ALI MOHAMMAD BELGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF J & K

                            [2017] 2 S.C.R. 874



A             - ALI MOHAMMAD BElGH AND ORS.
                                     v.

                             STATE OF J & K
                   (Civil Appeal Nos. 4295-4297 of2017)
B
                             MARCH21,2017
           [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. 8AN_lJMATHI, JJ.J
           Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1934
    Compensation - Lands in question granted less compensation as
c   compared to identical and similar lands situated in adjacent villages·
    acquired for the same purpose - Impropriety of - Appellants' land
    acquired for Rs.2,50, 000/- per kanal while that of other land owners
    situated i11 adjace11t villages acquired for same purpose granted
    Rs.4,00,0001- per ka11a/ - Held: When the lands i11 question are
D   situated nearby and are identical and similar and the acquisitio11 is
    at the same time and for the same purpose, it would not be proper to
    discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong reasons
    - Appellants are at par with other land owiiers whose lands are ·
    acquired - He11ce, they are also entitled to enhanced compe11sation
    of Rs.4,00,0001- per Kanai with 15% solatium (Jabirana) and all
E   other statutory benefits.
          Allowing the appeals, the Court
          HELD: 1.1 Appellants' lands in question are situated in
    village Chandapora which is adjacent to villages Bhagichandpora
F   and Pazwalpora. In cases of acquisition oflands in Bhagichandpora
    and Pazwalpora which are adjacent to the lands of the appellants
    and were also acquired for the same purpose of resettlement of
    Dal dwellers, the Reference Court, after referring to the evidence
    adduced by the claimants thereon and the assessment of marker
    rate by Tehsildar at Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai, held that the land
G   owners are entitled to compensation for the acquired land at the
    rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai with solatium at 15%. [Para 11 J
    [879-EJ

         1.2 Since village Chandapora is situated adjacent to villages
    Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora, there was no reason why the
H
                                  874
   AU MOHAMMAD BEIGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF J & K                        875


 Reference Conrt differentiated the acquired la~d of the appellants-    A
 land owners situated in Chandapora by awarding lesser
 compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. The appellants had also produced
 a sale deed by which a small strip of land was sold in the vicinity
 of the acquired land for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But the
 Reference Court discarded the evidence of witness on the ground
                                                                        B
 that under the sale deed only a small area of land was sold and
 the sale deed cannot be taken to be a representative character
 of the entire land. The Reference Court was not right in discarding
.the said sale deed which was supported by oral evidence of the
 witnesses, .to substantiate their claim that the market rate
 assessed by the Tehsildar at Rs.2,50,000/- was not a fair              c
 compensation. [Para 12) [879-G-H; 880-A-C)
      1.3 When the lands are more or less situated nearby and
when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the
acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to
discriminate between the land owners unless there are strong            D
reasons. [Para 13) [880-C-D)
                                 \.....~


      Union of India v. Bal Ram and Another (2010) 5 SCC
      747; Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and Others.
      (2005) 12 SCC 564 : [2005) 4 Suppl. SCR 669 - relied
      on.                                                               E

       1.4 Therefore, when the lands situated in three different
villages are identical/similar and are acquired at the same time
and for the same purpose, it would be unfair to discriminate
between other land owners and the appellants and pay less that
is Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanai to the appellants and pay more to other      F
land owners that is Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai. The appellants are
held to be at par ·with other land owners whose lands were
acquired. Hence, they are also entitled to enhanced compensation
of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai with 15% Solatium (Jabirana) and all
other statutory benefits. [Para 15) [881-C-EJ                           G
                       Case Law Reference
 c2910) 5 sec 747              relied on               Para 13
 [20051 4 Suppl. SCR 669       relied on               Para 13
                                                                       H
876            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        (2017] 2 S.C.R.


A         , CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4295-
      4297 of20I 7.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2013 of the High Court
      of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar in CIA No. 2 I 1 of 2009 and Cross
      Appeal No. 64 of2011.
B           J. H. Reshi, Rahul Gupta, M. Mushtaq, Advs. for the Appellants.
            G. M. Kawoosa, Shoeb Alam, Ad vs. for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was de] ivered by
            R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.
c
            2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order
      dated 24.09.2013 and 15.05.2015 passed by the High Court of kmmu
      and Kashmir at Srinagar dismissing CIA No.211 of 2009 along with
      Cross Appeal No.64 of 2011 and Review Petition Civil No. 07of2013
      affirming the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanai awarded to the
D     appellants by the Reference Court.
          3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as follows:
  ·Notification dated 16.06.1997 was issued by the Collector, Lakes and
   Waterways Development Authority (LAWDA), Srinagar vide No.C-
   LDA/452-64, under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Land
E Acquisition Act forthe acquisition ofland measuring 505 Kanai 06 Mafias
   situated at Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar, forthe construction
   and development of housing colony for the resettlement of dislocated
   families of the Dal dwellers. On 01.06.1999, a Final Award was passed
   by the Collector, LAW DA, Srinagar under the Jammu and Kashmir Land
   Ac.CJUisition Act vide No. G-LDA 293-98 in respect of land measuring
F
   505 Kanai 06 Marlas situated at Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar.
   The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the compensation amount payable
   to the applicants/estate holders at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Kanai
   Abi-Bagh, Rs.1,40,000/- per Kanai for Abi-Awai and Rs.1,30,000/- for
   Gair-Mumkin: On 01.06.1999, Col.lector passed the Final Award fixing
G compensation rates: (i)Abi-Bagh- irrigated Orchard land (Rs.1.50 lacs
   per Kanai); (ii) Abi-Awal - agricultural land (Rs.1.40 lacs per Kanai);
   and (iii) Gair-Mumkin - Barren land (Rs.1.30 lacs per Kanai).
           4. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Collector,
      Li\ WDA, Srinagar, the appellants sought reference to the District
H
   ALI MOHAMMAD BEIGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF J & K                             877
               [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

