Supreme Court of India
FARIDABAD GAS POWER PROJECT, NTPC LTD. ETC.versusOM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 110
- Decided
- 5 February 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
The Supreme Court reduced the market value of the agricultural lands in Mujheri, Sihi and Neemka to Rs.289 per sq. yard (20% deduction and 7.5% cumulative increase), increased the value of Jhajru land to Rs.205 per sq. yard (7.5% per annum for seven years with 20% deduction), and confirmed the Rs.3,00,000 per acre valuation for the Pyala parcel.
Summary
The State of Haryana acquired 319.31 acres of agricultural land in five villages for the Faridabad Gas Power Project of NTPC. The Collector awarded compensation, which the landowners sought to enhance under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while NTPC sought a reduction. The High Court affirmed the reference court's award. The Supreme Court examined the admissibility of sale deeds, the appropriate method for fixing market value, the need for deductions due to lesser potential, and the correct escalation rate. It held that the land in Mujheri, Sihi and Neemka was purely agricultural and of lower potential, warranting a 20% deduction from the comparable market value and a 7.5% cumulative increase, fixing the value at Rs.289 per sq. yard. For Jhajru, a 7.5% per annum increase for seven years with a 20% deduction set the value at Rs.205 per sq. yard. The small parcel in Pyala, surrounded by commercial establishments, was confirmed at Rs.3,00,000 per acre. The solatium, additional amount and interest were left unchanged and the appeals were disposed accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether sale deeds predating the notification can be used as evidence to determine market value of the acquired land.
- How to determine the market value of agricultural land for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether a deduction for lesser potential and quality of the land is warranted and, if so, what percentage.
- What rate of annual escalation should be applied to the market value for the period between notification and acquisition.
- Whether the compensation awarded for the small parcel in Village Pyala should be enhanced.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 23, s. 4(1), s. 54
Subjects
Land acquisitionCompensationMarket value determinationAgricultural landEscalation factorDeduction for lesser potentialSection 4(1) Land Acquisition ActSection 18 Land Acquisition ActComparable sales methodNTPCFaridabad Gas Power Project
Judgment
(2009] 1 S.C.R.912
A FARIDABAD GAS POWER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC. +-
v.
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No. 493 of 2007)
FEBRUARY 5, 2009
8
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR
SINGH PANTA, JJ.] ....
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
c
s.4(1) and 23 - Acquisition of agricultural lands -
Compensation - Factors for consideration - Compensation
awarded to similarly situated nearby lands - Permissible
deduction - Escalation in market value - HELD: Reference
D court should have deducted 20% from value of adjacent land
to determine market value of lands in question, keeping in
view its comparable lesser potential, and allowed 7. 5%
cumulative increase towards escalation of price - As regards
the small piece of land which was surrounded by commercial ·-
E establishments, the market value fixed by reference court and
affirmed by High Court confirmed.
The State of Haryana issued Notification dated
16.8.1995 uls 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897 for ).
F acquisition of 319.31 acres of agricultural lands in villages
Mujhari, Neemka, Sihi, Jhajru and Pyala of District •
Faridabad for construction of a Gas Based Power Project
of National Thermal Power Corporation Limited. The
compensation awarded by the Collector was enhanced
r
G by the reference court to Rs.14,81,0401- per acre
(equivalent to Rs.3061- per sq. yard) for the lands in
villages Mujhari, Neemka and Sihi, Rs.9,19,6001- per acre 1f.
(equivalent to Rs.190/- per sq. yard) for the land in village
H 912
FARIDABAD GAS POVVER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 913
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC.
--.+-- Jhajru, and Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for the land in Village A
Pyala. Appeals of the claimants for further enhancement
and of NTPC for reduction in compensation having been
dismissed by the High Court, both filed the appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court B
HELD:1.1. While determining the compensation for
;.-
the lands in Villages Mujhari, Neemka and Sihi, the
reference court and the High Court rightly rejected the
sale deed (Ext. P-6) pertaining to a small piece of land of c
100 sq. yards. The copy of the mutation entries of sales
transaction effected in the year 1992-93 cannot be
accepted as admissible evidence for determining the
market value of the land acquired. The sale deed dated
30.06.1993 (Ex. RS) has been rightly rejected by the D
reference court and the High Court because the said sale
deed was executed about two years prior to the
preliminary notification issued in respect of the lands in
question and the said sale is nothing but a distress sale
made by a co-owner who had only one-eighth share in E
the land. Sale deed dated 23.06.1996 (Ex. R6) has also
been rightly rejected as it relates to a share in the land
given on lease for a period of 99 years without
possession. [Para 11] [933-G-H; 934-A]
F
1.2. The reference court, relying upon the judgment
of the High Court (Ext. P-X) came to the conclusion that
the land in question was similar in quality, and by adding
5% increase, enhanced the market value thereof.
