IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land—There can be no fixed criteria as to what would be suitable addition or subtraction from value of relied upon transaction.

JUDGMENT

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. Leave granted in SLPs.

2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a group of matters involving the issue of determination of compensation for the land acquired by the appellant-Union of India in two sets of acquisition.

2. One of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), in question, was issued on 14th March, 1989 to acquire 72.9375 acres of land in villages Bir Kheri Gujran, District Patiala, for development of military cantonment at Patiala in Punjab. The Collector vide award dated 13th August, 1991, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2 lakh per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.9,05000/-per acre. A learned Single Judge of the High Court reduced the same to Rs.105.80 per square yard vide order dated 1st April, 1999, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench.

3. In the other set of acquisition, covered by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 16th September, 1988, for the land measuring 498.03, the Collector vide award dated 27th March, 1991, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2 lakh per acre for the land in villages Kheri Gujran and Bir Kheri Gujran and for the land in villages Sher Majra, Haji Majra and Pasiana at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/-per acre. The Reference Court vide award dated 6th April, 1998 enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,75,000/-per acre for the land in villages Kheri Gujran and Bir Kheri Gujran. In respect of land in the revenue estate of village Haji Majra, for the land upto 500 meters on Patiala Sangrur Road, compensation was awarded at the same rate but for the rest of the land compensation was awarded at Rs.2,33,750/-per acre. For villages Pasiana and Sher Majra, the rate awarded was the same as for village Haji Majra. On further appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.4,48,159/-per acre which has been affirmed by the Division Bench with slight modification by way of enhancement.

4. Thus, the Division Bench has upheld the view of the learned Single Judge in reducing the compensation from Rs.9,05,000/-per acre, fixed by the Reference Court, to Rs.105.80 per square yard fixed by the learned Single Judge in respect of the land covered by notification dated th March, 1989 and for the land covered under notification dated 16th September, 1988, the compensation was marginally enhanced to Rs.4,54,662/-per acre.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the Union of India has preferred these appeals. However, the land owners have accepted the compensation awarded by the Division Bench.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Union of India submitted that enhancement of compensation beyond the award of the Collector by the Reference Court and the High Court was not justified as the sale transactions relied upon by the land owners could not be the basis for fixation of compensation. The said instances were of land nearer to the city which land, being better located, had higher value. It is for this reason that in respect of the land covered by notification dated 14th March, 1989, rate of compensation fixed by the Reference Court was reduced by the High Court. Plea that for taking into small instances cut of 60% should be applied was wrongly disregarded. Thus, methodology followed by the High Court was not appropriate. Reliance has been placed on law laid down in Basant Kumar and ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 542, Smt. Indumati Chitaley vs. Union of India and Anr., (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 219 and Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Karigowda and Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 708. It was further submitted that the sale transactions Exp. P-21 and P-22 have been wrongly relied upon ignoring