State of Haryana & Anr. Versus Subhash Chander & Ors.

State of Haryana & Anr. Versus Subhash Chander & Ors.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  859­899 OF 2023

(@SLP (C) Nos. 13992­14032 of 2020)

State of Haryana & Anr.                        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Subhash Chander & Ors.        …Respondent(s)

With 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 900 OF 2023

(@SLP (C) No. 2971 of 2023)

(@D. No. 12754 of 2020)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

common judgment and order dated 18.10.2019 passed by

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in

Regular First Appeal (RFA) No. 1100/2013 and other allied

first appeals, by which, the High Court has allowed the

said first appeals in part preferred by the original land

owners and has enhanced the amount of compensation for

the lands acquired at Rs. 2,98,54,720/­ per acre with all

1

other   statutory   benefits,   the   State   of   Haryana   has

preferred the present appeals. 

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

as under: ­

2.1 That   approximately   58   acres   of   large   chunk   of   lands

situated at village Kherki, Majra came to be acquired for

the   public   purpose   under   the   provisions   of   the   Land

Acquisition Act, 1894. The land acquisition officer declared

the awards. At the instance of the original land owners,

references under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 were made.

The   reference   court   enhanced   the   compensation   for

notification   dated   13.01.2010   to   Rs.   1,56,24,000/­   per

acre from Rs. 60 lakhs per acre as awarded by the land

acquisition   officer.   The   appeals   preferred   by   the   State

against the judgment and award passed by the reference

court determining the compensation at Rs. 1,56,24,000/­

came   to   be   dismissed.   However,   by   the   impugned

judgment and order taking into consideration the amount

of compensation enhanced by the High Court which came

to be modified by this Court to Rs. 2,38,00,000/­ per acre

with   respect   to   the   lands   acquired   in   the   month   of

January, 2008 and granting 12% cumulative increase, the

2

High Court has partly allowed the appeals preferred by the

land   owners   and   determined   and   awarded   the

compensation at Rs. 2,98,54,720/­ per acre. 

2.2 Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed

by   the   High   Court   determining   and   awarding   the

compensation   for   the   lands   acquired   vide   notification

dated 13.01.2010 at Rs. 2,98,54,720/­ per acre, the State

of Haryana has preferred the present appeals. 

3. We have heard Shri Nikhil Goel, learned AAG, appearing

on behalf of the State of Haryana and learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respective original land owners. 

4. Shri Nikhil Goel, learned AAG, appearing on behalf of the

State has vehemently submitted that while determining

the compensation at Rs. 2,98,54,720/­ per acre for the

lands   acquired   vide   notification   dated   13.01.2010,   the

High   Court   has   materially   erred   in   taking   into

consideration and/or relying upon the judgment of this

Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 11814­11864 of 2017

[State of Haryana Vs. Ram Chander (2017 SCC OnLine

SC   1869)]  with   respect   to   the   lands   acquired   vide

notification issued in the month of January, 2008.  

3

4.1 It is submitted that in the judgment and order passed by

this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 11814­11864 of 2017, this

Court   has   specifically   observed   and   held   that   the

determination of compensation vide the said judgment at

Rs.   2,38,00,000/­   per   acre   shall   not   be   treated   as   a

precedent in any other case. It is submitted that therefore,

while passing the impugned judgment and order the High

Court has materially erred in taking into consideration the

amount awarded by this Court vide judgment and order

passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 11814­11864 of 2017 at Rs.

2,38,00,000/. 

4.2 It is further submitted by Shri Nikhil Goel, learned AAG,

appearing on behalf of the State that in the present case

the prices of the land were decreasing which was taken

note of by this Court. 

4.3 It is further submitted that even otherwise considering the

fact that with respect to the very village, lands came to be

acquired from 2008 onwards and therefore, the prices of

the lands were artificially increased. It is submitted that

therefore, the High Court has materially erred in giving

4

12% rise on Rs. 2,38,00,000/­ per acre which has been

awarded for notification dated 25.01.2008.