However, on an independent scrutiny of the evidence on G
record, it is proved that the entire chunk of the land in
question was purely agricultural in quality and of lesser
potential, as the lands which were subject matter of Ext.
PX were situated in a better developed area with greater
H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
+--
A potential. Therefore, the market value of the lands in
question, when compared to the lands pertaining to Ext.
PX, should be reduced by at least 20%. The value of lands
in Ext. PX was determined at Rs.291/- per square yard
with reference to a preliminary notification issued on
B 23.11.1992. As on 16.08.1995 (date of preliminary
notification in regard to the lands in question), the market
value of lands in Ex PX was Rs.291/- plus a cumulative
increase of 7.5% per year for three years, which works
out to be Rs.361.50p. per square yard. If 20% is deducted
C from the said market value on account of lesser potential
value and quality of the acquired land and the distance
between the two areas, the market value of the acquired
land would be Rs.289/- per square yard. Accordingly, the
market value for the acquired agricultural lands situated
D at Mujheri, Sihi and Neemka is reduced from Rs.306/- to
Rs.289/- per square yard. (Para 12, 18 and 23] (934-E-F;
937-H; 938-A-C]
1.3. As regards the lands of Village Jhajru, the
E reference court should have worked out the market value
of the acquired land by calculating an increase at least
at the cumul~tive rate of 7.5% per annum for 7 years to
arrive at the market value as determined in the year 1995
and then it ought to have deducted 20% in that value as
F the lands were farther away. Thus, the market value for
the Jhajru lands is increased from Rs.190/- to Rs.205/-.
[Para 21 and 23] (939-B-C]
1.4. So far as the small piece of 0.96 acres of land of
G Village Pyala is concerned, it is located in the close
vicinity of Sector-59, Faridabad. As per Ex. R3, the
acquired land was situated at a distance of 2-3 km from
Delhi-Mathura Road, and was surrounded by Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Indian Oil Corporation,
H •.
'
FARIDABAD GAS POVVER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 915
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC.
etc. The land was acquired by NTPC for commercial A
purposes. The reference court and the High Court both
have not found any tangible evidence led by NTPC to
rebut the claim of the land owners. In that view of the
matter, there is no manifest error or perversity in the
judgment of the reference court fixing the market value B
of the land at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre which has rightly
been confirmed by the High Court. [Para 22) [939-D, F-H;
940-A]
2. The solatium, additional amount and interest C
awarded by the reference court and confirmed by the
High Court are maintained. [Para 23) [940-F]
State of M. P. v. Shantabai (Smt.) & Ors. (1995) Suppl.
2 SCC 28; Shakuntalabai (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of o
Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC 152; Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Samiti, Sahaswan, Distt. Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin
Kumar & Anr. (2004) 2 SCC 283; V. Hanumantha Reddy
(dead) by LRs. v. Land Acquisition Officer & Manda/ R. Officer
(2003) 12 SCC 642; K. S. Shivadevamma & Ors. v. Assistant E
Commissioner & LAO & Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 62; Basavva
(Smt.) & Ors. v. Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. (1996) 9
SCC 640; Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC
354; Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.
(2005) 12 SCC 1; Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapa/ly F
village, Nizamabad District, A. P. v. Nooka/a Rajamallu & Ors.
(2003) 12 SCC 334; Panna Lal Ghosh & Ors. v. Land
Acquisition Collector & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 467; Suresh
Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal (1989) 2 SCC 329;
Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased)· through his Heirs and G
LRs. and Others v. State of Gujarat (1989) 4 SCC 250; Nelson
Fernandes & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South
Goa & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 447; Ranjit Singh & Ors. v. Union
Territory of Chandigarh (1992) 4 SCC 659; Delhi
H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma & Ors. (2004) 6 ..+--
SCC 533; The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. JT
2008 (9) SC 480; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs.
v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789; ONGC Limited v.
B Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 454; Union
of India v. Harinder Pal Singh & Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 564 and
Kanwar Singh v. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 136, referred
....
to.
...
~
c Case Law Reference:
(1995) Suppl. 2 sec 28 referred to para 8.1
(1996) 2 sec 152 referred to para 8.2
D (2004) 2 sec 283 referred to para 8.3
(2003) 12 sec 642 referred to para 8.4
(1996) 2 sec 62 referred to para 8.5
E (1996) 9 sec 640 referred to para 8.5
(2003) 1 sec 354 referred to para 8.5
(2005) 12 sec 1 referred to para 8.6
F (2003) 12 sec 334 referred to para 8.7
(2004) 1 sec 467 referred to para 8.8
(1989) 2 sec 329 referred to para 8.9
G (1989) 4 sec 250 referred to para 8.10
(2001) 9 sec 447 referred to para 8.10
(1992) 4 sec 659 referred to para 8.11
H
FARIDABAD GAS POWER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 917
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC.
