale
instances/sale exemplars produced at Ex. P8 & P9 and after applying a
cut of 20% for the lands abutting highway up to depth of one acre and
beyond that, applying the cut of 38%, the Reference Court determined
4
the compensation at Rs. 24,00,000/- per acre for the lands up to one
acre on highway and for the remaining lands at Rs.19,77,000/- per acre.
3.2 In the appeals preferred by the original claimants/landowners, the
High Court, by the impugned common judgment and order dated
1.9.2021, though agreed with the Reference Court as regards the
relevant sale exemplars being Ex. P8 & P9, enhanced the compensation
for the lands abutting highway up to one acre to Rs. 28,69,910/- per acre
by reducing the cut to 10% from 20%. The High Court has dismissed
the first appeals preferred by the landowners with respect to remaining
lands beyond one acre abutting highway and has also dismissed the first
appeals preferred by the State. Consequently, the High Court has
upheld the compensation at Rs. 19,77,000/- per acre for the lands
beyond one acre on highway.
3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 1.9.2021, both, the
original claimants/landowners as well as the State have preferred the
present appeals.
4. So far as the Second Phase Acquisition is concerned, notification
under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.02.2008 with respect to the
very village Kheri Sadh. Relying upon and considering its earlier
judgment and order dated 1.9.2021 passed in R.F. A. No. 1113/2016 and
other allied first appeals, with respect to the lands acquired of the same
5
village but for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on
9.6.2006 and considering the time gap of approximately one year and
eight months, the High Court has granted 12% escalation and has
determined the compensation at Rs. 30,89,066/- per acre for the lands
up to one acre on highway and with respect to the remaining lands, i.e.,
for the lands beyond one acre from highway, determined the
compensation at Rs.28,08,242/- per acre and has partly allowed the
appeals preferred by the original claimants/landowners.
4.1 Against the impugned common judgment and order dated
10.11.2021, by which the High Court has determined the compensation
at Rs. 30,80,066/- per acre for the lands up to one acre from highway
and Rs. 28,08,242/- per acre for the lands beyond one acre from
highway, the original claimants/landowners have preferred the present
appeals.
Facts of the Appeals pertaining to village Baliyana:
5. So far as the civil appeals arising out of the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court with respect to the land
acquired at village Baliyana, Tehsil and District Rohtak are concerned,
notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.6.2006 for setting
up the Industrial Model Township, Rohtak to be planned and developed
as an integrated complex for industrial, residential and other support
services etc. Notification under Section 6 was issued on 11.01.2007.
6
The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award and awarded
compensation to the landowners in respect of 5848 kanals 16 marlas of
acquired land at the rate of Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre for all types of land.
Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.16,00,000/- per acre, at the
instances of the landowners/original claimants, references under Section
18 of the Act were made to the Reference Court. Before the Reference
Court, the original claimants/landowners relied upon a number of sale
exemplars at Ex. P1 to P7. However, except one sale exemplar, all were
for the period subsequent to the notification issued under Section 4 of
the Act and therefore the Reference Court discarded the same. Before
the Reference Court, the original claimants/landowners also relied upon
the judgment of the Reference Court in the case of Splendour Land v.
State of Haryana, decided on 29.09.2015 by way of additional evidence,
by which qua the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act
dated 9.6.2006 for the purpose of Industrial Model Township, Rohtak, the
Collector awarded Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre, the Reference Court
enhanced the same to Rs. 19,77,000/- and Rs. 24,00,000/- per acre.
However, it is required to be noted that the said judgment was with
respect to the land situated at village Kheri Sadh. Thereafter, having
observed that though the boundaries of village Baliyana and village
Kheri Sadh are adjacent to each other, the location of village Kheri Sadh
7
is at Rohtak-Delhi National Highway No. 10 and the land situated at
village Baliyana is on Rohtak-Sonepat Road and that too, falls at a
distance of about 30 acres from Rohtak-Sonepat Road and is at a
distance of some acres from National Highway No.10, the Reference
Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 17,00,000/- per
acre. The judgment and order passed by the Reference Court
enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.17,00,000/- per acre was
challenged by both, the landowners as well as the acquiring body. By
the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has
dismissed the appeals preferred by the original claimants/landowners as
well as the acquiring body and has confirmed the judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court determining the compensation at Rs.
