The determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act should consider various transactions and aspects, and not blindly rely on previous judgments or awards. The dismissal of a special leave petition without reasons cannot be treated as a binding precedent.

ORDER :

1. 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. After hearing learned