1. Land acquisition for industrial sector expansion — Dispute over compensation enhancement — Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 103
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Others – Appellants
Versus
Satpal and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.......of 2023, SLP (C) Nos. 18428-18432, 18434-18438, 18440-18454, 18456-18494, 18496, 18498-18501, 18503-18509, 18511-18572, 18574-18584 of 2021
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation must be uniform for lands acquired for same public purpose.
Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation must be uniform for lands acquired for same public purpose.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – Compensation @ Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre awarded by High Court – Lands acquired under both notifications are for same public purpose – Landowners/claimants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.24,50,000/- per acre with respect to land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, with all other statutory benefits, which may be available under provisions of 1894 Act – Sale deed after first notification dated 30.06.2005 could not have been basis for assessing/determining compensation with respect to subsequent acquisition – Impugned common judgment and order passed by High Court insofar as land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 is concerned, is modified and landowners/claimants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 24,50,000/- per acre (instead of Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre), with all other statutory benefits which may be available under provisions of 1894 Act – Insofar as land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007 is concerned, impugned common judgment and order is modified and it is ordered that landowners/claimants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 30,73,280/- per acre (instead of Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre) with all other statutory benefits which may be available under provisions of 1894 Act. (Paras 5.1, 7, 8, 9 and 9.1)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in the respective first appeals, by which for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 for villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi, the High Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre and for the land acquired vide notification dated 05.03.2007 for the aforesaid villages, High Court has assessed and awarded the compensation @ Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (‘HSIIDC’) has preferred present appeals.
Findings of Court:
Giving 8 to 12 percent cumulative increase on the amount of compensation awarded for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, would be a safe and guiding factor. If that be so, compensation with respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007, would come to Rs. 30,73,280/- per acre (Rs. 24,50,000/- + 12% increase = Rs.27,44,000/- + 12% increase = Rs.30,73,280/-).
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Amrita Verma, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Mr. Buddha Deo Prasad, Adv. Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Vedant Bharadwaj, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR Mr. Karan Dewan, Adv. Mr. Kartik Yadav, Adv. Miss Aanchal Jain, AOR Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Amrita Verma, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Mr. Buddha Deo Prasad, Adv. Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Vedant Bharadwaj, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR Mr. Karan Dewan, Adv. Mr. Kartik Yadav, Adv. Miss Aanchal Jain, AOR Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to compensation based on builder's sale deeds — Dispute over applicable market value date — Contention regarding cumulative increase for subsequent acquisitions. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. High Court erred in calculating compensation from sale exemplars — Sale deeds post-notification cannot be the sole basis for subsequent acquisition valuation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Compensation for subsequent acquisitions for the same purpose should be determined by applying a cumulative percentage increase to the previous acquisition's value. (Para 8 )
5. Appeals partly allowed — Compensation modified to lower rates for both notifications with statutory benefits. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. How should compensation be calculated when relying on specific sale deeds as exemplars?
The court held that when specific sale deeds are used as exemplars, the mean value of those deeds should be calculated, and a reasonable percentage cut applied to determine the final market value. (Para 7 )
7. Can sale deeds executed after the first notification be used to determine compensation for subsequent acquisitions in the same area?
No, sale deeds executed after the initial notification for the same area cannot be the basis for assessing or determining compensation with respect to subsequent acquisitions. (Para 8 )
8. What is the appropriate method for determining compensation for subsequent land acquisitions for the same public purpose?
A safe and guiding factor is to apply a cumulative percentage increase (such as 8 to 12 percent) to the compensation awarded for the earlier acquisition, accounting for the time gap between notifications. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the respective first appeals, by which for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 for villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi, the High Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre and for the land acquired vide notification dated 05.03.2007 for the aforesaid villages, the High Court has assessed and awarded the compensation @ Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre, the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (for short ‘HSIIDC’) has preferred the present appeals.
2. A large chunk of land situated at villages Badh Malik, Jatheri, Pritampura, Akbarpur Barota, Rasoi etc. in District Sonipat, Haryana came to be acquired for the purpose of construction of the Express Highway known as “Kundli - Manesar - Palwal Highway (for short ‘KMP’) connecting National Highway No. 1 in District Sonipat, Haryana, by different notifications. In the present appeals, we are concerned with the land acquired vide notifications dated 30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007 of villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi. The lands were acquired for the expansion of industrial sector 39 also.
2.1 The Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded compensation @ Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 19,00,000/- per acre for villages Badh Malik and Rasoi with respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005. The Reference Court did not enhance the amount of compensation so far as village Pritampura is concerned.
With respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007, the Reference Court did not enhance the amount of compensation in respect of villages Badh Malik and Pritampura, however, enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 23,00,000/- per acre for village Rasoi.
2.2 In the first round of litigation before the High Court, the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 40,00,000/- per acre up to depth of 4 acres and Rs. 30,40,000/- per acre beyond that with respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005.
Similarly, in the first round of litigation before the High Court, the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 50,00,000/- per acre up to depth of 4 acres and Rs. 38,00,000/- per acre beyond that with respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007. The judgments and orders passed by the High Court were the subject matter of Civil Appeals before this Court being Civil Appeal No. 12847/2017 and Civil Appeal No. 20050/2017 along with other allied appeals. By judgments and orders dated 6.9.2017 and 28.11.2017, this Court disposed of the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the High Court and remitted the matters to the High Court for a fresh decision. This Court did not approve adoption of belting system by the High Court by observing that being an acquisition for an Express Way passing through different parcel of land, there is no need or justification for adopting the belting system. This Court also observed that if the land value is to be fixed for KMP project acquisition, the relevant factors which are to be noted are mainly the value that was prevalent in the locality prior to 13.08.2004.
2.3 That thereafter on remand, in the second round of litigation before the High Court, by the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has assessed and determined and awarded compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre with respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 and has enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre with respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007.
2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court with respect to the lands acquired vide notifications dated 30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007, HSII
