Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 951

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs. and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7963/2023) WITH Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15090-15091/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15089/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9187-9191/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7111-7114/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9185-9186/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15082-15088/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7115-7121/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10896-10905/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15081/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11052/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9184/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9176-9182/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9183/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4876/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16148/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15095/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15093-15094/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19163/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19127/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16147/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19126/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17847/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12218-12219/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19996/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20619/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16146/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19130/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19995/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16142-16145/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9714-9715/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15079-15080/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9454/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16149/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16141/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. …/2024-Diary No. 31546/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. …./2024-Diary No(s). 31567/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20560/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. …./2024-Diary No(s). 38885/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. …./2024-Diary No(s). 48155/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. …./2024-Diary No(s). 52730/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21685-21686/2022) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23820-23821/2022) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19128-19129/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22476-22477/2022) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1066-1067/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1070-1071/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6711/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19125/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1068-1069/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 617-618/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 46-52/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24189-24190/2022) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 608/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24109-24110/2022) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 612-613/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24167-24168/2022) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1712/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21832-21833/2022) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23874-23875/2022) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4936-4942/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5169-5172/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24024-24046/2022) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23835-23864/2022) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23868-23871/2022) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2584-2585/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 615-616/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23659-23662/2022) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4548-4549/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4547/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3130-3131/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1984-1985/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1974-1975/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4944/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1991-1992/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3163-3164/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2578-2579/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3155-3156/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4546/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1977-1978/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3136-3142/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1710-1711/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5594-5595/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1968-1969/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2586-2587/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1979-1980/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1981-1982/2023) Civil Appeal No. /2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2581/2023)
Decided On : 21-10-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tishampati Sen, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Sancheti, AOR Mr. Anurag Anand, Adv. Mr. Mukul Kulhari, Adv. Ms. Rakhi Ray, AOR Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ashok Anand, AOR Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv. Mr. Raunaq Dalal, Adv. Mr. Surjo Seth, Adv. Mr. Deepkaran Dalal, AOR Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Gaurav Pal, Adv. Mr. Puneet Thakur, Adv. Mr. Dipak Kumar Jena, AOR Mr. Prasanna Kumar Pahri, Adv. Mr. R.K. Poswal, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR Mr. Abhijee Varshney, Adv. Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Darshan Sejwal, Adv. Mr. Sumit K Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Shilpa G Mittal, Adv. Mr. Devesh Pratap Singh, AOR Mr. Narender Singh Dalal, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Nayak, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kulhare, Adv. Mr. Nidhi Dalal, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Ms. Rachana Dalal, Adv. Ms. Sweta Kadyan, Adv. Mr. Md. Faizan Danish, Adv. Mr. Silpi S. Swain, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Tyagi, Adv. Mrs. Ankita Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sharad Mrinal, Adv. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Chandan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, Adv. Mrs. Minati Senapati, Adv. Ms. Sai Suman, Adv. Mr. Krishan Maurya, Adv. Mr. Gagan Singh Parmar, Adv. Mr. Raja Panda, Adv. Mr. S.K. Pabbi, Adv. Ms. Disha Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivendu Gaur, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Somvir Singh Deswal, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Deswal, Adv. Mr. Nischal Kumar Neeraj, AOR Mr. Davesh Bhatia, AOR Mr. Pardeep Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Mahima Benipuri, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Ms. Alka Goyal, Adv. Ms. Archana Preeti Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aditya Goyal, Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Mr. Jation Hooda, Adv. Ms. Anisha Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv. Mr. B C Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Monica Goel, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR Mr. Aakash Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Aditya Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Vikram Gulia, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Adv. Mr. R N Mahlawat, Adv. Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishor, Adv. Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananta Prasad Mishra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – Process of assessing or affixing compensation is not tethered to precision but is rather aimed at a nuanced estimation of pertinent factors.
(2) Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – There is no bar in law against considering sale exemplars of smaller plots provided they are subjected to adequate developmental charges.

Headnote:
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – There has been significant difference in evaluations conducted by Reference Court and subsequently, High Court – High Court has reduced valuation affixed by Reference Court by half and, instead, restored compensation amount granted by LAC – Process of assessing or affixing compensation is not tethered to precision but is rather aimed at a nuanced estimation of pertinent factors – Market value is to be assessed with reference to factors such as standing crops and trees, severance of part of land, damage to movable or immovable property or earnings, need to relocate one’s residence or business, and any loss of profits from land between publication of declaration under Section 6 and Collector's assumption of possession – Best approach is comparable sales method under which bona fide sale exemplars of similar lands are relied upon to ascertain market value of land under acquisition – It is also imperative that exemplars reflect price of land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 – Sale exemplars executed after Section 4 notification should not ordinarily be relied upon – Post-notification sales can only be considered when better evidence is not available on record and when party relying on it can convincingly demonstrate that there has been no upward trend in market prices due to acquisition – Apart from these sale deeds that were not proximate temporally. (Paras 14, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – There is no bar in law against considering sale exemplars of smaller plots provided they are subjected to adequate developmental charges – Smaller plots often command higher prices due to their developed nature, whereas a larger tract of land which is acquired for development may require significant allocation for creating roads, parks, essential services, etc. – In instant case, there are multiple sale deeds of smaller plots and these represent best available evidence for estimating compensation – Since there is no legal impediment to considering such sale deeds, logical progression in compensation estimation process would be to identify the most suitable sale deed(s) for determining market value and subsequently, to apply adequate deductions on the same – There exists significant disparity among sale exemplars presently under consideration – Court cannot justify applying deduction at either extreme end of spectrum – A prudent course of action might be to steer a middle path, aiming for a range approximately between 46% to 50% – Impugned leading judgment of High Court as well as all other Judgments following the leading judgment which are under challenge in this batch of appeals, hereby set aside and compensation amount granted by Reference Court hereby restored. (Paras 26, 27, 29, 33 and 38)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals are preferred by expropriated landowners impugning Judgment dated 23.08.2022 passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, whereby their appeals seeking further enhancement in compensation for their acquired lands, have been dismissed. As a necessary corollary, High Court has allowed cross appeals filed by Respondent State, challenging enhancement in compensation made by Reference Court. Consequently, Awards passed by Reference Court have been set aside and compensation as was granted by Land Acquisition Collector (‘LAC’) has been restored.
Findings of Court:
Compensation amount, if already not paid, wholly or partly, as per award of Reference Court, shall be paid to Appellants and other land-owners along with all statutory benefits including interest, within eight weeks.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

1. Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are preferred by the expropriated landowners (hereinafter ‘Appellants’) impugning the judgement dated 23.08.2022 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (hereinafter ‘High Court’), whereby their appeals seeking further enhancement in compensation for their acquired lands, have been dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the High Court has allowed the cross appeals filed by the Respondent State, challenging the enhancement in compensation made by the Reference Court. Consequently, the Awards passed by the Reference Court have been set aside and the compensation as was granted by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter ‘LAC’) has been restored.

A. FACTS

3. The instant dispute regarding the grant of just and fair compensation originated with the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter ‘1894 Act’) on 11.02.2011, for the acquisition of approximately 302.75 acres of land by the Respondent State. This land, including the Appellants’ lands, is situated in the revenue estate of Tauru village in Mewat District. The acquisition process was initiated for the development and utilisation of land for public purposes, specifically for carving out Residential and Utility Areas in Sectors 7, 8 and 11 in Mewat District under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. A notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was thereafter issued on 10.02.2012.

4. The LAC passed the award on 22.10.2013 in respect of the land admeasuring 302.75 acres and estimated the compensation at Rupees 45,00,000/- per acre, along with 30% solatium and an additional amount of 12% per annum for the acquired land. Further, compensation for the lands abutting the Mohammadpur-Sohna-Tauru bypass road were enhanced by 20% and 25%, respectively, over the already fixed rate. The LAC assessed the compensation primarily based on the rates fixed by the Divisional Level Rate Fixation Committee in the following manner: (a) 2057 Kanal at Rupees 45,00,000/- per acre; (b) 113 Kanals and 9 Marlas at Rupees 54,00,000/- per acre and (c) 251 Kanals and 11 Marlas at Rupees 56,25,000/- per acre. In addition to this, the LAC also affixed compensation for building structures and trees wherever subsisting on the acquired lands.

5. Aggrieved by the award dated 22.10.2013, the Appellants filed References under Section 18 of the 1894 Act before the Additional District Judge, Mewat (hereinafter, ‘Reference Court’). The Reference Court, vide separate awards, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rupees 92,62,500/- per acre, in addition to granting other statutory benefits. The Reference Court, in this instance, relied upon a sale exemplar, Ex. P76, to assess the market value of the acquired land as on the date of the issuance of Section 4 notification, and subsequently increased the compensation amount. Both the Appellants and the Respondent, being dissatisfied with the decision of the Reference Court, preferred appeals before the High Court.

6. In this vein, the High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the Respondent State while dismissing those filed by the Appellants. The High Court held that the Reference Court had incorrectly estimated the market value and enhanced the compensation as it ignored various sale instances of comparable parcels of land that had been produced by the Respondents. Additionally, the High Court also doubted the reliability of Ex. P76, which was the basis of the Reference Court’s decision, on the ground that this sale deed belonged to a commercial plot of land and was post the notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the awards of the Reference Court and reverted the compensation amount to that initially granted by the LAC. Hence, these appeals.

B. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

7. We have heard Learned Senior Counsel for the parties at a considerable length and meticulo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 951

Cases Referred (18)

Related Judgments

Horrmal (Deceased) through his LRs. VS State of Haryana - 2024 8 Supreme 553

Mira Maity VS State of West Bengal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 1090

Ravinder Kumar Goel VS State of Haryana - 2023 2 Supreme 139

BESCO Limited VS State Of Haryana - 2023 7 Supreme 560

Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil Etc. VS State Of Maharashtra - 2021 Supreme(SC) 1086

Union of India VS Premlata - 2022 4 Supreme 420

Hiralal Motilal Parikh (Deceased Through Lrs. ) VS Spl. Laq Officer - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1035

Manohar VS State of Maharashtra - 2025 6 Supreme 216

Prakash Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Nathmal Ji Sharma vs State of Chhattisgarh - 2025 Supreme(Chh) 400

Sumitrabai W/o. Madhavrao Naik, Deceased vs State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 296