BHAG SINGH ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

144                       [2022]
               SUPREME COURT     3 S.C.R. 144
                              REPORTS                      [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A                             BHAG SINGH ETC.
                                        v.
                          UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
                     (Civil Appeal Nos. 4070 - 4075 of 2012)
B                                MAY 05, 2022
        [HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
             Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 6 and 18 – Acquisition of
      land (situated in village Sohana) vide notification in question dated
      26-10-1990 – Compensation of Rs.4 lakhs per acre awarded by
C
      Reference Court, upheld by High Court – Challenge before Supreme
      Court – Relevance, if any, of subsequent notification dated 11-11-
      1993, wherein compensation of Rs.8 lakhs per acre was awarded –
      Whether determination of market value subsequent to the notification
      in question would be relevant – Held: Though appreciation in price
D     can be presumed, but the market value cannot be assessed by
      applying suitable deduction in the market value of the land acquired
      by a subsequent notification – When the later notification was issued,
      development activities had already been taken place in view of two
      earlier notifications – It was not the percentage of increase in the
      market value but increase due to development which had taken place
E
      on account of earlier notifications – Therefore, market value of the
      land in question cannot be based upon the land acquired vide
      notification dated 11-11-1993 and when there were other intervening
      notifications – Alternatively, if one examines market value of land
      acquired vide earlier notification dated 4-2-1981 in village Sohana
F     (wherein compensation of Rs.1.25 lakhs per acre was awarded),
      after giving yearly increase of 10% per annum, even then the market
      value arrived at (corresponding to year 1990) would be Rs.2.94
      lakhs per acre, which is not more than market value of Rs. 4 lakhs
      per acre determined by High Court – Reference Court had awarded
      compensation of Rs.4 lakhs per acre in respect of land situated in
G
      another village (Village Lakhnaur), which was also acquired vide
      same notification – Such determination was not appealed against
      either by the land owners or by the State – High Court rightly relied
      upon such determination to assess market value of land in question
      at Rs.4 lakhs per acre – No interference warranted.
H
                                       144
        BHAG SINGH ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                         145


      Dismissing the appeals, the Court                                  A
       HELD: 1. It is an undisputed fact that there is no sale
instance in respect of land situated in Village Sohana after the
first notification dated 4.2.1981 till the notification in question
dated 26.10.1990. Though, in respect of acquisition of land vide
notification dated 11.11.1993, the compensation assessed is Rs.8         B
lakhs per acre which is more than two years later and in between,
there is acquisition of land vide notification dated 25.7.1991. The
question now is as to whether determination of market value
subsequent to the notification would be relevant to determine
the market value of the land acquired more than two years earlier.
It is found that though appreciation in price can be presumed,           C
but the market value cannot be assessed by applying suitable
deduction in the market value of the land acquired by a subsequent
notification. When the later notification is issued, the development
activities had already been taken place in view of the earlier two
notifications. Therefore, it is not the percentage of increase in        D
the market value but increase due to the development which has
taken place on account of earlier notifications. Therefore, market
value of the land cannot be based upon the land acquired vide
notification dated 11.11.1993 and when there were other
notifications intervening on 26.10.1990 and 25.7.1991.
[Para 14][149-E, G-H; 150-A-B]                                           E

      2. Alternatively, even if one examines the market value of
the land acquired vide notification dated 4.2.1981 in Village Sohana
after giving yearly increase of 10% per annum, even then the
market value arrived at (corresponding to the year 1990) is not
more than market value determined by the High Court.                     F
[Paras 16, 17][150-C; 150-E]
      3. The Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.4
lakhs per acre in respect of land situated in another village (Village
Lakhnaur), acquired vide the same notification. Such
determination has not been appealed against either by the land           G
owners or by the State. The High Court has rightly relied upon
such determination to assess the market value of the land at Rs.4
lakhs per acre. [Para 18][150-F-G]

                                                                         H
146                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.4070-
      4075 of 2012.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2010 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFAs No4911 of 2009, 1778 of
      2007 and 5565, 5566, 3612, 3613 of 2008.
B               With
                Civil Appeal Nos.4076-4082, 4086 And 4083-4084 of 2012.
            Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv., Jitesh Malik, Ms. Anisha
      Dahiya, Satish Kumar, Satyapal Khushal Chand Pasi, Mrs. B. Sunita
C     Rao, Advs. for the Appellants.
            Shailesh Madiyal, Sudhanshu Prakash, Om Prakash Shukla, Ms.
      Vanshaja Shukla, Pratik Samajpati, Ms. Aniruddha Purushotham, A. K.
      Sharma, R. K. Rathore, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ms. Samten Doma, Kuldip
      Singh, Yash Pal Dhingra, B. V. Balaram Das, Ms. Anukriti Pareek, B.
D     Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Respondents.
                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                HEMANT GUPTA, J.
            1. 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
E     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 1.
             2. The notification dated 26.10.1990 was published intending to
F     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
G     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
      1
H         For short, the ‘Act’
        BHAG SINGH ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                147
                  [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