17,00,000/- per acre for all types of land.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court enhancing the amount of
compensation to Rs. 17,00,000/- per acre only with respect to the land of
village Baliyana, the original claimants have preferred the present
appeals.
Submissions on behalf of the original claimants/landowners insofar
as First Phase Acquisition of Village Kheri Sadh:
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective original
claimants/landowners have vehemently submitted that as held
8
consistently by this Court, the highest sale exemplar shall be made the
basis for determination of compensation. It is submitted that in the
present case, though Ex. P3 sale exemplar was available on record,
wherein the land was sold at an average rate of Rs.46,45,714.22 per
acre, the High Court ought to have determined the compensation
considering the sale exemplar at Ex. P3.
7.1 It is submitted that even assuming that the sale exemplar
produced at Ex. P3 was with respect to a small plot of land, at least there
may be 40% cut. It is submitted that, as such, as held by this Court in
the case of Ashrafi & Others v. State of Haryana and others, (2013) 5
SCC 527, generally cut of 33% may be reasonable.
7.2 It is then submitted that as such looking to the potentiality and the
overall development of the area and the lands in question were situated
in an already developed area, no cut should have been applied.
7.3 It is further submitted that in any case the High Court has failed to
grant proportionate increase for the lands beyond one acre from
highway. It is submitted that as the High Court has enhanced the
compensation from Rs.24,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 28,69,910/- per acre
for the lands up to one acre from highway, a proportionate increase
ought to have been granted for the lands beyond one acre from highway.
It is submitted that the High Court has not given any reasons for not
9
giving proportionate increase as was granted for the lands abutting
highway up to one acre.
Submissions on behalf of the original claimants/landowners insofar
as Second Phase Acquisition of Village Kheri Sadh:
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
claimants/landowners in the Second Phase Acquisition, for which
notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.02.2008, have
submitted that the High Court has erred in granting an escalation of 12%
per annum only, which is grossly inadequate.
8.1 It is submitted that in the areas where fast development and boom
in residential and economic activity is expected in the near future, the
land appreciates at a much faster rate. It is submitted that therefore the
High Court has erred in granting only 12% escalation.
Submissions on behalf of the original claimants/landowners insofar
as Acquisition of Village Baliyana:
9. Now so far as the land acquired of village Baliyana is concerned,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
claimants/landowners have vehemently submitted that the land acquired
at village Baliyana has been acquired for setting up the Industrial Model
Township, Rohtak for industrial, residential and other support services. It
is contended that the acquired land at village Baliyana is having a very
great potentiality. It is urged that it is not in dispute that the boundaries
10
of village Baliyana and village Kheri Sadh are adjacent to each other and
having a common boundary, both, the Reference Court as well as the
High Court ought to have awarded the compensation for the acquired
land of village Baliyana at par with the compensation determined and
awarded for the land acquired of village Kheri Sadh. It is contended that
the High Court has committed a grave error in awarding compensation at
the rate of Rs. 17,00,000/- per acre only, though the High Court
determined a higher compensation for the acquired land of village Kheri
Sadh.
9.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners have
heavily relied upon the allotment letter dated 13.08.2009, whereby 700
acres of land situated at village Baliyana was allotted by the acquiring
body/HSIIDC to Maruti Suzuki India Limited at the rate of Rs. 75,00,000/-
per acre.