4.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above

decision, it is prayed to allow the present appeals. 

5. While   opposing   the   present   appeals,   learned   counsel

appearing on behalf of the land owners has submitted that

once the appeals preferred by the State were dismissed

and   the   impugned   common   judgment   and   order   was

passed in the appeals preferred by the land owners, it is

not open for the State now to challenge the impugned

common judgment and order passed by the High Court.   

5.1 It is further submitted that even otherwise considering the

sale instances produced on record right from 09.03.2007

till 31.03.2008 there was increase in prices and therefore,

the High Court has not committed any error in granting

the enhancement of 12% on Rs. 2,38,00,000/­ per acre. It

is submitted that as such no concrete evidence has been

laid down or no contrary sale instance were placed on

record by the acquiring body showing the decrease in the

market value between 2008 and 2010. 

5

5.2 Making the above submissions and relying upon the recent

decision of this Court in the case of  Ramrao   Shankar

Tapse   Vs.   Maharashtra   Industrial   Development

Corporation  and  Ors.;   (2022)  7  SCC  563, by which, it

was observed that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per

year in the market value of land may be accepted, it is

prayed to dismiss the present appeals.  

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length. We have gone through the

impugned   common   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the

High Court and we have also gone through and considered

the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Civil Appeal

Nos. 11814­11864 of 2017 by which with respect to the

lands   acquired   vide   notification   dated   25.01.2008,   this

Court determined the compensation at Rs. 2,38,00,000/­

per acre. In the said judgment and order, this Court has

specifically observed that the said judgment may not be

treated as a precedent. However, it is required to be noted

that   even   on   merits   also,   this   Court   considered   and

accepted the sale instances produced on behalf of the land

owners   ranging   between   2007   and   2008.   Therefore,   as

6

such   determination   of   the   compensation   at   Rs.

2,38,00,000/­ per acre with respect to the land acquired

vide notification issued on 25.01.2008 can be said to be

the   base   and   considering   the   time   gap   between   2008

notification and 2010 notification, a suitable enhancement

ranging between 8% to 15 % is given which is held to be

permissible as per the catena of decisions of this Court

right from the decision in the case of  Pehlad   Ram   Vs.

HUDA;   (2014)  14  SCC  778  up to the recent decision of

this Court in the case of Ramrao Shankar Tapase (supra).

However, at the same time considering the fact that in the

present   case   with   respect   to   the   very   village,   the

acquisition proceedings came to be initiated in the month

of January, 2008, it will not be safe and/or prudent to

grant the cumulative increase of 12%. In the facts and

circumstances of the case and even considering the sale

instances produced on record, we are of the opinion that if

instead of 12% enhancement on Rs. 2,38,00,000/­, 10%

increase   is   accepted   it   can   be   said   to   be   a   just

compensation and it may meet the ends of justice. 

7

7. In that view of the matter, the market value of the land in

question   for   the   lands   acquired   vide   notification   dated

13.01.2010 will be at Rs. 2,87,98,000/­ per acre. 

8. Resultantly, the impugned common judgment and order

passed by the High Court is required to be modified to the

aforesaid   extent   by   awarding   the   compensation   at   Rs.

2,87,98,000/­ per acre. Present appeals are partly allowed

to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the original land

owners   shall   be   entitled   to   the   compensation   at   Rs.

2,87,98,000/­ per acre with all other statutory benefits

which may be available under the Land Acquisition Act,

1894. The appellant – State of Haryana is hereby directed

to deposit and/or pay the compensation to the original

land owner(s) at the market value of Rs. 2,87,98,000/­

along with all other statutory benefits within a period of six

weeks   from   today   after   deducting   whatever   amount   is

already paid. Present appeals are partly allowed to the

aforesaid extent. No costs.      

………………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

FEBRUARY 10, 2023 [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

8