-~
(2004) 6 sec 533 referred to para 8.11 A
JT 2008 (9) SC 480 referred to para 8.11
(2005) 4 sec 789 referred to para 8.12
(2005) 6 sec 454 referred to para 8.13 B
(2005) 12 sec 564 referred to para 8.13
(1998) 8 sec 136 referred to para 8.13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 493 c
of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.5.2004 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 1314/
2000. D
-f
WITH
C.A.No.525/2007, C.A.No.523/2007, C.A.No.520/2007,
E
. C.A.No.518/2007, C.A.No.524/2007, C.A.No.506/2007,
C.A.No.519/2007, C.A. No.522/2007, C.A.No.512/2007,
A
C.A.No.508/2007, C.A.No.502/2007, C.A.No.507/2007,
F
C.A.No.504/2007, C.A.No.509/2007, C.A.No.517/2007,
C.A.No.553/2007, C.A.No.554/2007, C.A.No.552/2007,
C.A.No.549/2007, C.A.No.526/2007, C.A.No.551/2007,
G
C.A.No.510/2007, C.A.No.516/2007, C.A.No.514/2007,
:,,.
J C.A.No.521/2007, C.A.No.515/2007, C.A.No.513/2007,
C.A.No.511/2007, C.A.No.584/2007, C.A.No.582/2007, H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A C.A.No.583/2007, C.A.No.696/2007, C.A.No.580/2007, _.._
C.A.No.579/2007, C.A.No.574/2007, C.A.No.576/2007,
C.A.No.533/2007, C.A.No.532/2007, C.A.No.527/2007,
B C.A.No.529/2007, C.A.No.530/2007, C.A.No.531/2007,
C.A.No.528/2007, C.A.No.571/2007, C.A.No.581/2007,
C.A.No.578/2007, C.A.No.575/2007, C.A.No.500/2007,
c
C.A.No.572/2007, C.A.No.497/2007, C.A.No.567/2007,
C.A.No.563/2007, C.A.No.565/2007, C.A.No.561/2007,
C.A.No.558/2007, C.A.No.501/2007, C.A.No.494/2007,
D
1-
C.A.No.564/2007, C.A.No.560/2007, C.A.No.559/2007,
C.A.No.557/2007, C.A.No.556/2007, C.A.No.562/2007,
C.A.No.555/2007, C.A.No.499/2007, C.A.No.536/2007,
E
C.A.No.537/2007, C.A.No.541/2007, C.A.No.544/2007,
C.A.No.546/2007, C.A.No.548/2007, C.A.No.585/2007,
F C.A.No.586/2007, C.A.No.587/2007, C.A.No.588/2007,
C.A.No.589/2007, C.A.No.590/2007, C.A.No.591/2007,
C.A.No.592/2007, C.A.No.535/2007, C.A.No.547/2007,
G C.A.No.545/2007, C.A.No.656/2007, C.A.No.543/2007,
C.A.No.542/2007, C.A.No.540/2007, C.A.No.539/2007, f._
~
C.A.No.871/2007, C.A.No.845/2007. C.A.No.655/2007,
H
FARIDABAD GAS POWER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 919
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC.
C.A.No.698/2007, C.A.No.569/2007, C.A.No.566/2007, A
C.A.No.568/2007, C.A.No.570/2007, C.A. No.730 of 2009
C. A. No. 731 of 2009
B
C.A. No.732 of 2009
C. A. No. 735 of 2009
j.
C. A. No.733 of 2009
c
C. A. No.734 of 2009
C. A. No. 736 of 2009
C.A. No.737 of 2009
D
C.A. No.738 of 2009
C.A. No.739 of 2009
C.A. No.740 of 2009 E
C.A. No.741of 2009
C.A. No.742 of 2009
Nidhesh Gupta, S.K. Dhingra, Ajay Bansal, Devendra S. F
Nazar, Anil Nag, Suruchii Aggarwal for the Appellants.
Manjit Singh, Adil. AG., Anoop G. Chaudhary, ILL Tiku, Jana
Kalyan Das, Avijeet Bhujabal, T.V. George, Jasbir Singh Malik,
Raghubinda Godara, Rahul Tyage, K.P. Singh, S.K. Sabharwal, G
Sudhir Kumar Gupta, Rajesh Pathak, S.R. Setia, Ashok K.
~-
Mahajan, Yashmeet Kaur, Rahul Kaushik, Rohitash Singh Nagar,
~
Rekha Pandey, Goodwill lndeevar, Rekha Palli, Mahinder Singh
Dahiya, Ashok Kumar Singh, Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Kamal
Mohan Gupta, Naresh Kumar, Anil Mittal, Dr. Kailash Chand H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A and Abhisth Kumar for the Respondent. _.,__
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. Delay condoned and
leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.
