IMPORTANT POINT
Courts have to consider all relevant factors for determining market rate of land under acquisition.
When the matter is remanded to Reference court for fresh determination, land owners would be entitled to refund of court fee paid before the High court and the Supreme Court.

Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – High Court enhancing market rate at one flat rate for all 15 villages in isolation – Without any evidence and considering various factors for determining the market rate – Not permissible. (Para 37)
       (2010) 11 SCC 175 – Referred
       (b) Court Fees Act – Section 13 – Supreme Court remanding the matter to Reference court for fresh determination of market rate – Appellants held entitled to get back court paid before High Court and Supreme Court. (Para 46)
       Facts of the case:
       State of Haryana issued a Notification on 11.01.2005 for acquisition of large chunk of land totaling around 520 acres 02 Kanals and 13.5 Marlas situated in 15 villages in the State of Haryana.
       The Land Acquisition Officer determined an uniform rate of Rs.12,50,000/- per acre applicable to entire acquired land payable to every landowner.
       The Reference Court enhanced the rate from Rs.12,50,000/- per acre to Rs.43,17,841/- per acre.
       The High Court while partly allowing the landowners’ appeals further enhanced the rate of acquired land from Rs.43,17,841/- per acre to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
       Result: Appeal filed by State allowed. Matter remanded to Reference court for fesh determination of market rate.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the common final judgment and order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 1854 of 2012 etc.etc. whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeals filed by the appellants herein and thereby enhanced the compensation @ Rs.62,11,700/- per acre and other statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and accordingly modified the Award dated 27.02.2012 passed by the Reference Court, Gurgaon in LAC No. 551 of 2009/2011 and other connected matters and, in consequence, dismissed the appeals filed by the State.

3. In order to appreciate the entire controversy involved in this bunch of appeals, it is necessary to set out the facts in detail.

4. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana issued a Notification on 11.01.2005 for acquisition of large chunk of land totaling around 520 acres 02 Kanals and 13.5 Marlas situated in 15 villages in the State of Haryana. The acquisition in question was for the public purpose, namely, construction of Express Highway known as “KMP”. It was followed by another notification issued on 17.11.2005 by the State under Section 4 of the Act for the same public purpose in relation to the land situated in 4 villages.

5. The details of the acquisition, such as name of the villages and the area of the land situated in each village are setout hereinbelow:-

S. No.	Name of Village	Area acquired (per acre)
1.	Kasan	514 kanal 13 marla
2.	Kukrola	97 kanal 04 marla
3.	Khaintawas	99 kanal 14 marla
4.	Dhana	241 kanal 00 marla
5.	Path Hajipur	960 kanal 04 marla
6.	Sultanpur	499 kanal 01 marla
7.	Fazilwas	11 kanal 13 marla
8.	Mokalwas	185 kanal 18 marla
9.	Bas Lambi	313 kanal 07 marla
10.	Mubarikpur	242 kanal 13 marla
11.	Jhanjhrola	J17 kanal 01 marla
12.	Babra Bakipur	100 kanal 19 marla
13.	Shed Mohammadpur	222 kanal 01 marla
14.	Kharkari	14 kanal 11 marla
15.	Fakharpur	182 kanal 14 marla

6. This was followed by two declarations published by the State under Section 6 of the Act. One was published on 31.05.2005. It was in relation to first notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 11.01.2005 whereas other declaration was published on 08.02.2006. It was in relation to second notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 17.11.2005.

7. This was followed by the initiation of the proceedings for determination of compensation payable by the State to the landowners whose lands were acquired in the acquisition proceedings in question. Notices to landowners were accordingly issued under Section 9 of the Act.

8. The Land Acquisition Officer held an enquiry as required under Section 11 of the Act and passed separate awards in relation to the lands situated in different villages on 10.05.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the uniform rate applicable to entire acquired land payable to every landowner. In his opinion, all the landowners, whose lands were acquired in the aforementioned 15 villages, were entitled to get the compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.12,50,000/- per acre.

9. Dissatisfied with the awards, the landowners filed their objections under Section 18 of the Act and prayed for making reference to the Civil Court for fresh determination of the compensation and the rate at which it was payable. As a consequence thereof, land references were accordingly made and forwarded to the Reference Court for re-determination of the compensation under the Act. As many as 41 land references were made to the Reference Court.

10. By a common Award dated 27.02.2012, the Reference Court (Civil Court) partly allowed all the reference cases and enhanced the rate of compensation at Rs.43,17,841/- per acre. In other words, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 187

IMPORTANT POINTCourts have to consider all relevant factors for determining market rate of land under acquisition.When the matter is remanded to Reference court for fresh determination, land owners would be entitled to refund of court fee paid before the High court and the Supreme Court.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
Courts have to consider all relevant factors for determining market rate of land under acquisition.
When the matter is remanded to Reference court for fresh determination, land owners would be entitled to refund of court fee paid before the High court and the Supreme Court.