Submissions on behalf of the State/Acquiring Body:
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/acquiring body –
HSIIDC have made the following submissions insofar as the land
acquired of village Kheri Sadh is concerned:
i) that the courts below in Phase I acquisition of village Kheri Sadh
erroneously refused to take into consideration four sale exemplars
produced at Ex. R2, R3, R4 and R5 on the ground that average sale
price of these sale exemplars is lower than the amount awarded by
the Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that, however, Section 25
11
of the 1894 Act does not prohibit consideration of sale exemplars of
the price lower than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer. That Section 25 only debars the Court from awarding an
amount of compensation lower than the amount awarded by the
Collector.
ii) It is submitted that Ex. R2 is the closest sale deed prior to the date
of notification and thus ought to have been relied upon for the
determination of compensation being the best exemplar produced on
record. That discarding the same on the ground that it is on lower side
as well as of lesser area is not correct in the eye of law.
iii) It is further submitted that the High Court as well as the Reference
Court did not consider the fact that Ex. R3, R4 and R5, although were
executed after the date of notification but the same provided a good
picture of the market value of the acquired land as even after issuance
of notification, the market value of the acquired land did not increase
to the extent as determined by the Reference Court. It is therefore
submitted that both, the Reference Court as well as the High Court
have committed a grave error in not taking into consideration the sale
exemplars produced at Ex. R3, R4 and R5.
iv) Now so far as the reliance placed upon the sale exemplars
produced at Ex. P8 and P9 by the Reference Court as well as the
High Court is concerned, it is submitted that in those exemplars, the
sale deeds were executed by the private builders. It is submitted that
the reliance placed upon such sale exemplars is not correct since
private builders purchase the land at any cost for earning the
maximum profit after development of the land. It is submitted that
moreover the cut of 10% is not an appropriate cut as applied by the
High Court. It is submitted that the High Court as well as the
Reference Court have totally ignored the settled principles of law that
12
a cut of 50% to 75% should be imposed on the acquired land and
since the acquired land is a large tract of undeveloped land, the
department shall have to incur a huge expenditure to develop the said
land. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/acquiring
body have relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of
Basavva v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 9 SCC 640; Kanta Devi v.
State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 201; Subh Ram v. State of Haryana,
(2010) 1 SCC 444; Chandrashekar v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2012)
1 SCC 390; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board v. Krishan
Kumar, (2011) 15 SCC 297; Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15
SCC 769; A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy, (2010) 12 SCC
707; Dy. Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu, (2006) 12 SCC
87; Mummidi Apparao v. Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd.,
(2009) 4 SCC 402; Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir
Singh, (2010) 11 SCC 581, in support of their submission that cut of
50% to 75% ought to have been imposed, while determining the
compensation.
v) It is further submitted that in the present case, even before the
High Court, learned counsel appearing for the landowners themselves
submitted that the cut should not be more than 20%, but still the High
Court has applied the cut of only 10%, instead of 20%.
vi) It is further submitted that the acquired land of the landowners is
an agricultural land and therefore they are not entitled to the
compensation of a commercial land.
10.1 Now so far as the compensation determined with respect to the
acquired land of village Baliyana is concerned, it is vehemently
submitted that the landowners of village Baliyana cannot claim parity
13
with the compensation awarded for the acquired land of village Kheri
Sadh as the location of village Kheri Sadh is much better than village
Baliyana. It is submitted that the High Court has rightly observed in para
4.2 of the impugned judgment that Village Kheri Sadh falls inside the
Pheripheral road of Rohtak City, whereas the acquired land of village
Baliyana falls outside the Peripheral Road. It is submitted that the High
Court has rightly refused to determine the compensation for the acquired
land of village Baliyana at par with the land acquired of village Kheri
Sadh. It is therefore submitted that the High Court has rightly rejected
the appeals filed by the landowners of village Baliyana.