Judge/Reference Court to establish their claims for enhanced                 A
compensation. The Reference Court vide judgment dated 3 I. I 0.2008
held that the appellants are entitlei! to get compensation of Rs.2,50,000/
- per Kanai and also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. I 0,000/-
per Kanai on account of fencing.
       5. Feeling aggrievedby the compensation awarded by the B
Reference Court, State filed appeal CIA No.211 of 2009. Claimants
have filed Cross Appeal bearing No.64 of 2011, seeking enhancement
of compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai. The High Court dismissed "·
the State's appeal. The Cross Appeal filed by the appellants was also
dismissed by the High Court holding that the appellants .rave not led any
evidence which could have been the basis fpr enhancing compensation
                                                                               c
to Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai as has been done in other cases. The review
petition filed by the appellants also came to be dismissed ... Being aggrieved
by the dismissal of their Cross Appeal and the review, the appellants
have filed these .appeals.
       6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the case D
of Reference No.5 of 2002 titled Slwmim Ahmed D"r ""'' Ors. vs.
Collector, LAWDA, the Reference Court granted compensation at the
rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai for the acquired land situated in the
same village Chandapora where the acquired land of the appellants was
also situated and while so the Reference Court erred in not granting the      E
same rate of compensation, that is at the rate of Rs..4,00,000/- per Kanai
to the appellants. Learned counsel further contended that Reference
Court was not right in discriminating the appellants by granting
compensation to them only at the rate ofRs.2,50,000/- per Kanai while
in the case of adjacent land owners compensation has been fixed at the
rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai.                                              F

       7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted
that the appellants have failed to adduce evidence to justify their claim
qua compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- granted to the land
owners. On the contrary, it was subniitted that the land owners in
Reference No.5 whose compensation has been enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/           G
- have proved their case by adducing evidence in support of the said
enhanced compensation. It was urged that the case of the appellants
can in no way be compared with Reference No.5 and other cases
 inasmuch ~sin the said reference, land owners have clearly proved the
                                                                              H
878            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            {2017] 2 S.C .R.



A     rate at Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai as .per the market rate and the High
      Court rightly dismissed the Cross Appeal of the. appellants and the
      impugned judgment warrants .no interference.
            8. We have carefully considered the rivai"contentions·an_d also
      perused the impugned judgment and tile materials on record.
B            9. Admittedly, the land measuring 65 Kanai Yi Marla of the
      appellants herein comprising of Khasra Nos. 115, 3631118, 179, 155,
      197, 155, 90, 157, I 00, 372/112, 102, 172, 173, 14 4 Min, 198, 148 and 194
      covered by Reference No.15/2002 was acquired for the purpose of
      resettlement of Dal dwellers in the year 1997-1999. In or about the
c     same time, the lands adjacent to the land of the appellants in Chandapora,
      Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora were also acquired for the same purpose
      of resettlement of Dal dwellers by various references. Comparative
      table of the details ofacquisition oflands of the appellants and the other
      land acquired in Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora is as
      under:
D
         Village        S.4(1)         S.6      Final Award Reference Court
                     Notification   Declaration                  Award


       Chandapora     10.01.1997    02.06.1997    01.06.1999 Reference
 E                                                           No. 15/2002
                                                             DOA
                                                             31.10.2008.
                                                             Reference·
                                                             No. 5/2002
                                                             DOA
 F                                                           03.11.2008
       Bhagi-         24.06.1997    05.07.1997    01.06.1999 Reference             I

       Chandapora                                            1/2003
                                                             6/2002
                                                             DOA
                                                             03.11.2009
G
       Pazwalpora     16.06.1997    05.07.1997     14.07.1999   Reference
                                                                No. 7/2002
                                                                DOA
                                                                03.l 1.2009

 H
   ALI MOHAMMAD BEIGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF J & K                                879
               [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