B
(1.1.) The appellant-Faridabad Gas Power Project,
NTPCL, has filed Civil Appeal Nos.493, 523, 520, 518, 524,
519, 522, 512, 508, 502, 504, 509, 517, 553, 554, 552, 514,
521, 515, 513, 584, 582, 583, 596, 580, 579, 574, 576, 532,
c 527, 529, 531, 528, 571,497, 567, 501, 494, 564, 560, 545,
656, 543, 540, 539, 570 of 2007 and Civil Appeal arising out
of S.L. P. [CJ No. 7033/06 with regard to village Mujheri; Civil
AppealNos.525,506,507,549,511,533,530,561,559,557,
556, 562, 536, 541, 546, 586, 587, 590, 535, of 2007 and Civil
D Appeal arising out of S.L. P. [CJ Nos.7457, 9485 of 2007, 7032,
7008 of 2006, 7460, 7458, 3846, 3880, 3893, 9385 of 2007
with regard to village Sihi; Civil Appeal Nos. 551, 510, 578,
565, 555, 499, 589, 592, 547 of 2007, Civil Appeal arising out
of S.L. P. [CJ No.11558 of 2007 with regard to village Jhajru;
E Civil Appeal Nos.544, 548, 588, 542, 655, 698 of 2007, and
Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. [CJ No.7031 of 2006 with
regard to village Neemka and Civil Appeal Nos.516, 575, 500,
572, 563, 558, 537, 591 of 2007 with regard to village Pyala.
;.,
F (1.2.) Civil Appeal Nos.569, 566 and 568 of 2007 have
been filed by claimants, who are residents of village Mujheri; •
whereas Civil Appeal Nos.526, 581, 585, 871, 845 of 2007
have been filed by claimants of village Jhajru for enhancement
of the amounts of compensation.
G
2. All the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common
judgment and order dated 29.05.2004 passed by the High 1-·
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Regular First
Appeal No.1543 of 2000 and a batch of 146 connected
H appeals. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has
•
FARIDABAD GAS POWER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 921
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
dismissed the appeals filed by M/s. Faridabad Gas P9wer A
--f
Project, National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, as well
as by the land owners and confirmed the judgment and decree
dated 21.02.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge,
Faridabad, in land references preferred under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since common questions of B
facts and law are involved in these cases they were heard
together and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. The brief facts, which led to the filing of these appeals,
are as follows:-
c
(3.1.) The State of Haryana issued Notification dated
16.08.1995 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 [for short 'the Act'] for acquisition of a track of 319.31
acres of lands in five villages, namely, Mujheri (154.23 acres),
Neemka (67 acres), Sihi (73 acres), Jhajru (24.12 acres) and D
Pyala (0.96 acres) situated in Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District
Faridabad, for public purpose, namely, for construction of 400
MW Faridabad Gas Based Power Project with an ultimate
capacity of 1200 MW [a unit of National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited, Government of India Enterprise]. E
(3.2.) The Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad [for short
'LAC'] awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per
acre for Chahi land, i.e. about Rs.52/- per sq. yard and
A. Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, i.e. Rs.42/- per sq. yard for Banjar
F
Kadim and Gair Mumkin lands falling in the revenue estate of
.. villages Mujheri, Neemka and Sihi. For the land acquired in
village Jhajru, the LAC awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,57,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.1,50,000/- per
acre for 'Gair Mumkin' land. With regard to the acquisition of
land in village Pyala, the LAC awarded compensation at the G
rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for Chahi land. Other statutory
< ..:,:
benefits for which the claimants are entitled to were also
awarded to the land owners.
(3.3.) Being aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the H
'·
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 1 S.C.R.
A award passed by the LAC, the claimants preferred reference
applications under Section 18 of the Act. According to the ....--
claimants, they are entitled to the enhancement of
compensation as their land acquired by the State has potential
value for residential or commercial purposes. The State of
B Haryana contested the references, inter a/ia, contending that
the land owners had accepted the compensation without
protest; that the acquired land is situated in different villages
far away from the urban areas of Faridabad - Ballabgarh towns
and did not possess any potentiality other than being
c agricultural land.
(3.4.) Before the reference court (Additional District Judge,
Faridabad), the parties led evidence and raised mainly the
following two issues:-
D (i) What was the market price of the acquired land on
the date of publication of notification under Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the
petition by their acts and conduct?
