BHAG SINGH ETC. VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

BHAG SINGH ETC. VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4070-4075 OF 2012

BHAG SINGH ETC.

 .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4076-4082 OF 2012

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4086 OF 2012

A N D

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4083-4084 OF 2012

J U D G M E N T

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The present appeals are directed against orders dated 2.8.2010 and

21.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh whereby the appeals of the land owners and that of the

Union were dismissed, maintaining the compensation of Rs.4 lakhs per

acre awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar in

1

reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18941

.

2. The notification dated 26.10.1990 was published intending to acquire

32 acres 6 kanal and 3 marlas of land in Village Sohana and 90 acres 7

kanal and 18 marlas of land in Village Lakhnaur. The said notification

was followed by a notification dated 6.11.1991 issued under Section 6

of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of

Rs.1,75,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the market value determined by

the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under

Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court awarded compensation of

Rs.4 lakhs per acre apart from the compensation for super-structures.

The said award of the amount of compensation was based upon a

judgment dated 11.10.2002 (Ex.P/13) by the Reference Court

pertaining to the same notification in respect of land situated in Village

Lakhnaur.

3. Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, learned senior counsel appearing for the

land owners in Civil Appeal Nos. 4076-4082 of 2012 and Civil Appeal

Nos. 4083-4084 of 2012 argued that in respect of land acquired vide

subsequent notification dated 25.7.1991 for the land situated in Village

Sohana, the Reference Court had awarded a compensation of

Rs.5,96,000/- and in respect of another notification dated 11.11.1993,

in respect of land situated in Village Sohana, the Reference Court has

awarded Rs.6,96,000/- per acre. It was further contended that in terms

1 For short, the ‘Act’

2

of acquisition of land vide notification dated 27.9.1988 of Village

Kambali, Rs.5,96,000/- per acre was awarded as compensation by the

Reference Court which was affirmed by the High Court in first appeal.

The present acquisition is more than 2 years later, therefore, the land

owners are entitled to compensation on the basis of the amount of

compensation awarded by the High Court in addition to the increase in

prices for the period of 2 years. It was argued that Village Kambali and

Village Sohana are adjoining villages, therefore, the market value

determined in respect of Village Kambali is a reasonable yardstick for

determination of the compensation in respect of land situated in

Village Sohana.

4. On behalf of the State, it was argued that total land admeasuring 123

acres 6 kanals 1 marla was subject matter of acquisition vide

notification dated 26.10.1990 out of which 262 kanals and 3 marlas is

the land situated in Village Sohana and 728 kanals and 6 marlas of

land is situated in Village Lakhnaur. Out of the total land acquired, 49

acres 4 kanals and 18 marlas have been utilized by the Union for the

purpose of Border Security Force whereas the rest of the land has been

utilized by the State. The Reference Court has relied upon

determination of compensation vide Ex.P/13 in respect of land in

Village Lakhnaur which is part of the same notification by which the

land in Village Sohana was acquired. Therefore, the award of market

value of land by the Reference Court, as affirmed by the High Court,

3

does not suffer from any error or illegality.

5. The appellants have filed a Lay-out Plan (Annexure P/20) before this

Court. It shows that the land situated in Village Sohana and Village

Mataur are close to each other whereas land situated at Village

Kambali and kambala are at quite a distance located near the

Chandigarh International Airport. As per Map of Survey of India, the

village Kumbra is the next village located on east of village Sohana

whereas village Mouli is situated on south-east of Sohana. Village

Kambala is further away from Mauli. Kambali is located further on

south-east. The distance from Sohana to Kambala and Kambali is more

than 2 kms. Therefore, the compensation awarded for the land

situated at Village Kambali cannot be considered as a reasonable

yardstick for determining the market value of land situated in Village

Sohana.

6. The land of Village Sohana has been subject matter of acquisition for a

number of times. First acquisition was in pursuance of a notification

date 4.2.1981 under Section 4 of the Act. In respect of such land

acquired in Village Mataur and Sohana, the compensation awarded by

the High Court was Rs.1,25,000/- per acre vide Ex.P/8.

7. Another notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on

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 learned

4

Reference Court relying upon the determination of compensation of

land acquired in Village Kambali wherein the High Court in State of

Punjab v. Mohinder Singh & Ors.

2

 awarded compensation @

Rs.5,96,000/- per acre. The High Court’s judgment was based upon the

fact that Village Kambali and Village Sohana are adjoining to each

other and in close proximity. The award of the Reference Court is

subject matter of challenge before the High Court in RFA No. 1786 of

2000 at the instance of the State and is pending final decision. The

land owners have filed cross-objections in the said appeal.

