SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
The Central Warehousing Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Thakur Dwara Kalan Ul-Maruf Baraglan Wala (Dead) & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6918-6919 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 30817-30818 of 2016)
Decided on : 19-10-2023
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Acquisition of land – Fair and just compensation – There is no material in form of exemplars of relevant time that is date of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act so as to facilitate determination of market value – Whatever sale deeds have been referred by appellant, cannot be taken as exemplars to determine market value for which reasons given by High Court are reasonable – Annual increase to determine just compensation varies from case to case and period to be applied is a major factor to be considered – In present case, period is 11 years – For shorter period of 3-5 years, it could have been 10% or 12% – But in no case 15% would be justified for a period of 11 years as awarded by High Court in impugned order – Given 11 years gap, 8% would be considered just and proper – Impugned judgment and order of High Court set aside – Land Acquisition Collector to calculate compensation at the rate as determined here. (Paras 14, 23, 24 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Core question to be decided in present appeals is as to what would be a fair and just compensation so as to do justice between parties that is to say that land owners may get a fair and reasonable amount of compensation for losing their land, and at the same time balancing State exchequer by not awarding an amount which may be in excess of market value so as not to put an additional burden on the appellant which is a State entity.
Findings of Court:
On rough assessment, compensation would be equivalent to compensation awarded by Reference Court. High Court fell in error in enhancing compensation by applying cumulative annual increase of 15%.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Application for substitution is allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeals assail the correctness of common judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated 01.06.2016, whereby the appeal filed by Respondent No.1 (RFA No. 295 of 2005) was partly allowed, and the appeals filed by the appellant and State of Haryana (respondent No.2) (RFA No. 2400 of 2004 and RFA No. 2522 of 2004) were dismissed, raising the amount of compensation to Rs.493/- per square yard on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18941[In short, ‘1894 Act’]. The basis for the same being cumulative annual increase at the rate of 15% for a period of 11 years. The base figure was taken from an order of Reference Court dated 30.08.2000 relating to acquisition of land of the same village Naraingarh of the year 1989, and the period of 11 years being counted from 1989 to 2000, the year of the notification dated 10.11.2000 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
4. Relevant facts for deciding the present appeals are as follows:
i) Notification was issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act on 10.11.2000 for acquiring land measuring 80 Kanals, 11 Marlas out of the revenue estate of Naraingarh, District Ambala for the benefit of the appellant.
ii) Objections were invited as per the provisions of the 1894 Act; however, no objections were filed.
iii) Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 19.03.2001.
iv) The Land Acquisition Collector/Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) who was duly authorised to give the award, started the process on 25.09.2001 by serving notices under Section 9 of the 1894 Act. After the parties led evidence and considering material on record, vide award dated 12.10.2001 the Land Acquisition Collector determined the rate of compensation at Rs.3.50 lacs per acre, which would be equivalent to Rs.2,187.50 Ps. per Marla and further equivalent to Rs.72.31 per square yard being the market value prevailing on the date of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
5. The Land Acquisition Collector considered the following factors to determine the rate of compensation:
a) No objections were filed with respect to area and classification of the land in question.
b) The land owners (respondents) did not put forth any specific claim with regard to the market value of the land. The only claim was that fair and reasonable compensation be awarded.
c) The acquired land was purely an agricultural land situated by the side of a link road.
d) Report of the Committee constituted at the Divisional Level for evaluation under the chairmanship of Divisional Commissioner had fixed the market rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per acre after considering the market rates provided from the Office of the District Collector, Ambala.
e) The material provided by the local revenue Patwari regarding sale deeds of similar land executed within closed proximity on the material date.
6. The respondent preferred a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act on 19.11.2001 seeking enhancement of compensation primarily for the following reasons:
(i) The acquired land was Chahi land (Irrigated land) which was used for residential purposes, and was situated within the Abadi near the Naraingarh District as well as near the sector carved by Haryana Urban Development Authority and was also near the Government College, Naraingarh and Government Senior Secondary School, Naraingarh.
(ii) The Market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs.30 lacs per acre at the relevant time and therefore the claim of Rs.35 lacs per acre was made.
7. The appellant filed his objections and written statement in the reference proceedings denying all the assertions made by the respondent in the reference.
8. After considering the material on record, the Reference Court/ Additional District Judge, Ambala allowed the reference and determined the market value at Rs.6,310/- per Marla equivalent to Rs.208.59/- per square yard by taking in
Ashrafi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others
General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another
Ramrao Shankar Tapase vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others
Acquisition of land – Fair and just compensation – Annual increase to determine just compensation varies from case to case and period to be applied is a major factor to be considered.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete evidence to determine the fair value of acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Court's authority ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 23 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990, and the interpretation of legal precedents to determine the m....
The court modified the compensation for acquired land, emphasizing the need for careful comparison of prior judgments and appropriate application of annual increase rates.
(1) Acquisition of land – Where there exists no direct piece of evidence to determine fair and just compensation, Court will resort to settled principle of Guesstimation.(2) Acquisition of land – Det....
The court affirmed that cumulative increases in compensation should be calculated based on market value assessments, rejecting flat rate increases to ensure just compensation for acquired land.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.