E
The Additional District Judge vide common judgments
Uudgment dated 21.02.2000 in respect of lands in the villages
Mujheri and Sihi and judgment dated 07.03.2000 in regard to
Neemka lands] awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.306/
F - per sq. yard equivalent to Rs.14,81,040/- per acre for the land
acquired in villages Mujheri, Neemka and Sihi respectively. In
regard to the lands acquired in village Jhajru situated away from .
the lands at Mujheri, Neemka and Sihi, compensation at the
rate of Rs.190/- per sq. yard equivalent to Rs.9, 19,600/- per
G acre was awarded as per award dated 21.02.2000. For the
land situated in village Pyala, the reference court is said to have
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. yf.._ >
In answer to the second issue, the reference court observed
that the reference applications preferred by the claimants under
H Section 18 of the Act, could be construed as. protest against
'
FARIDABAD GAS POWER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. OM 923
PRAKASH & ORS. ETC. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
• -i
the award and there was no need for them to lodge separate A
protest in writing before accepting the compensation. The
reference court allowed the reference applications made by the
claimants and accordingly, enhanced the amounts of
compensation.
B
(3.5.) A batch of appeals under Section 54 of the Act came
to be filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, both
-+·
by NTPC praying for reduction of the amount of compensation
awarded by the reference court, and a section of claimants
seeking enhancement of the amounts of compensation for the
acquired land.
c
(3.6.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
having gone through the award of the reference court as well
as other material on record, the High Court by its judgment
t· dated 29.05.2004 dismissed all the appeals and thereby D
confirmed the award made by the reference court. Hence, these
appeals have been preferred by the NTPC and by the
claimants challenging the correctness and validity of the
common judgment and order of the High Court.
E
4. In the light of the factual situation and having carefully
perused the judgment of the High Court impugned before this
Court, we have heard the learned counsel for all the parties.
5. Mr. S. K. Dhingra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
- of the NTPC, contended that sale deeds produced by the F
appellants ought to have been accepted as a piece of best
evidence for determining the market value of the land in
question, but the reference court as well as the High Court, both
have wrongly ignored the said transactions from consideration
merely on the grounds that the instances of sale portions of the G
~ land were made about two years before the Notification issued
under Section 4(1) of the Act in the present cases and
approximately one year after the acquisition of the land.
Reference to the sale deed dated 23.06.1994 (Exhibit R6)
(though the actual date of execution is 23.06.1994) has been H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 1 S.C.R.
A made by the learned counsel vide which Raghbir and Ram Lal ~ -
had sold land measuring 1 Kanai and 10 Mar/as situated in
village Mujheri to Manoj Goyal (who is one of the claimants in
the present cases) for a consideration of Rs.40,000/- [about
Rs.44.40 per sq. yard]. Copy of another sale deed dated
8 30.06.1993 (Exhibit R5) vide which Smt. Kamla had sold land
measuring 1 Kanai 11 Mar/as in village Mujheri in favour of
Haria for a sum of Rs.39,000/- [about Rs.41.58 per sq. yard]
was also relied on by Mr. Dhingra to emphasise his point that
the courts below have grossly erred in ignoring the above-said
c vital documentary evidence on the basis of which just
compensation could have been determined and paid to the
claimants.
6. It was then urged by Mr. S.K. Dhingra that for
determining the market value of the land in question, the
D reference court as well as the High Court have erred in placing
unnecessary reliance on award dated 29.04.1998 (Exhibit P7)
passed by the reference Court fixing the market value of the
land at village Sihi, which was acquired for development of
Sector-II, Faridabad vide preliminary notification dated
E 23.11.1992 at the rate of Rs.250/- per square yard and later
on enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 291/- per square yard
vide judgment dated 26.08.1999 (Ext. PX) by ignoring the
distance of about 2% kms. between the lands in question and
the land acquired for Sector-II, Faridabad, which is situated on
F the western side of Agra Canal. It was also submitted that in
any event determination of the market value of the acquired -
lands at the rate of Rs. 306/- per square yard by giving annual
appreciation at the rate of 5% by the courts below for
agricultural land situated in villages Mujheri, Neemka and Sihi,
G was entirely speculative based upon unsatisfactory and
unreliable evidence led by the claimants.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
contesting claimants, submitted that the reference court and the
High Court both have rightly rejected the sale transactions relied
H
FARIDABAD GAS POWER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 925
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
--t on by the NTPC as the said sale instances should not be relied A
on as related to sale of stray pieces of land sold by the sellers
for lesser consideration for obvious stamp duty undervaluation
or dire need. It was also contended that sale deed [Ex. R5] was
rightly ignored by the courts below from consideration for
determining the market value of the acquired land as the same B
was simply a distress sale executed by a co-sharer who had
only ?thshare in the entire property. He submitted that the sale
transaction under Ex.R6 dated 23.06.1996 was also rightly
rejected as it related to a distress sale of a share in a land
subject to a 99 year lease without possession. It was also c
contended that the land acquired for the NTPC in villages
Mujheri, Neemka and Sihi are located close to Ballabgarh -
Tigaon Road and the evidence led by NTPC itself proved that
two gas godowns, six factories, one farm house and one poultry
farm are in existence on the road side quite adjacent to the
~-
D
acquired land at the time of the acquisition. It was also
contended that land situated in these villages have great
