Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
MANOJ KUMAR - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 13132-13141 of 2017, (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 30926-30935 of 2016) With Civil Appeal No. 13198 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 35596 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos. 13146-13184 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 30858-30896 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos. 13143-13145 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 9353-9355 of 2017), Civil Appeal No. 13201 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 33835 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos. 13266-13269 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 11636-11639 of 2017), Civil Appeal Nos. 13142 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 30984 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos. 13257-13265 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 11623-11631 of 2017), Civil Appeal Nos. 13199-13200 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 35597-35598 of 2016),Civil Appeal No. 13185 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 28177 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 13197 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 31675 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 13194 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 32967 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 13196 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 32957 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 13193 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 32906 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 13195 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 32958 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos. 13186-13192 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 32959-32965 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos.13211-13222 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 36211-36222 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos.13224-13230 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.38552-38558 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos. 13202-13210 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.35629-35637 of 2016), Civil Appeal No. 13223 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No.37294 of 2016), Civil Appeal Nos. 13231-13238 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.2435-2442 of 2017), Civil Appeal Nos. 13239-13256 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.13493-13510 of 2017), Civil Appeal No. 13272 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No.11322 of 2017), Civil Appeal Nos. 13270-13271 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.8223-8224 of 2017), Civil Appeal No. 13273 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No.13818 of 2017), Civil Appeal Nos. 13296-13299 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.15404-15407 of 2017), Civil Appeal Nos. 13274-13295 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.15382-15403 of 2017), Civil Appeal Nos. 14539-14556 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 24946-24975 of 2017), (D.No. 13467 of 2017), Civil Appeal Nos. 14569-14598 of 2017 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 24976-25005)
Decided on : 13-09-2017
Land Acquisition Act - Compensation Determination - Sections 4, 6, 18 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The State of Haryana and landowners appealed the determination of compensation by the High Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The dispute arose from the acquisition of land for urban development purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the High Court's methodology for determining compensation was inappropriate and not in accordance with settled legal principles. It was observed that various transactions executed before the date of the acquisition notification should have been considered. The Court also noted errors in not deducting amounts towards development and in blindly relying on previous judgments without considering the nature of the transactions.
Issues: The issues included the appropriate methodology for determining compensation, the relevance of previous judgments, and the need for deductions towards development.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need to consider various transactions executed before the acquisition notification, make deductions towards development, and not blindly rely on previous judgments. It also highlighted the importance of evidence adduced in each case and the lack of binding precedent in compensation determination.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the State's appeals and dismissed the landowners' appeals, awarding compensation at a reduced amount of Rs. 95 lakhs per acre.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key legal points:
The methodology for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act must be comprehensive, considering multiple transactions prior to the issuance of the notification, rather than relying solely on previous judgments or awards. (!) (!) (!) (!)
The courts are required to analyze the nature, location, and characteristics of the land, and compare it with similar properties, ensuring that comparable sale deeds or awards are genuinely similar and relevant to the case at hand. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Previous awards or judgments are considered evidence but are not binding precedents. Their applicability depends on the similarity of the land, the circumstances, and the evidence supporting those awards. They should not be followed mechanically without examining the factual basis. (!) (!) (!) (!)
When relying on sale transactions or awards, the evidence must be admissible and relevant, with proper opportunity given to the opposing party to lead rebuttal evidence. Evidence not recorded in the case record or admitted without proper procedures cannot be used as a basis for compensation determination. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Deduction towards development costs is a recognized principle in valuation, typically around one-third, but this can vary depending on the nature of the land, its location, and the extent of development required. Larger or less developed lands may warrant higher deductions, and the deduction should be justified with evidence. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
The valuation should be based on the market value as of the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, considering the land as a hypothetical willing seller and buyer. The valuation must be grounded in actual sale transactions or comparable awards close in time and similar in nature. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Escalation or increases in land value over time should be applied cautiously, based on evidence of regular appreciation. Arbitrary or mechanical increases are not appropriate, and recent land values tend to be more reliable than outdated awards. (!) (!) (!) (!)