10.1.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the allotment letter
dated 13.08.2009, whereby 700 acres of the land situated at village
Baliyana was allotted by the acquiring body to the Maruti Suzuki India
Limited at the rate of Rs.75,00,000/- per acre, relied upon on behalf of
the landowners is concerned, it is submitted that the said allotment is
three years after issuance of section 4 notification in the present case
and therefore the same cannot be made the basis for determining
compensation as, for obtaining change of land use, huge amount has to
be paid as government charges and then only the potential of land will
become commercial or industrial. It is submitted that determination of
compensation for the acquired land will rest upon the nature of land on
the date of issuance of section 4 notification, usage of such land for a
14
specific purpose and potential of such land at the time of acquisition. It
is urged that any development around the acquired land which is of
commercial nature cannot form the basis for determination of
compensation of an agricultural land and therefore the landowners
cannot claim future commercial potential for their agricultural land.
Consideration:
First Phase Acquisition pertaining to village Kheri Sadh:
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that insofar as the “first
phase acquisition” with respect to the land acquired in village Kheri Sadh
is concerned, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on
9.6.2006. Before the Reference Court, the original
claimants/landowners relied upon the sale exemplars produced at Ex.
P8, P9 and P3. The original claimants relied upon the sale exemplar
produced at Ex. P3, under which the land was sold at an average of
Rs.46,45,714.22 per acre. However, as the said sale exemplar was of a
very small plot of land, the Reference Court discarded the same. The
original claimants/landowners also relied upon some other sale
instances, however, as the same were post Section 4 notification, the
same are rightly discarded both, by the Reference Court and the High
Court. Relying upon the sale exemplars produced at Ex. P8 & P9 and
15
applying the cut of 20%, the Reference Court enhanced the amount of
compensation to Rs. 24,00,000/- per acre for the land up to the depth of
one acre abutting highway, and applying the cut of 38%, the Reference
Court enhanced the compensation at Rs. 19,77,000/- per acre for the
remaining land in the village Kheri Sadh.
11.1 The High Court in the appeals preferred by the original
claimants/landowners, though has also relied upon the sale exemplars
produced at Ex. P8 and P9, by the impugned judgment and order, has
enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 28,69,910/- per acre for
the land located up to the depth of one acre from national highway and
has confirmed the amount of compensation at Rs. 19,77,000/- per acre
for the remaining land of village Kheri Sadh. While enhancing the
amount of compensation to Rs. 28,69,910/- per acre of the land located
up to the depth of one acre from national highway, the High Court has
reduced the cut from 20 % to 10%.
12. Now so far as applying the cut of 10% is concerned, as such, the
High Court has not assigned any reasons whatsoever as to why the High
Court is applying the cut of 10%. There is no discussion whatsoever on
applying the cut of 10%. It appears from the record and it is not in
dispute that the lands in question of village Kheri Sadh are agricultural
lands. The sale exemplars produced at Ex. P8 & P9 were also with
respect to small plots of land, may be, bigger than the sale exemplar
16
produced at Ex. P3. But still both the sale exemplars Ex. P8 & P9 were
with respect to small plots of land, even as observed by the High Court.
In the present case, a large extent of land admeasuring 126 acres, 7
kanals and 10 marlas came to be acquired. Therefore, as such, the
Reference Court was justified in applying the cut of 20% for the acquired
land up to the depth of one acre abutting highway and applying the cut
of 38% for the acquired land beyond one acre from highway. As per the
settled position of law, a cut can be ranging from 20% to 75%.
13. In the case of Lal Chand (supra), it is held that to determine the
market value of a large tract of undeveloped agricultural land (with
potential for development), with reference to sale price of small
developed plots, deductions varying between 20% to 75% of the price of
such developed plots could be made.
13.1 In the case of Krishan Kumar (supra), it is observed and held by
this Court that if the value of small developed plots should be the basis,
appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the area
to be used for roads, drains, and common facilities. Thereafter, further
deduction will have to be made towards the cost of development, that is,
the case of levelling the land, cost of laying roads and drains etc.
Therefore, as such, the High Court has committed a grave error in
applying the cut of 10% only instead of 20% as applied by the Reference
Court.
17
14. Now so far as the reliance placed upon sale exemplars produced
at Ex. R2, R3, R4 and R5 both, the Reference Court as well as the High
Court have rightly discarded the same as the one of the sale exemplars
was for the value lower than the amount of compensation determined by
the Collector and the other sale exemplars were for the period post
section 4 notification.
15. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the acquiring body/State
that there shall not be any uniform increase and/or determination of the
compensation with respect to the lands acquired and it will depend upon
the location of the lands acquired is concerned, it is required to be noted
that, as such, neither the original claimants/landowners nor even the
acquiring body have produced any map showing the location of the
lands in question. However, considering the fact that the lands have
been acquired under the very same notification and for the very purpose
and in the absence of any map showing the location, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the
Reference Court as well as the High Court in applying the uniform
compensation for the lands acquired up to one acre from highway and
for the lands beyond it.
16. Therefore, the High Court has erred in enhancing the amount of
compensation to Rs.28,69,910/- per acre with respect to the land up to
depth of one acre abutting highway. We are of the opinion that the High
18
Court has committed a grave error in applying the cut of 10% instead of
20% applied by the Reference Court. Therefore, the original
claimants/landowners shall be entitled to the compensation determined
by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.24,00,000/- per acre for the
acquired land up to depth of one acre abutting highway and for the
remaining land of village Kheri Sadh, the landowners/original claimants
shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 19,77,000/- per acre,
as determined by the Reference Court after applying the cut of 38%.
Therefore, the appeals preferred by the State are required to be partly
allowed so far as the “first phase acquisition” of village Kheri Sadh is
concerned.
Second Phase Acquisition pertaining to village Kheri Sadh:
17. Now so far as the “second phase acquisition” of village Kheri
Sadh, for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on
13.02.2008 is concerned, considering the time gap of approximately one
year and eight months (20 months) and considering 12% escalation and
as observed hereinabove with respect to the “first phase acquisition”
pertaining to the very village Kheri Sadh the compensation is determined
at Rs. 24,00,000/- per acre up to depth of one acre abutting highway and
Rs. 19,77,000/- per acre for the remaining land, the original
claimants/landowners in the “second phase acquisition” shall be entitled
for compensation at the rate of Rs. 28,80,000/- per acre for the acquired
19
land up to depth of one acre abutting highway and for the remaining land
of village Kheri Sadh in the “second phase acquisition”, the original
claimants/landowners shall be entitled for compensation at the rate of
Rs. 23,72,400/- per acre. And to that extent, the impugned judgment
and order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the High Court in R.F.A. No.
1632/2016 and other allied appeals is required to be modified to the
aforesaid extent, so far as the” second phase acquisition” of village Kheri
Sadh is concerned. However, as the acquiring body/State have not
preferred any appeals challenging the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court, at this stage, we do not pass any further order
except to dismiss the present appeals preferred by the original
landowners.
Acquisition pertaining to village Baliyana:
18. Now so far as the appeals preferred by the original
claimants/landowners of village Baliyana for which notification under
Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.6.2006, challenging the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, determining the
compensation at Rs. 17,00,000/- per acre are concerned, we have gone
through the findings recorded by the Reference Court, which have been
confirmed by the High Court. It appears that the original claimants relied
upon the decision of the Reference Court dated 29.09.2015 in the case
of Splendour Land (supra) qua the same notification under Section 4
20
dated 9.6.2006 pertaining to village Kheri Sadh, by which the Reference
Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 19,77,000/- per acre
for the lands acquired beyond one acre from highway. However, it is
required to be noted that the judgment and order passed by the
Reference Court in the case of Splendour Land (supra) was with respect
to village Kheri Sadh. As per the findings recorded by the Reference
Court, which are on appreciation of evidence on record, the land situated
at village Kheri Sadh and village Baliyana are not comparable at all. The
Reference Court has extensively considered the same in paragraphs 20
to 26. It is to be noted that although the boundaries of village Kheri
Sadh and village Baliyana are meeting at one point and are adjacent to
each other, the location of village Kheri Sadh is on Rohtak-Delhi National
Highway No. 10 and so far as the village Baliyana is concerned, the
same is on Rohtak-Sonepat Road and that too falls at a distance of
about 30 acres from Rohtak-Sonepat Road and is at a distance of some
acres from National Highway No. 10. There is a specific finding
recorded by the Reference Court that the land of village Baliyana is not
having so much potential in terms of proximity to Rohtak city and is not
adjacent to National Highway No. 10. Therefore, the original
claimants/landowners of village Baliyana cannot claim the same
compensation which is awarded to the claimants of village Kheri Sadh
(first phase).
