Back
2011 (8) Supreme 217
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Cyriac Joseph and A.K. Patnaik, JJ
National Fertilizers Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Jagga Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs. & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3033 of 2008
with
Civil Appeal Nos. 3095 of 2008, 3114 of 2008,
3105 of 2008, 3102 of 2008, 3101 of 2008,
3099 of 2008, 3112 of 2008, 3097 of 2008,
3100 of 2008, 3109 of 2008, 3094 of 2008,
3093 of 2008, 3110 of 2008, 3098 of 2008,
3103 of 2008, 3096 of 2008, 3111 of 2008,
3107 of 2008, 3115 of 2008, 3113 of 2008,
3117 of 2008, 3108 of 2008, 3104 of 2008
and 3116 of 2008
Decided on : 15-11-2011
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ¯ Section 23 ¯ Determining factors ¯ Valuation of another land acquired situated at long distance cannot be taken into consideration for determining the compensation of the land acquired in the present case ¯ In the present case land was acquired in the year 1983 ¯ Level of the land acquired in the present case was of the existing land of the township of NFL ¯ The market value of the land acquired in the present case has to be determined on the basis of its potentiality for urban development and not on the basis of the revenue or agricultural classification of the land as done by the Collector ¯ Reliance by the Additional District Judge and Single Judge of the High Court on S’s case was not correct as the land in that case was acquired for military cantonment which was far away from the land acquired in the present case which was located adjacent to the appellant’s colony and other colonies ¯ In the case of K, relied upon by the Division Bench of the High Court, the land acquired was much more near to the land acquired in the present case ¯ The land acquired in case of K was acquired for a municipal park in the year 1983 and was located within municipal limits ¯ In K’s case there was evidence of three transactions of sale of the same date i.e., 29.06.1973, showing that some land in the area had been sold at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. yard, some land in the area had been sold at Rs.70.30 paise per sq. yard and some land in the area had been sold at the rate of Rs.62.50 per sq. yard and the Court took the average rate of the three sale transactions which worked out to Rs.80/- per sq. yard ¯ The Court then added an increase of 12% per annum for ten years to arrive at the value of the land in the year 1983 when the land was acquired and the figure was worked out at Rs.176/- per sq. yard ¯ For finding out the market value of the land acquired in the present case, the Division Bench of the High Court applied a cut to this rate of Rs.176/- per sq. yard and determined the rate of Rs.120/- per sq. yard ¯ The Division Bench had therefore, taken into consideration the fact that the land in K’s case was located in the heart of the town, whereas the land acquired in the present case was slightly away from the heart of the town and was located adjacent to the existing colony of the appellant NFL and other colonies ¯ The cut applied by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment so as to reduce the value from Rs.176/- per sq. yard to Rs.120/- per sq. yard was just and reasonable in the facts of the present case ¯ A cut of 60% could not have been applied in the present case ¯ Compensation determined by the Division Bench of the High Court was just and proper.
(c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ¯ Section 23 ¯ Determination of compensation ¯ Exemplary sale agreement ¯ Where the sale agreement does not mention the date on which the agreement has been entered into ¯ In the absence of any date of the sale agreement, the sale agreement could not have constituted the basis for determination of the market value of land. (Para 11)
Facts of the Case
State of Punjab acquiring 29.68 acres of land required for dwelling houses for employees of appellant ¯ NFL by notification under Section 4 of the Act in the year 1983 ¯ On reference made under Section 18 of the Act by the landowners, the Additional District Judge determining compensation at uniform rate of Rs. 23.50 per squire yard ¯ In first appeals preferred by the parties Single Judge of the High Court upholding the judgment passed by Additional District Judge and dismissing the appeals ¯ In appeal, Division Bench of the High Court determining/enhancing compensation at the rate of Rs. 120/- per square yard ¯ Hence, this appeal.
Finding
Compensation determined by the Division Bench of the High Court was just and proper.
JUDGMENT
A. K. Patnaik, J.
These are the appeals by way of special leave against the judgment and order dated 13.07.2005 of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, in Letters Patent Appeals determining the market value of acquired land @ Rs.120/- per square yard (for short ‘the impugned judgment’).
2. The facts relevant for deciding these appeals briefly are that the National Fertilizers Limited (for short ‘the NFL’) is a Government of India Undertaking engaged in the business of manufacturing fertilizers and has a plant in Bhatinda in the State of Punjab. To meet the requirement of dwelling houses for the employees of NFL, the State of Punjab acquired 29.68 acres of land in village Bhatinda by notification dated 24.01.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’). The District Collector sent the market rates to the Land Acquisition Collector for different classes of agricultural or revenue land and these were for Nehri - Rs.56,000/- per acre, for Barani - Rs. 23,000/- per acre and for Gair Mumkin - Rs.23,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation at 50% above the rates sent by the District Collector for each of the aforesaid classes of land in his award dated 19.03.1986. Not satisfied with the award, the landowners made a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the civil court. Besides the State, NFL was impleaded as a defendant in the reference. By order dated 29.04.1991, the learned Additional District Judge determined the compensation for all the three classes of land at a uniform rate of Rs.32.50 per square yard after considering two unregistered sale agreements (Exhibits A-X and A-Y) and the order of the High Court in Sadhu Singh’s case determining the compensation for land acquired for extension of the military cantonment in the year 1976. The land owners challenged the order of the Additional District Judge before the High Court in Regular First Appeals. The State of Punjab and NFL also challenged the order of the learned Additional District Judge before the High Court in Regular First Appeals. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the appeals, sustained the determination of compensation made by the learned Additional District Judge and dismissed the appeals by a common order dated 09.09.1994.
3. Aggrieved, the land owners as well as NFL challenged the order dated 09.09.1994 of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeals. In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court held that as Exhibits A-X and A-Y were unregistered and did not bear any date, these documents could not be considered for determination of compensation. The Division Bench also found from the site plan that the military cantonment for which Sadhu Singh’s land was acquired was far away from the land acquired in the present case. The Division Bench also found that the land of Sadhu Singh was acquired for the military cantonment in the year 1976 whereas the lands acquired in the present case were included in the municipal limits of Bhatinda city in 1977 and around the land acquired in the present case, various colonies had come up in the municipal limits of Bhatinda. The Division Bench further found from the site plan that the land of Karam Singh which had been acquired for a municipal park was much nearer to the land of the land owners acquired in the present case. The Division Bench, therefore, took the view in the impugned judgment that the order passed by the High Court in the case of Sadhu Singh for the land acquired for military cantonment could not be preferred over the order of the High Court passed in the case of Karam Singh for land acquired for municipal park in the year 1983 for making the assessment of market value of the land acquired in the present case and determined Rs.120/- per square yard as just and reasonable market value for the land acquired in the presen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