The courts should assess each case on its own facts, considering the specific features of the land, the evidence of sale transactions, and the circumstances, rather than blindly following previous awards or judgments. This ensures fair and just compensation. (!) (!) (!) (!)
The use of awards or judgments from other cases requires careful scrutiny, and if such awards are to be relied upon, proper procedures, including filing applications under relevant rules, must be followed to admit additional evidence. (!) (!) (!)
The final compensation amount must reflect a balanced consideration of comparable sale transactions, deductions for development, and adjustments for land-specific factors, ensuring the amount is fair and just for both landowners and the acquiring authority. (!) (!) (!)
These points collectively emphasize the importance of a meticulous, evidence-based, and case-specific approach to land acquisition compensation, avoiding reliance on mechanical or precedent-based methods without proper factual analysis.
ORDER :
Arun Mishra, J.
Heard.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Leave granted.
4. The appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana as well as by the land owners questioning the determination of compensation by the High Court by its judgment and order dated 24.2.2016. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') had been issued on 30th May 2005 for the land admeasuring 561.38 acres, the Notification under Section 6 of the Act confined the area to 444.71 acres. However, the Award was passed with respect to the area admeasuring 354.50 acres. The Revenue Estate, Jagadhri of village Jaroda, Gulab Nagar and village Bhatauli had been acquired for the purpose of developing Sectors 22, 23 and 24 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Jagadhari.
5. The Land Acquisition Collector vide its Awards of dated 16.7.2007 determined the compensation at Rs. 24,00,000/- per acre for the prime land, Rs. 20,00,000/- per acre for the area within municipal limits and Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land.
6. A reference had been made under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court, ignoring the belting system, vide its Awards including the one dated 10.02.2014 enhanced the market value of the acquired land, at the uniform rate of Rs. 1560/- per square meter.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid determination made by the Reference Court, the State of Haryana filed the appeals seeking a reduction of the amount whereas the landowners filed the appeals for enhancement of compensation. The appeals preferred by the State were dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 22.9.2014 whereas the appeals preferred by the landowners have been allowed by the impugned judgment.
8. The High Court has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3609 per square meter, rounded off to Rs. 3610 per square meter after adding 15% annual increase on the cumulative basis for six years i.e. Rs. 1,46,09,000 per acre. The High Court has passed the judgment on the basis of another award following it in a blind manner i.e. Swaran Singh v. State of Haryana and another, in that in the year 1999 the land had been acquired it was situated just across the road in front of the acquired land, in which this Court did not interfere and the special leave petition was dismissed in limine. It has also been observed that the cut had been applied by the High Court while deciding the relied upon case of Swaran Singh (supra) in as much as exemplar relied upon of the year 1997 appreciation had not been given up to 1999.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana urged that the High Court has erred in law in relying upon the decision of Swaran Singh (supra). In the evidence recorded by the Reference Court parties have filed various sale deeds with respect to the same area executed before the date of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. In Swaran Singh's case, reliance has been placed on another judgment in CA No.476/2004 the transaction which had been relied upon was a transaction of 10.6.1997 between the Power Grid Corporation and the HUDA, where under the price had been paid for the plot in area 8000 sq. meters, sold @ Rs. 1560/- per square meter. Thus, the learned counsel urged that for development, certain deductions were required to be made. In the said case, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 28.4.1999. Thus, the compensation determined is highly excessive and deserves to be suitably reduced.
10. Per contra, learned senior counsel Shri Mahabir Singh and Shri Manoj Swarup, appearing on behalf of the landowners prayed for enhancement of the compensation. The compensation awarded by the High Court is on the lower side. The High Court, in Swaran Singh's case, had applied the cut while not giving increase for two years i.e. w.e.f. 1997 to 1999, on relied upon comparable transaction.
11
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
