IMPORTANT POINTS
Sale deed subsequent to notification cannot be considered.
Too old exempler, that too for dissimilar size, cannot be relied upon for deducting development charges. Normally the rule of 1/3 deduction should be adhered to.

JUDGMENT :

R. Banumathi, J.

Leave granted

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in and by which the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,19,413/- per acre and also dismissed the review holding that the subsequent evidence sought to be brought is not relevant as it is based upon post notification.

3. Respondent No.2-Haryana State Ware Housing Corporation had acquired 40 kanal and 8 marlas land at Rania for construction of warehouse/godown vide Notification dated 12.02.1988 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'); out of which 40 kanal 8 marlas land, 21 kanal 6 marlas land was of the present appellants; Notification dated 21.02.1989 was issued under Section 6 of the Act. Vide award No.9 dated 19.05.1990, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- per acre. Being aggrieved by the award dated 19.05.1990, the appellants/claimants filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act before Additional District Judge, Sirsa for enhancement of compensation, which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 15.02.1993. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim for enhancement, the appellants/claimants filed appeal before the High Court in R.F.A.No.1519 of 1993. The High Court relied upon the sale deed dated 26.05.1983 wherein small extent of land of 9 marlas was sold for Rs.25,500/- as an exemplar. The High Court gave escalation at 10% for the time gap of 56 months and calculated the value at Rs.6,64,887/- per acre and made the deduction at the rate of 67.5% for development charges and calculated the compensation to be awarded at Rs.2,19,413/- per acre.

4. Being aggrieved, the land owners filed Special Leave Petition(C) No.27989 of 2013 before this Court which was withdrawn by order dated 01.08.2014 with liberty to file review before the High Court. In the review petition, the appellants/claimants relied upon:- (i) sale deed dated 27.12.1988; and (ii) subsequent acquisition of nearby land vide notification dated 27.03.1989 in which the High Court by its judgment dated 15.09.2006 in R.F.A. No.866 of 1996 awarded compensation of Rs.7,26,000/- per acre. The High Court dismissed the review, inter alia, holding that the sale deed dated 27.12.1988 is a post notification sale and also the acquisition vide notification dated 27.03.1989 was subsequent one and the same is not relevant for determining the market value of the lands acquired vide notification dated 12.02.1988. Moreover, the High Court found no valid ground for review under Order XLVII C.P.C. Being aggrieved, the appellants/land owners have filed these appeals.

5. Contention of the appellants/claimants are mainly three-fold:-

(i) there was only ten months difference between the notification dated 12.02.1988 and the sale deed dated 27.12.1988 while so, the High Court was not justified in not considering the said sale deed dated 27.12.1988 as an exemplar on the ground that the same is a post notification;

(ii) considering that the land acquired falls within municipal limits and had immense potential for use for commercial and residential purpose, applying the maximum cut at the rate of 67.5% was not justified; and

(iii) for acquisition of the land of the adjoining khasra by notification dated 27.03.1989, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.7,26,000/- per acre by the High Court which is more than three times higher than the compensation awarded in the present case.

6. So far as the first contention is concerned, the sale deed relied upon by the appellants/claimants dated 27.12.1988 is post notification. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act provides that the compensation to be awarded shall be determined by the reference court, based upon the market value of the acquired land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). In Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal and Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 207, it was held tha