1. Land acquisition for public purpose under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Dispute regarding determination of market value and applicability of development charges. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 343
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
Mohammad Yusuf and Others Etc. Etc. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3807-3859 OF 2018
Decided on : 16-04-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation in land acquisition must be reasonable, just and fair.
Compensation in land acquisition must be reasonable, just and fair.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Constitution of India – Article 300A – Compensation in land acquisition – Must be reasonable, just and fair. (Para 10)
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – Compensation – Market value – Factors to be considered – Highest of the exemplars which is a bona fide transaction will be considered – Compensation granted, held, as per law. (Para 15, 16)
(2015) 2 SCC 262 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) assessed the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs 16 lakhs per acre along with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount to the landholders.
The appellants-land owners filed a Reference and the Reference Court, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 72,00,000 lakhs per acre and applied the development cut at the rate of 55% and a further cut of 5% on account of waiting period, totaling to 60%. Thus, the compensation was determined at Rs. 28,80,000/- per acre along with the statutory benefits.
The appellants preferred appeals before the High Court. The High Court partly allowed the appeals of the landholders by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 64,80,000 per acre along with other benefits while dismissing the cross appeals filed by the respondent-State.
Finding of the Court:
Compensation has been rightly granted by the High Court.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants seek higher compensation based on urban potential and zero development cuts — State contends compensation is adequate and deductions are legally justified. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Market value depends on actual condition at notification date; basic amenities alone do not qualify land as urban; reasonable development cuts are necessary for specific purposes. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 18 )
4. Compensation must be a just equivalent based on market value at notification date, considering potential use and reasonable deductions for development. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 )
5. Appeals dismissed; High Court judgment upheld. (Para 20 )
6. What factors are considered when fixing the market value of acquired land?
The Land Acquisition Officer must consider the existing geographical situation, the existing use of the land, available advantages such as proximity to highways or developed areas, and the market value of other land in the same or adjacent locality. (Para 11 )
7. Does the presence of basic amenities automatically qualify land as urban for compensation purposes?
No. Basic amenities like water, sewer, electricity, and telephone lines are insufficient. Urban classification requires additional factors such as commercial activities, population growth, educational facilities, and healthy public transport infrastructure. (Para 14 )
8. How are development charges determined in land acquisition cases?
Deductions are based on location, available facilities, land size, and the purpose of acquisition. While cumulative deductions should generally not exceed 75%, they must be reasonable to make the land fit for its intended purpose. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
9. Which sale deed is preferred when multiple exemplars of similar land are available?
Usually, the highest bonafide transaction that is proximate to the date of the Section 4 notification is considered the most reliable exemplar for determining market value. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT :
R.K.Agrawal, J
1. Leave granted.
2. The above appeals have been filed against the impugned common judgment and order dated 03.06.2016 passed by learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 6617 of 2012 (O&M) and other connected matters whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants herein while dismissing the cross appeals of the respondent-State.
3. Brief Facts:-
(a) The Government of Haryana, Revenue Department, vide Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’) dated 18.10.2005 has notified the land of Village Ferozpur Namak, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat for the construction of Mini Secretariat at District Mewat, admeasuring 372 karnals 2 marlas (i.e. 46 acres 4 karnals and 2 marlas). Consequently, the Government of Haryana, vide Notification dated 25.05.2006, issued declaration that the land is required for a public purpose.
(b) Notice under Section 9 of the LA Act was issued to all the landholders and interested persons. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), Nuh, Mewat, vide Award No. 1 dated 05.11.2007 assessed the market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs 16 lakhs per acre along with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount to the landholders.
(c) Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed a Reference under Section 18 of the LA Act which was registered as LA Case No. 394/01.12.10/19.09.11 before the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-SDO(C) Nuh, Mewat. On 28.08.2012, the Reference Court, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 72,00,000 lakhs per acre and applied the development cut at the rate of 55% and a further cut of 5% on account of waiting period, totaling to 60%. Thus, the compensation was determined at Rs. 28,80,000/- per acre along with the statutory benefits.
(d) Being not satisfied, the appellants herein preferred a Regular First Appeal (RFA) being No. 6617 of 2012 alongwith other set of appeals before the High Court. Respondent-State also filed cross appeals before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide common judgment and order dated 03.06.2016, partly allowed the appeals of the landholders by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 64,80,000 per acre along with other benefits while dismissing the cross appeals filed by the respondent-State.
(e) The landholders, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.06.2016, has preferred these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
4. Heard Mr. R.S. Suri, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the respondent-State and perused the records.
Point(s) for consideration:-
5. The short point of consideration arises before this Court is as to whether in the light of present facts and circumstances of the case, any interference is sought for by this Court?
Rival contentions:-
6. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that the High court failed to consider that the land acquired had great future potential for being developed as residential as well as commercial area, hence, the compensation ought to have been awarded accordingly. Learned senior counsel further contended that the assessment of the compensation has not been done considering the following factors like potential value, location of land, future prospects, the development of land in question and the likely injury to be sustained by the appellants herein for loss of their future earnings etc. It was also contended that the High Court has not considered the facts that the acquired land has immense potential which is situated at a distance of half kilometers from the Nuh City, and also situated within 30 kms from the cyber city and could be directly approachable from Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.
7. Further, the Reference Court allowed a cut of 55% on account of development for raising infrastructural activities and other amenities and a cut of 5% on account of