8. Thereafter, the land situated at Village Sohana was also acquired vide

notification dated 11.11.1993. The Reference Court awarded

Rs.6,96,000/- per acre. However, the amount of compensation was

enhanced to Rs.8 lakhs per acre in Harbachan Kaur & Ors. v. State

of Punjab

3

 vide order dated 23.8.2006.

9. In respect of land acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Act

dated 26.10.1990, the Reference Court relied upon determination of

compensation vide Ex.P/13 by the Reference Court in respect of land in

Village Lakhnaur which forms part of the same notification by which

the land in Village Sohana was acquired. The said award had attained

finality as no appeal was preferred against it.

10. The argument is that land situated in Village Kambali is situated in

close proximity of land situated in Sohana, therefore, compensation

2 RFA No. 625 of 1994

3 RFA No. 2322 of 1998

5

assessed by the High Court in Mohinder Singh can be treated as base

market value. As observed above, the two villages Kambali and Sohana

are not in close proximity but located at substantial distance as per the

Map of Survey of India as also the lay-out plan produced by the

landlord. Therefore, such judgment is not a helpful guide to determine

compensation.

11. Another appeal arising out of notification dated 25.7.1991 is pending

before the High Court. Therefore, it would not be proper to discuss the

said award of the Reference Court.

12. In respect of the land acquired vide notification dated 11.11.1993, the

High Court has awarded compensation @ Rs.8 lakhs per acre. The

argument is that suitable deduction should be made from such

determination of the market value of the land acquired vide notification

dated 26.10.1990.

13. The Reference Court as well as the High Court has given a finding of

fact that no sale instance produced by the parties are relevant for

determining the market value. Therefore, the only relevant basis is the

previous judgments.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is an undisputed fact

that there is no sale instance in respect of land situated in Village

Sohana after the first notification dated 4.2.1981 till the notification in

question dated 26.10.1990. The absence of sale deeds shows that

there was no sale and purchase of the land which could show the

6

potentiality of use of the land for residential, commercial or industrial

purposes. The Village Kambali and Kambala are not adjoining to Village

Sohana as per the Lay Out plan produced by the appellants

themselves. The nearest village from Village Sohana is Mataur and not

Village Kambali or Kambala. Therefore, the market value determined in

respect of Village Kambali cannot be considered for determination of

compensation. Though, in respect of acquisition of land vide

notification dated 11.11.1993, the compensation assessed is Rs.8 lakhs

per acre which is more than two years later and in between, there is

acquisition of land vide notification dated 25.7.1991.

15. The question now is as to whether determination of market value

subsequent to the notification would be relevant to determine the

market value of the land acquired more than two years earlier. We find

that though appreciation in price can be presumed, but the market

value cannot be assessed by applying suitable deduction in the market

value of the land acquired by a subsequent notification. When the later

notification is issued, the development activities had already been

taken place in view of the earlier two notifications. Therefore, it is not

the percentage of increase in the market value but increase due to the

development which has taken place on account of earlier notifications.

Therefore, market value of the land cannot be based upon the land

acquired vide notification dated 11.11.1993 i.e., more than two years

later of the notification in question and when there were other

notifications intervening on 26.10.1990 and 25.7.1991.

7

16. Alternatively, even if we examine the market value of the land

acquired vide notification dated 4.2.1981 in Village Sohana after giving

yearly increase of 10% per annum, the increase in the base value

would be as under:

1981 1,25,000

1982 1,37,500

1983 1,51,250

1984 1,66,375

1985 1,83,012.5

1986 2,01,313.75

1987 2,21,445.12

1988 2,43,589.63

1989 2,67,948.59

1990 2,94,743.44

Rounded off 2,94,743/-

17. Thus, even then the market value is not mare than market value

determined by the High Court.

18. The Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.4 lakhs per acre

in respect of land situated in Village Lakhnaur, acquired vide the same

notification. Such determination has not been appealed against either

by the land owners or by the State. The High Court has rightly relied

upon such determination to assess the market value of the land at Rs.4

lakhs per acre. In view of the said fact, we do not find any error in the

orders passed by the High Court which may warrant interference in the

present appeals.

8

19. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the

appeals. The same are dismissed.

.............................................J.

(HEMANT GUPTA)

.............................................J.

(V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 5, 2022.

9