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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India