        I 0. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention         A
towards the fact that the villages of Chandapora, Bhagichandapora and
Pazwalpora are situated adjacent to each other and share a common
border/boundary with each other. The inter se distance between these
villages is not much, however, centre to centre distance between these
villages is less than halfa kilometre. l:be learned counsel has also drawn
                                                                                 B
our attention to the Site Plan showing inter se location of these villages
and the land acquired there from by the Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar,
Jammu and Kashmir in the year 1999, for the public purpose of re-
settlement of Dal dwellers, which was obtained under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 [RT! Act]. In response to the information sought
by the appellants under the RT! Act, communication dated 08. I 2.20 I 5         c
was sent stating that the villages of Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and
Pazwalpora are situated adjacent to each other and shared a common
border/boundary with each other. The Site Plan showing the location of
the villages of Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalporas also
fortifies the infonnation furnished thatthe above three villages are situated
                                                                                 D
adjacent t? each other and share a common border/boundary with each
 other.
       I 1. In cases of acquisition of land in Bhagichandpora and
Pazwalpora in Reference Nos.1/2003, 6/2002 and 7/2002, the Reference
Court, after referring to the evidence adduced by the claimants thereon
and also after referring to assessment of market rate by Tehsildar at            E
Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai, held that the land owners are entitled to
compensation for the acquired land at the rate ofRs.4,00,000/- per Kanai
with solatium (Jabirana) at the rate of 15% apart from interest@ 6%
per annum on the enhanced compensation in excess to the sum awarded
by the Collector, LAWDA.                                                         F.
       12. As noted earlier, village Chandapora is situated adjacent to
villages Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora; while so, there was no reason
why the Reference Court differentiated the land of the appellants-land
owners of the acquired land in Chandapora land Reference No.15/2002
by awarding lesser compensation ofRs.2,50,000/-. On a perusal of the             G
judgment of the Reference Court in Reference No.15 of2002, it is seen
that the witnesses were examined by the appellants to substantiate their
case that the market rate of the land in village Chandapora in the year
 1998 was about Rs.8,00,000/- per Kanai. Though the Tehsildar of the

                                                                                 H
880             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            (2017] 2 S.C.R.


A     area recommended Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanai, the witnesses have stated
      that the compensation fixed by Tehsildar was not reliable and not based
      on any material. The appellants have <1lso produced a sale deed by one
      Mr. Bansilal under which he sold a small strip of land measuring 1360
      sq. feet in the vicinity of the acquired land for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
      But the Reference Court discarded the evidence of witness Bansilal on
B
      the ground that under the sale deed only a small area of land was sold
      and the sale deed cannot be taken to be a representative character of
      the entire land. In our view, the Reference Court was not right in
      discarding the said sale deed which was supported by oral evidence of
      the witnesses, to substantiate their clairi1 that the market rate assessed
c     by the Tehsildar at Rs.2,50,000/- was not a fair compensation.
           13. When the lands are more or less situated nearby and .when
    the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the
    same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the land
    owners unless there' are strong reasons. In U11io11 of /11dia i•s. B11/ R11m
D . <t11dA11otller (2010) 5 SCC 747, this Court held that ifthe purpose of
    acquisition is same and when the lands are identical and similar though
    lying in different villages, there is no justification to make· any
    discrimination between the land owners to pay more to some of the land
    owners and less compensation to others. The same was the view tak.en
    in Union of Imlitt vs. l/11rinder P11/ Singh am/ Others. (2005) 12
E SCC 564, where this Court held as under:-

             "15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf
             of the respective parties and we see no justification to interfere
             with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
             High Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing
F            the market value of the lands forming the subject-matter of the
             acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of
             the area in question, it appears to us that while the lands in question
             are situated in five different villages, they can be consolidated
             into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch of
G            land and another. The entire area is in a stage of development and
             the different villages are capable of being developed in the same
             manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the
             market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of
             Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
             High Court discarded the belting method of valuation having regard
H
   ALI MOHAMMAD BEIGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF J & K                             881
             ' [R. BANUMATHl, J.. ]

      to the local circumstances and features and no cogent ground has        A
      been made out to interfere with the same.
      16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document,
      the market value of the acquired .lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur
      which were acquired at the same time as the lands in the other
      five villages was correctly taken to be a comparative unit for          B
      determination of the market value of the lands comprising the
      lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings
      under consideration ......."
       ·14. When the lands are acquired at the. same time and for the ·
same purpose tl1at is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the lands situated c
in three different villages namely, Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and
Pazwalpora, and since the land is similar land, it would be unfair to
discriminate between the land owners and other references and the
appellants who are the land owners in Reference No.15 and pay less
that is Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanai to the appellants and pay more to other
land owners that is Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanai. Impugned judgments of the D
High Court in CIA No. 211/2009 and Cross Appeal No. 64/2011 are to
be set aside by enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,00,000 per Kanai.
As a sequel to this, the order passed in review is also to be set aside.
      15. In the result, the impugned judgments are set aside and these
appeals are allowed. lt is held that the appellants are at par with other     E
land owners whose lands were acquired in Bhagichandpora and
Pazwalpora in other references, and hence they are also entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs.4,00,000/c per Kanai with 15% solatium
(Jabirana) and all other statutory benefits. No costs.
                                                                              F
Divya Pandey                                              Appeals allowed.
                                                                      '