Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 607
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
LOVELEEN KUMAR ETC - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2018, 5266, 5267-5295, 5296-5323, 5264-5265, 5474, 5473, 5477-5510, 5475, 5526-5534, 5261-5263, 5476, 5513, 5512, 5514, 5515, 5511, 5516-5523, 5524-5525, 5535-5536, 5537, 5540-5542, 5538, 5539, 5544, 5543, 5324-5472 of 2018, (@SLP(C) No. 25853, 26989-27017, 31489-31516, 25792-25793, 34877, 34874, 34876, 30164-30312, 36677-36710, 34875, 25395-97 OF 2016, (@SLP(C) Nos. 11671-11679, 806, 808, 807, 6057, 2455, . 8213-8220, . 8352-8353, 18607-18608, 19817, 25154, 28058 of 2017, (@ SLP(C) No.13462-13464, 13466, 13465 of 2018, (@ Diary No. 23208, 30734, 33285 OF 2017)
Decided on : 16-05-2018
IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation cannot be determined on decade old rates.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – High Court determining compensation on basis of a decade old decision – Not proper – Matter remitted. (Para 9)
(2008) 14 SCC 745; (2010) 5 SCC 708 – Relied upon
(2013) 5 SCC 527 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
Land owners have filed appeals against High Court order seeking further enhancement of compensation in land acquisition. The State on the other hand has filed appeal for reduction of the same.
Finding of the Court:
Compensation cannot be determined on decade old rates.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 28.05.2016 passed in R.F.A. No. 7324 of 2014 and connected matters by the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 25395-25397/2016, SLP(C) No. 25853/2016, SLP(C) Nos. 26989-27017/2016, SLP(C) Nos. 31489-31516/2016, SLP(C) Nos. 25792-25793/2016, SLP(C) Nos. 34877/2016, SLP(C) No. 34874/2016, SLP(C) Nos. 36677-36710/2016, SLP(C) No. 34875/2016, SLP(C) Nos. 11671-11679/2017, SLP(C) No. 34876/2016, SLP(C) No. 806/2017, SLP(C) No. 808/2017, SLP(C) No. 807/2017, SLP(C) No. 6057/2017, SLP(C) No. 2455/2017, SLP(C) Nos. 8213-8220/2017, SLP(C) Nos. 8352-8353/2017, SLP(C) Nos. 18607-18608/2017, SLP(C) No. 19817/2017, SLP(C) Diary No. 23208/2017, SLP(C) No. 25154/2017, SLP(C) No. 28058/2017, SLP(C) Diary No. 30734/2017, and SLP(C) Diary No. 33285/2017 are filed by the land-losers/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No. 30164-30312/2016 are filed by the State seeking reduction of compensation, and consequently praying for setting aside the judgment of the High Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as “landowners” and “State”. The facts, in brief, are as under:-
By a notification dated 29.08.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, “the Act”), the State of Haryana sought to acquire the land measuring 229.13 acres from the revenue estate of village Hansi for the development and utilisation of commercial and residential Sectors namely 3, 5 and 6 at Hansi (District Hisar). The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 03.08.2007 assessing the market value in three belts:
(a) Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre up to a depth of 2 acres from G.T. Road;
(b) Rs.10,00,000/-per acre up to a depth of 2 acres from the Jind bye-pass road;
(c) Rs. 8,00,000/- for the remaining land.
The Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act while assessing the compensation and passing the award dated 31.05.2014 did away with the belting system and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,000/-per square yard (1 acre = 4840 square yards), which means that the Reference Court awarded compensation of Rs. 48,40,000/-per acre. The State accepted the award of the Reference Court and did not file an appeal, whereas the landowners approached the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation by filing appeals, including R.F.A No. 7324 of 2014 and connected matters.
4. The High Court allowed the appeals of the landowners by the impugned judgment dated 28.05.2016 enhancing the compensation to Rs. 4173/-per square yard, i.e., Rs. 2,01,97,320/-per acre. While awarding enhanced compensation as mentioned supra, the High Court noted that the land acquired is situated at a prime location and possessed immense potentiality; after the acquisition, more than 27 acres of land were sold by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter, “HUDA”) to two Government departments at Rs. 3,200/-per square metre and Rs. 2,246 per square yard (1 square metre = 1.19599 square yards). It has been observed that in an acquisition on 12.06.1995 of land in the same revenue estate situated at a distance of 300 yards from the presently acquired land, the Supreme Court in Smt. Ashrafi and others vs. State of Haryana and others, (2013) 5 SCC 527, had granted compensation of Rs. 1,342/-per square yard; the Supreme Court had applied 1/3rd cut while concluding so; the gap between that acquisition in Smt. Ashrafi (supra) and the present case was about 10 years and 2 months. The High Court solely relied upon these figures, and keeping in mind the time gap between the acquisition in Ashrafi’s case (supra) and the present one of about 10 years and 2 months, granted 15% interest increase per year on the aforementioned compensation of Rs. 1,342/-per square yard with cumulative effect from the date of acquisition. However, the High C