Court pertaining to the same notification in respect of land situated in        A
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   B
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             C
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        D
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               E
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                 F
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.                                                                     G
      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        H
148               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A     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 2 kms. Therefore,
      the compensation awarded for the land situated at Village Kambali cannot
      be considered as a reasonable yardstick for determining the market value
B
      of land situated in Village Sohana.
             6. The land of Village Sohana has been subject matter of acquisition
      for a number of times. First acquisition was in pursuance of a notification
      date 4.2.1981 under Section 4 of the Act. In respect of such land acquired
      in Village Mataur and Sohana, the compensation awarded by the High
C     Court was Rs.1,25,000/- per acre vide Ex.P/8.
             7. Another notification under Section 4 of the Act was published
      on 25.7.1991 in respect of acquisition of Land situated in Village Sohana.
      Compensation of Rs.5,96,000/- per acre was awarded by the learned
      Reference Court relying upon the determination of compensation of land
D     acquired in Village Kambali wherein the High Court in State of Punjab
      v. Mohinder Singh & Ors.2 awarded compensation @ Rs.5,96,000/-
      per acre. The High Court’s judgment was based upon the fact that Village
      Kambali and Village Sohana are adjoining to each other and in close
      proximity. The award of the Reference Court is subject matter of
E     challenge before the High Court in RFA No. 1786 of 2000 at the instance
      of the State and is pending final decision. The land owners have filed
      cross-objections in the said appeal.
            8. Thereafter, the land situated at Village Sohana was also acquired
      vide notification dated 11.11.1993. The Reference Court awarded
F     Rs.6,96,000/- per acre. However, the amount of compensation was
      enhanced to Rs.8 lakhs per acre in Harbachan Kaur & Ors. v. State
      of Punjab3 vide order dated 23.8.2006.
             9. In respect of land acquired vide notification under Section 4 of
      the Act dated 26.10.1990, the Reference Court relied upon determination
G     of compensation vide Ex.P/13 by the Reference Court in respect of land
      in Village Lakhnaur which forms part of the same notification by which
      the land in Village Sohana was acquired. The said award had attained
      finality as no appeal was preferred against it.
      2
          RFA No. 625 of 1994
      3
H         RFA No. 2322 of 1998
        BHAG SINGH ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                               149
                  [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

       10. The argument is that land situated in Village Kambali is situated   A
in close proximity of land situated in Sohana, therefore, compensation
assessed by the High Court in Mohinder Singh can be treated as base
market value. As observed above, the two villages Kambali and Sohana
are not in close proximity but located at substantial distance as per the
Map of Survey of India as also the lay-out plan produced by the landlord.
Therefore, such judgment is not a helpful guide to determine                   B
compensation.
       11. Another appeal arising out of notification dated 25.7.1991 is
pending before the High Court. Therefore, it would not be proper to
discuss the said award of the Reference Court.
       12. In respect of the land acquired vide notification dated             C
11.11.1993, the High Court has awarded compensation @ Rs.8 lakhs
per acre. The argument is that suitable deduction should be made from
such determination of the market value of the land acquired vide
notification dated 26.10.1990.
       13. The Reference Court as well as the High Court has given a
                                                                               D
finding of fact that no sale instance produced by the parties are relevant
for determining the market value. Therefore, the only relevant basis is
the previous judgments.
       14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is an
undisputed fact that there is no sale instance in respect of land situated
in Village Sohana after the first notification dated 4.2.1981 till the         E
notification in question dated 26.10.1990. The absence of sale deeds
shows that there was no sale and purchase of the land which could
show the potentiality of use of the land for residential, commercial or
industrial purposes. The Village Kambali and Kambala are not adjoining
to Village Sohana as per the Lay Out plan produced by the appellants
themselves. The nearest village from Village Sohana is Mataur and not          F
Village Kambali or Kambala. Therefore, the 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
                                                                               G
vide notification dated 25.7.1991.
       15. The question now is as to whether determination of market
value subsequent to the notification would be relevant to determine the
market value of the land acquired more than two years earlier. We find
that though appreciation in price can be presumed, but the market value
cannot be assessed by applying suitable deduction in the market value of       H
150             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A     the land acquired by a subsequent notification. When the later notification
      is issued, the development activities had already been taken place in
      view of the earlier two notifications. Therefore, it is not the percentage
      of increase in the market value but increase due to the development
      which has taken place on account of earlier notifications. Therefore,
      market value of the land cannot be based upon the land acquired vide
B
      notification dated 11.11.1993 i.e., more than two years later of the
      notification in question and when there were other notifications intervening
      on 26.10.1990 and 25.7.1991.
             16. Alternatively, even if we examine the market value of the land
      acquired vide notification dated 4.2.1981 in Village Sohana after giving
C     yearly increase of 10% per annum, the increase in the base value would
      be as under:




D




E

             17. Thus, even then the market value is not more than market
      value determined by the High Court.
             18. The Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.4 lakhs
F     per acre in respect of land situated in Village Lakhnaur, acquired vide
      the same notification. Such determination has not been appealed against
      either by the land owners or by the State. The High Court has rightly
      relied upon such determination to assess the market value of the land at
      Rs.4 lakhs per acre. In view of the said fact, we do not find any error in
G     the orders passed by the High Court which may warrant interference in
      the present appeals.
             19. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in
      the appeals. The same are dismissed.


H     Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                        Appeals dismissed.