potential for industrial purposes. It was emphasised that sale
deed (Ex. R5) dated 30.06.1993 relied on by NTPC was
executed long prior to the date of Notification under Section 4
E
-
of the Act and did not correctly reflect the market value of the
acquired land as it did not pertain to land of similar nature and
quality. By assuming that Ex. R6 was executed on 23.06.1996
he contended that Ex. R6 pertained to a sale subsequent to
the preliminary notification of the lands acquired and, therefore,
had no evidentiary value. He next contended that in the present F
cases, the reference court and the High Court both have
properly fixed the market value of the land on the basis of the
award dated 29.4.1998 (Ex. P7) as confirmed by the High Court
D vide judgment dated 26.08.1999 Ex. PX in R.F.A. No. 3502 of
' G
1998. It was submitted that there was an arithmetical error in
calculation, as the reference court and the High Court have held
that the claimants were entitled to an increase of 5% per year
(that is 15% for 3 years) over Rs.291/- per sq. yard determined
for lands acquired for development of Sector-II, Faridabad, the
actual value ought to have been Rs.334.65, whereas what has H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A been awarded was only Rs.306/- per sq. yard and, therefore, ... -
there was no question of reducing the compensation so
awarded. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the question
that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the market value determined by the
B
reference court and confirmed by the High Court is correct
or there is some error in determining the compensation?"
8. Before considering the evidence and the rival
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we may refer
c to the decisions referred to by the parties regarding
determination of the market value.
(8.1.) In State of M. P. v. Shantabai (Smt.) & Ors. [(1995)
Suppl. 2 SCC 28], relied upon by Mr. S.K. Dhingra, learned
D counsel for NTPC, this Court observed that fixation of market
value by the Civil Court equivalent with reference to
contemporaneous sale transactions was proper.
(8.2.) In Shakuntalabai (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra [(1996) .2 SCC 152], it was held that if there is
E evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the
market value commanded by the acquired land itself, the need
to travel beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated.
Further, when the owner himself has purchased the land under
acquisition few years earlier to the Notification under Section
F 4 of the Act, the consideration mentioned in the sale deed would
form the basis· to determine the market value and it is
unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the
market value prevailing in the adjacent lands.
(8.3.) In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, Distt:
..
G
Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin Kumar & Anr. ((2004)
2 sec 283], it is held that basic valuation register maintained lf
for stamp duty purposes cannot be relied upon while
determining the market value of the acquired land and further
that comparable sales method is the best acceptable method
H
FARIDABAD GAS PO\NER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 927
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
·-~. for such determination. A
(8.4.) In V. Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by LRs. v. Land
~ Acquisition Officer & Manda/ R. Officer [(2003) 12 SCC 642],
this Court held that while determining the market value of the
acquired land lying in the interior areas, the sale instances of B
the land abutting the National Highway cannot be relied on for
determining the compensation of land which was situated 100
~ yards from the National Highway.
(8.5.) In K. S. ·shivadevamma & Ors. v. Assistant
Commissioner & LAO & Anr. [(1996) 2 SCC 62; Basawa c
.. (Smt.) & Ors. v. Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. [(1996)
9 SCC 640 and in Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(2003)
1 SCC 354], this Court held that in respect of agricultural land
or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or
:ir
commercial purposes, deductions between 53% to 33.33% D
should be deducted towards the cost of development out of the
amount calculated with reference to market value of developed
land. In some cases where the acquired land is semi-developed
or having road and other facilities, this Court has restricted the
deduction even to 20%, but that is in exceptional E
circumstances. In short, the extent of deduction depends upon
the nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for
development of the land so as to make the plots for residential
or commercial purposes and the area required for laying out
" roads and other civic amenities. F
(8.6) In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs.
rt; & Ors. [(2005) 12 SCC 1], this Court held:
-: "25. The best method, as is well-known, would be the
amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner G
of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court,
~ however, may take recourse to various other known
methods. Evidences admissible therefor inter alia would
be judgments and awards passed in respect of
acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in the r·
absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report
of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only
evidentiary value.
26. Therefore, the contention that as the Union of India was
B
a party to the said awards would not by itself be a ground
to invoke the principles of res judicata and/or estoppel.
Despite such awards it may be open to the Union of India
to question the entitlement of the respondent claimants to
the amount of compensation and/ or the statutory limitations
c in respect thereof. It would also be open to it to raise other
contentions relying on or on the basis of other materials
brought on record. It was also open to the appellant to
contend thatthe lands under acquisition are not similar to
the lands in respect whereof judgments have been "
D delivered. The area of the land, the nature thereof, f
advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst
others would be relevant factors for determining the actual
market value of the property although such judgments/
awards, if duly brought on records, as stated hereinbefore,
E would be admissible in evidence.