21
18.1 Now so far as the reliance placed by the landowners of village
Baliyana upon the allotment letter dated 13.08.2009, whereby 700 acres
of the land was allotted by the HSIIDC to Maruti Suzuki India Limited at
the rate of Rs. 75,00,000/- per acre is concerned, at the outset, it is
required to be noted that the said allotment was made three years after
issuance of section 4 notification in the present case and therefore the
same cannot be made the basis for determining the compensation.
What is required to be considered is the nature of the acquiring land on
the date of section 4 notification, usage of such land for a specific
purpose and potential of such land at the time of acquisition. Even
otherwise, it is to be noted that the HSIIDC must have incurred a huge
amount for development of the land allotted to Maruti Suzuki and the
HSIIDC would have provided infrastructure facilities, such as, supply of
electricity lines, sewerage, roads, common area etc. Hence, no reliance
can be placed upon the said allotment letter dated 13.08.2009, whereby
700 acres of land were allotted by the HSIIDC to the Maruti Suzuki at the
rate of Rs. 75,00,000/- per acre.
19. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
Court has rightly determined the compensation at Rs. 17,00,000/- per
acre for the lands acquired of village Baliyana for which the notification
under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.6.2006. We are in complete
agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this
22
Court is called for. Thus, the appeals preferred by the original
claimants/landowners challenging the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court dated 1.9.2021 in R.F.A. No. 521/2017 and
other allied appeals deserve to be dismissed.
Conclusions:
20. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above,
the civil appeals preferred by the original claimants/landowners of village
Kheri Sadh, arising out of the impugned common judgment and order
dated 1.9.2021 passed by the High Court in R.F.A. No. 1113/2016 and
other allied first appeals in respect of the ’First Phase Acquisition’ for
which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.6.2006 are
hereby dismissed. The Civil Appeals preferred by the State/acquiring
body challenging the impugned common judgment and order dated
1.9.2021 passed by the High Court in R.F.A. No. 1113/2016 and other
allied first appeals in respect of the ’First Phase Acquisition’ for which
notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.6.2006 are
hereby partly allowed. It is held that the original claimants/landowners
shall be entitled to the compensation at Rs. 24,00,000/- per acre for the
acquired lands up to one acre abutting highway and Rs. 19,77,000/- per
acre for the remaining lands beyond one acre from highway along with
all statutory benefits.
23
21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in paragraph 17
above, the civil appeals preferred by the original claimants/landowners
arising out of the impugned common judgment and order of the High
Court dated 10.11.2021 passed in R.F.A. No. 1632/2016 and other allied
first appeals with respect to “Second Phase Acquisition” of Village Kheri
Sadh for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on
13.02.2008 stand dismissed as the original claimants/landowners have
challenged the said judgment and order for enhancement of
compensation and as on today no appeals are preferred by the
State/acquiring body – HSIIDC.
22. The civil appeals preferred by the original claimants/landowners
challenging the impugned common judgment and order dated 1.9.2021
passed in R.F.A. No. 521/2017 and other allied first appeals for
enhancement of compensation in respect of the acquired land of village
Baliyana are hereby dismissed. The impugned common judgment and
order dated 1.9.2021 passed in R.F.A. No. 521/2017 and other allied first
appeals determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 17,00,000/- per
acre is hereby confirmed along with all statutory benefits.
24
23. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs.
………………………………J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J.
MAY 18, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
25
Comments
Post a Comment