Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1575
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Baljeet Singh (D) Thr Lrs. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union of India Through Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5480-5486 of 2013, Civil Appeal Nos.3285-3300 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos.5518 of 2014, Civil Appeal Nos.6781-6782 of 2014, Civil Appeal Nos.10261-10262 of 2014, Civil Appeal Nos.248 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos.3579-3580 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos.15003 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12549 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.3574 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos.15004 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12545 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.15005 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12535 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.15006 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12542 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.15007 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12540 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.15008 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12544 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.15009 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12529 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.4968 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos.15010 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.16235 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.4962-4963 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos.15011 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.16234 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.15012 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12547 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.15013 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.14864 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.15014 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 16237 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos.4964-4965 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos.4971 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos.9169-9170 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos.4967 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos.4072 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos.5639-5644 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos.15016-17 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 28575-28576 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos. 4073 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos. 4957 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos. 4958 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos. 4969 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos. 4973 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos. 4972 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos. 4970 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos. 5638 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos. 4966 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos. 15020 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23734 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos. 15021-22 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 23730-23731 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos. 6818 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos. 6930 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos. 9168 of 2015, Civil Appeal Nos. 15023 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.35270 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos. 11720 of 2016, Civil Appeal Nos. 15024 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 35268 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos. 15029 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 192 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos. 15025 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 34743 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos. 15026 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 34747 of 2015), Civil Appeal Nos. 11712 of 2016, Civil Appeal Nos. 5186 of 2017, Civil Appeal Nos. 4472 of 2016, Civil Appeal Nos. 4466 of 2016, Civil Appeal Nos. 7279 of 2016, Civil Appeal Nos. 10818 of 2017, Civil Appeal Nos. 15027 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.37730 of 2016)
Decided On : 19-09-2017
For the Appellants :Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Adv., L.B. Rai, Mohit Kr. Sharma, D.S. Lakna, Akash Parasar, Vijay Kr. Awana, Shankar Divate, Ms. Malini Poduval, P.S. Vats, Ms. Babita Sant, Ghan Shyam Vasisht, R.P. Vats, Ms. Yashika Sarwaria, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Garima Prashad, Advocates
For the Respondents:Arun Kumar Singh, Ms. Rekha Pandey, B.V. Balaram Das, V. Balaji, Gautam Sharma, Kiran Bhardwaj, B. Krishna Prasad, Ashwani Kumar, Naveen Kr., Ravinder Nain, Jay Kr. Bhardwaj, Ms. Vibha D. Makhija, Sr. Adv., V. Balaji, Ms. Manjula Gupta, Arun Kumar Singh, A. Singh, B.V. Balram Das, Binu Tamta, D. S. Mahra, Ms. Garima Prashad, Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya, (M/s. Saharya & Co.), Sudhir Naagar, Ms. Ashwarya Sinha, Govind Goel, Ankit Goel, Ms. Aasita, Alok Kumar Dwivedi, Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is the inappropriateness of the belting system for compensation determination and the inapplicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 in the case.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Compensation Enhancement - Section 4, Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 - Pratap Singh, Jai Singh, Prakash @ Om Prakash (D) v. Union of India, Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra v. The Union of India, Trishla Jain v. State of Uttaranchal AIR 2011 SC 2458
Fact of the Case:
The landowners appealed for enhancement of compensation for land acquired for the village Mundka and Bakkarwala under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court had determined varying valuations for different categories of land and had applied a belting system for compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the belting system applied by the High Court for 'B' category area was not appropriate and enhanced the compensation for 'B' category area to match the compensation for 'A' category area. The court also held that the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 were not attracted, and the exercise undertaken for determination of today's valuation was of no use in the appeals. The appeals were allowed to the extent of enhancing compensation, to be paid within three months.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of compensation for acquired land, the applicability of the belting system, and the relevance of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the belting system applied by the High Court was not appropriate and enhanced the compensation for 'B' category area. The court also determined that the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 were not attracted in the case.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed to the extent of enhancing compensation for 'B' category area and the compensation was to be paid within three months.
ORDER :
Delay condoned.
Substitution application allowed.
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The landowners/claimants have come up in the appeal for enhancement of the compensation for the land which has been acquired for the village Mundka and Bakkarwala. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued on 25.2.1997. The High Court had determined the valuation for the land of category "A" at the rate of Rs. 2,49,408/- per bigha i.e. at the rate of Rs. 11,97,162/- per acre. For the land of "B" category the High Court had determined the valuation at Rs. 2,01,117/- per bigha i.e. Rs. 9,65,361/- per acre.
3. The High Court has also determined the valuation by the impugned judgment and order for the notification issued on 21.3.2003 at the uniform rate of Rs. 4,03,425/- per bighas i.e. Rs. 19,36,440/- per acre.
4. With respect to notification issued on 17.6.2005 for the land in village Mundka and Bakkarwala, the compensation determined is uniform at the rate of Rs. 4,98,589/- per bigha i.e. Rs. 23,93,227/- per acre.
5. With respect to the yet another Notification under Section 4 of the Act with respect to land at village Bakkarwala issued on 24.9.2003 the compensation determined is Rs. 4,25,641/- per bigha i.e. Rs. 20,43,076/- per acre.
6. Enhancement has been granted at the rate of 10% per annum flat. In the area in question, 1 bigha consists of approx. 17433 sq. feet.
7. The High Court had relied upon the decision in the case of Pratap Singh and has also taken into consideration the other decisions in the case of Jai Singh.
8. In the appeals, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that considering the circle rate notified by the Government of Delhi in January 2008, rate was Rs. 53,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lacs Only) per bigha they have also referred to the decision of this court in the case of Prakash @ Om Prakash (D) v. Union of India (SLP(C) NO. 12302 OF 2007) in which this court passed an order on 11.2.2015 this court did not interfere with the determination made by the High Court, however, liberty was granted to the appellant to file appropriate application under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act of 2013') within one month. In case the applications have been decided by the NCT of Delhi, the order shall be communicated. It was also directed that representations which were pending be decided within two months. It appears that contempt petitions had been preferred in the said and other connected matters in which a valuer had been appointed and compensation has been disbursed under the provisions of the Act of 2013.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants thus prayed for enhancement of the compensation and increase at the rate of at least 15% and that too on a cumulative basis. It was also urged that belting system has been applied by the High Court with respect to village Mundka for the acquisition made in 1997 which was not appropriate as the potential of the land more or less was the same thus compensation ought to have been awarded uniformly for the entire land.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has supported the determination made by the High Court and submitted that circle rate notified in January 2008 could not have been taken into consideration being subsequent to the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. It was also submitted that the decision in Prakash Singh's case (supra) is of no value as provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 are not at all attracted to the fact situation of the instant cases. The reference had been made and the appeals are for its enhancement. The determination made by the reference court has been questioned by the landowners as well as by the Union of In
