SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 408

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Bhag Singh Etc. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 4070-4075 of 2012 with Civil Appeal Nos. 4076-4082 of 2012; Civil Appeal No. 4086 of 2012 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4083-4084 of 2012
Decided on : 05-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the parties :Rameshwar Singh Malik, Jitesh Malik, Anisha Dahiya, Satish Kumar, Satyapal Khushal Chand Pasi, B. Sunita Rao, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S. K. Rajora, Ms. Deepali Hooda, Manjeet Singh Gill, Manju Jeitley, R.K. Rathore, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Samten Doma, Sourabh Tandon, Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Kuldip Singh, Yash Pal Dhingra, Anukriti Pareek, B. Krishna Prasad, B. V. Balaram Das, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – Though appreciation in price can be presumed, but market value cannot be assessed by applying suitable deduction in market value of land acquired by a subsequent notification.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act,1894 – Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – Determination of Market value of land – There is no sale instance in respect of land – Absence of sale deeds shows that there was no sale and purchase of land which could show potentiality of use of land for residential, commercial or industrial purposes – Though appreciation in price can be presumed, but market value cannot be assessed by applying suitable deduction in market value of land acquired by a subsequent notification – When later notification is issued, development activities had already been taken place in view of earlier two notifications – As such, it is not percentage of increase in market value but increase due to development which has taken place on account of earlier notifications – Market value of land cannot be based upon land acquired more than two years later of notification in question – Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.4 lakhs per acre in respect of land acquired vide same notification – Such determination has not been appealed against either by land owners or by State – High Court has rightly relied upon such determination to assess market value of land at Rs.4 lakhs per acre – No error in orders passed by High Court which may warrant interference in present appeals – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 14, 15, 18 and 19)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals are directed against orders dated 2.8.2010 and 21.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the appeals of the land owners and that of the Union were dismissed, maintaining the compensation of Rs.4 lakhs per acre awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Findings of Court:

Market value determined in respect of Village Kambali cannot be considered for determination of compensation. Though, in respect of acquisition of land vide notification dated 11.11.1993, the compensation assessed is Rs.8 lakhs per acre which is more than two years later and in between, there is acquisition of land vide notification dated 25.7.1991.

Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Hemant Gupta, J.

The present appeals are directed against orders dated 2.8.2010 and 21.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the appeals of the land owners and that of the Union were dismissed, maintaining the compensation of Rs.4 lakhs per acre awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894[For short, the 'Act'].

2. The notification dated 26.10.1990 was published intending to acquire 32 acres 6 kanal and 3 marlas of land in Village Sohana and 90 acres 7 kanal and 18 marlas of land in Village Lakhnaur. The said notification was followed by a notification dated 6.11.1991 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court awarded compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs per acre apart from the compensation for super-structures. The said award of the amount of compensation was based upon a judgment dated 11.10.2002 (Ex. P/13) by the Reference Court pertaining to the same notification in respect of land situated in Village Lakhnaur.

3. Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, learned senior counsel appearing for the land owners in Civil Appeal Nos. 4076-4082 of 2012 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4083-4084 of 2012 argued that in respect of land acquired vide subsequent notification dated 25.7.1991 for the land situated in Village Sohana, the Reference Court had awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,96,000/- and in respect of another notification dated 11.11.1993, in respect of land situated in Village Sohana, the Reference Court has awarded Rs. 6,96,000/- per acre. It was further contended that in terms of acquisition of land vide notification dated 27.9.1988 of Village Kambali, Rs. 5,96,000/- per acre was awarded as compensation by the Reference Court which was affirmed by the High Court in first appeal. The present acquisition is more than 2 years later, therefore, the land owners are entitled to compensation on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court in addition to the increase in prices for the period of 2 years. It was argued that Village Kambali and Village Sohana are adjoining villages, therefore, the market value determined in respect of Village Kambali is a reasonable yardstick for determination of the compensation in respect of land situated in Village Sohana.

4. On behalf of the State, it was argued that total land admeasuring 123 acres 6 kanals 1 marla was subject matter of acquisition vide notification dated 26.10.1990 out of which 262 kanals and 3 marlas is the land situated in Village Sohana and 728 kanals and 6 marlas of land is situated in Village Lakhnaur. Out of the total land acquired, 49 acres 4 kanals and 18 marlas have been utilized by the Union for the purpose of Border Security Force whereas the rest of the land has been utilized by the State. The Reference Court has relied upon determination of compensation vide Ex.P/13 in respect of land in Village Lakhnaur which is part of the same notification by which the land in Village Sohana was acquired. Therefore, the award of market value of land by the Reference Court, as affirmed by the High Court, does not suffer from any error or illegality.

5. The appellants have filed a Lay-out Plan (Annexure P/20) before this Court. It shows that the land situated in Village Sohana and Village Mataur are close to each other whereas land situated at Village Kambali and kambala are at quite a distance located near the Chandigarh International Airport. As per Map of Survey of India, the village Kumbra is the next village located on east of village Sohana whereas village Mouli is situated on south-east of Sohana. Village Kambala is further away from Mauli. Kambali is located further on south-east. The distance from Sohana to Kambala and Kambali is more than


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top