Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 190

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN, JJ.
M/s Acquainted Realtors LLP etc. etc. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1330-1332 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28052-28054 of 2018) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1333-1335 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 30125-30127 of 2018 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1336-1341 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.30478-30483 of 2018) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1342-1346 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.28643-28647 of 2018) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1347-1355 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.30207-30215 of 2018) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1356-1362 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.30223-30229 of 2018) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1363-1364 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3213-3214 of 2019) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1365-1366 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3264-3265 of 2019) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1367-1372 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No SLP(C) Nos.30217-30222 of 2018) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1373-1375 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.30231-30233 of 2018 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1376-1388 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3791-3803 of 2019 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1389-1392 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3476-3479 of 2019 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1393-1400 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.3481-3488 of 2019 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1401 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5763 of 2019 With Civil Appeal Nos. 1402 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s) 5846 of 2021) (@ Diary No.6357 of 2019) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1403 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s) 5847 of 2021) (@ Diary No.15684 of 2019) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1404 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5848 of 2021) (@ Diary No.15686 of 2019) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1405 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5849 of 2021) (@ Diary No.15693 of 2019) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1406 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5850 of 2021) (@ Diary No.15695 of 2019) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1407 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5851 of 2021) (@ Diary No.15698 of 2019) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1408 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5852 of 2021) (@ Diary No.15712 of 2019) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1409-1436 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30821-30848 of 2018) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1501-1502 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18975-18976 of 2019) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1503-1507 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.17860-17864 of 2019) With Civil Appeal Nos. 1437-1500 of 2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 5853-5916 of 2021) (@ Diary No.45577 of 2018)
Decided On : 08-04-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma, AOR Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Pratap Shanker, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Swetank Shantanu, AOR Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, AOR Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shilpa G. Mittal, Adv. Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. AAG. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anurag Kulharia, Adv. Mr. Sandeep, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AOR Ms. Usha Nandini. V, AOR Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav, AOR Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mansi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Nandani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv. Ms. Mamta Sharma, Adv. Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR Ms. Usha Nandini. V, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – Enhancement of compensation – Post-acquisition sale deeds have, at times, been relied upon by Courts. But in a case where pre-acquisition sale instances are otherwise found to be adequate and appropriate, post-acquisition instances, by themselves, cannot outweigh and discard such pre-acquisition sale instances.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Enhancement of compensation – High Court found that lands involved in instant acquisition were identical to lands from adjacent Villages – It was observed that logically 10% increase could safely be granted – However, considering location of lands and being satisfied that there would not be any difference in value despite lapse of a year, it assessed market value for lands in question at Rs.43,61,400/- per acre – Post-acquisition sale deeds have, at times, been relied upon by Courts – But in a case where pre-acquisition sale instances are otherwise found to be adequate and appropriate, post-acquisition instances, by themselves, cannot outweigh and discard such pre-acquisition sale instances – Pre-acquisition pointer in form of Sale Deed dated 17.08.2003 in favour of Reliance Industries Limited with adequate frontage on National Highway was rightly found to be appropriate – No fault can be found with such exercise – High Court was right to a certain extent that there was nothing on record to indicate such upward movement – Landholders must be held entitled to 8% flat increase over market value in respect of lands from villages which were found to be comparable – Landholders must get enhancement to the tune of 8% over Rs.43,61,400 per acre – They shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits. (Paras 3, 10, 13 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Proceedings for acquisition of lands were initiated vide Notification dated 27.09.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of setting up Industrial Model Township, Phase-VI, Manesar, Gurgaon for the development of an integrated complex for industrial, commercial, recreational and other public utilities. These appeals have been preferred by landholders. No appeal has been preferred by the State or the Acquiring Body and thus, the scope of instant appeals is limited to consider whether landholders are entitled to any enhancement in compensation.
Findings of Court:
Guided by the rule of thumb stated in said decision, and even while considering that the lands in instant case were agricultural in nature and away from the Highway, two aspects definitely weigh in favour of the landholders. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the values arrived at in HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others (in the light of subsequent decision in Wazir and another vs. State of Haryana) were themselves on the higher side. Although, the decision in HSIIDC vs. Roshan Lal and others was not challenged by the State, fact remains that the values assessed is that decision were theoretically on a higher scale and the landholders, on that score, have received an advantage.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted in all matters.

2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order date 01.06.2018 passed by the High Court ¹[The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh] in RFA No.384 of 2013 (O&M) [Tej Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others], based on which the individual appeals were disposed of.

3. The facts leading to the instant appeals, in brief, are as under:-

(A) The proceedings for acquisition of lands were initiated vide Notification dated 27.09.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Act²[The Land Acquisition Act, 1894] for the purpose of setting up Industrial Model Township, Phase-VI, Manesar, Gurgaon for the development of an integrated complex for industrial, commercial, recreational and other public utilities.

(B) The aforesaid Notification was followed by Declaration dated 02.06.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The lands sought to be acquired, admeasured 465 acres 5 Kanals 7 Marlas, the details of which as tabulated by the High Court were:-

“Scheme	Villages	Area
“Scheme	Villages	Kanal	Marla
Transport Hub	Bas Khusla	427	15
	Bas Huria	177	8
	Dhana	961	13
	Kasan	458	10
	Bas Lambi	829	18
Transport Hub-II	Dhana	509	7
	Kasan	360	16”

(C) By Awards dated 24.01.2007, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.12.50 lakhs per acre.

(D) References initiated at the instance of land-holders were discussed by the High Court in its decision under challenge as follows:

However, vide award dated 07.10.2013, Reference Court granted a sum of Rs.50,70,359/- which is subject matter of RFA No.7913 of 2013 titled M/s Asylum Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, whereas vide award dated 23.11.2013, which is subject matter of RFA No.2091 of 2014 titled Siri Chand and others v. State of Haryana and others, a sum of Rs.46,07,890/- which had been granted earlier, was maintained. Another award was passed on 17.03.2015, which is subject matter in RFA No.3743 of 2015 titled Udey Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others for village Dhana wherein also Rs.46,07,890/- was awarded.

For Village Kasan, vide award dated 03.10.2012, which is subject matter of RFA No.2086 of 2013 titled Lal Singh v. State of Haryana and others, a sum of Rs.50,70,359/- was awarded while deciding 24 reference petitions.

For land falling in Village Bas Huria, vide award dated 09.11.2011, which is subject matter of RFA No.3426 of 2014 titled Sarup and another v. State of Haryana and others, a sum of Rs.46,07,890/- was granted. Reference Court vide award dated 10.11.2012, in RFA No.1971 of 2013 titled Sohan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others, has a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 190

Cases Referred (2)