27. Even if the Union of India had not preferred any appeal
against the said judgment and award; it would not be
estopped and precluded from raising the said question in
F a different proceeding as in a given case it is permissible
in law to do the same keeping in view the larger public
interest."
I!
This Court reiterated that one of the modes of computing the
market value would be with reference to judgments and awards
•
G passed in respect of acquisitions of similar land subject to such
increase or decrease thereupon as may be applicable having
~
regard to the accepted principles laid down therefor. The extent
of the land, the nature thereof, advantages and disadvantages
occurring therein amongst others would be relevant factors for
H
FARIDABAD GAS POWER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 929
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.)
--+- determining the actual market value of the property. This Court A
also reiterated that for the purpose of determining the market
value of the acquired lands on the basis of the comparable
sales method, the land sought to be compared must be similar
in potentiality and nature. It also took note of the fact that the
market value of agricultural lands is lower than that of the land 8
suitable for commercial purposes. This Court also cautioned
t- that the enormity of financial implication of enhancement in view
of the size of the land acquired for a particular project should
be kept in mind.
(8.7) In Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapa/ly village,
c
Nizamabad District, A. P. v. Nookala Rajama/lu & Ors. [(2003)
12 sec 334 (para 9)], it was observed:
"It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is
reduced to a minimum if the underlying principles of D
fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales
are made:
( i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of
notification under Section 4(1 ); E
( ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;
( iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land
adjacent to the land acquired; and
F
( iv) it should possess similar advantages."
(8.8.) In Panna Lal Ghosh & Ors. v. Land Acquisition
Collector & Ors. [(2004) 1 SCC 467), this Court said that the
most reliable way to determine the value is to rely on the
instances of sale portions of the same land as has been G
-¥ acquired or adjacent lands made shortly before or after the
Section 4 Notification.
(8.9.) In the case of Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement
Trust, Bhopal [( 1989) 2 sec 329], in a case under the Madhya H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960, this Court has held
that the rates paid for small parcels of land do not provide a
useful guide for determining the market value of the land
acquired. While determining the market value of the land
acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that
B there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor
undue deprivation on the part of the owner.
(8.10.) In Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased) through
his Heirs and LRs. and Others v. State of Gujarat [(1989) 4
sec 250], this Court held that the market value of a property
C for purposes of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is the
price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller
to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length.
Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and
potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about
D the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and, indeed
the best evidences of market value. Nelson Fernandes & Ors.
v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors. [(2007)
9 sec 447] is the ratio to similar effect.
E (8.11) In Ranjit Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory of
Chandigarh [(1992) 4 SCC 659], this Court held that the market
value of lands acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification
could not have been freezed at the same market value fixed
for similar lands acquired under a previous notification after
F lapse of period of one year and the general increase of land
prices during that period, higher market value say about 10%
per year should be awarded. In Delhi Development Authority
v. Bali Ram Sharma & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 533], it is held that
in cases where the purpose of acquisition was the same but
G the notification under Section 4(1) was issued on a subsequent
date, obviously there would be escalation of prices in regard
to those lands. Hence, it would be just and appropriate to give
an annual increase of 10% in the market value in respect of
the lands which were acquired by a subsequent notification. In
H The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v.
FARIDABAD GAS PO\NER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 931
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
-'"t Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. [JT 2008 (9) SC 480], it A
is held that increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas
was about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increase
in rural areas would at best be around half of it, that is about
5% to 7.5% per annum, in the absence of evidence of sudden
spurts or fall in prices. B
(8.12.) In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. v.
,,. State of Gujarat [(2005) 4 SCC 789], it is. reiterated that the
relevant factors for the determination of compensation are
comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the
proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation c
angle. For determining the market value of the land under
acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard
to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under
acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive
factors are (i) smallness of size (ii) proximity to a road; (iii) D
~
frontage on a road; (iv) nearness to developed area; (v) regular
shape, (vi) level vis-a-vis land under acquisition and (vii) special
value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have
some very special advantage and the negative factors are: (i)
largeness of area; (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from E
the road; (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage
compared to depth; (iv) lower level requiring the depressed
portion to be filled up; (v) remoteness from developed locality
J.
and (vi) some special disadvantageous factors which would
deter a purchaser. F
(8.13} In ONGC Limited v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel &
Ors. [(2005) 6 SCC 454], it is held that instances of sale in
respect of the similar land situated in the same village and/or
neighbouring villages can be taken as guiding factors for
G
determination of market value. In Union of India v. Harinder Pal
Singh & Ors. [(2005) 12 SCC 564], this Court observed that
in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the market
value of the acquired land in a village which was acquired at
the same time as the lands in other villages, was considered
H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A to be correct comparative unit for determination of the market
value of the acquired lands. On the other hand in Kanwar Singh
v. Union of India ((1998) 8 SCC 136], this Court cautioned that
transactions of neighbouring village are not reliable where the
situation and potentialities of lands in the two villages were
8 different.
(8.14.) We will now examine the correctness and legality
of the judgment of the High Court affirming the decision of the
reference court, in the light of the well-settled principles and the
+
evidence led by the parties in these cases.
c
Re: lands at Mujheri. Sihi and Neemka
9. In support of their claims, the claimants led evidence
both oral and documentary. The documents relied on included
D the Site Plan (Ex. P1 ); Aks-Shajra of village Mujheri (Ex. P2);
latest Development Plan (Master Plan) (Ex. P3); Receipt (Ex.
P4), copy of sale deed dated 07.01.1994 (Ex. P6) vide which
Ramlal sold land measuring 100 sq. yards in favour of M/s.
Assemblies of God for Rs. 33,000/-; copy of judgment dated
E 29.04.1998 (Ex. P7) passed by the Additional District Judge,
Faridabad in LAC Case No. 185/97 titled Ved Prakash and
Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. and connected cases whereby
and whereunder compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.
250/- per square yard in respect of the land acquired by the
State of Haryana vide Notification dated 23.11.1992 for -'
F development of Sector-II, Faridabad; Copy of judgment dated
07.08.1997 delivered by Additional District Judge, Faridabad
in LAC Case No. 607/97 (Ex. PB) titled Tek Singh v. LAC and
other connected cases whereby compensation was awarded
at the rate of Rs. 392.50 per sq. yard in respect of the land
G acquired vide notification dated 05.06.1992 and dated
04.06.1993 for development of Sector 20-8 Faridabad; copy
of judgment dated 27 .10.1997 (Ex. P9) passed by Additional
District Judge in LAC Case No.282/97 titled Nathan Singh v.
LAC and other connected cases awarding compensation at the
H rate of Rs. 435/- per square yard in respect of the land acquired
FARIDABAD GAS POVVER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 933
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
-"f vide notification dated 07.04.1996 for green belt of West of A
Delhi-Mathura Road, Sector-12, Faridabad.
10. In rebuttal, NTPC and the State examined ten
witnesses and tendered in evidence Development Plan of
Faridabad -Ballabgarh Controlled Area (Ex. R1); award of B
Land Acquisition Collector (Ex. R2); copy of payment of
'compensation (Ex. R3); copy of sale deed dated 30.06.1993
(Ex. R5) vide which Smt. Kamla sold 1 kanal 11 mar/as land
in favour of Haria for a sum of Rs. 39,000/-; copy of sale deed
(Exhibit R6) dated 23.6.1996 vide which Raghuvir and Ramlal
sons of Lal Singh sold land measuring 1 kanal 10 mar/as in
c
favour of Manoj Goyal for Rs. 40,000/-; copy of mutation of
sales for the year 1992-93 (Ex. R7) and a copy of Site
(Development) Plan (Ex. R-8).
11. The reference court as well as the High Court have D
considered the entire oral and documentary evidence on record
and concluded that the sale deed [Ex. P6] dated 07.01.1994
on which reliance has been placed by the claimants cannot be
considered as a comparable instance to determine the market
value of large extent of the acquired land as the document Ex. E
P6 pertained to a small piece of land measuring only 100 sq.
yards in the developed area of village Sihi which was sold by
Ramlal in favour of M/s Assemblies of God, New Delhi for a
sum of Rs. 33, 0001-. We find no fault in the finding of the courts
below in rejecting the sale deed (Ex. P6) on the well-reasoned F
ground. The copy of the mutation entries of sales transaction
effected in the year 1992-93 cannot be accepted as admissible
evidence for determining the market value of the land acquired.
The sale deed dated 30.06.1993 (Ex. R5) has been rightly
rejected by the reference court and the High Court because the G
said sale deed was executed about two years prior to the
preliminary notification issued in the present cases and the said
sale is nothing but a distress sale made by a co-owner who
1
had only one-eighth share in the land. Sale deed dated
23.06.1996 (Ex. R6) is also rightly rejected as it relates to a
H
J
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A share in a land, which was given on lease for a period of 99 f" '
years without possession. Exhibits P1, P2, P3 and R1 would
merely reflect the location of the land acquired and Exhibit P3
and Exhibit R1 are the Development Plans for Faridabad -
Ballabgarh Controlled Area issued from the office of the MCF,
B Faridabad.
(12) It is not in dispute that 154.23 acres of acquired land
in village Mujheri was adjacent to Sector-II, Faridabad, for which +
preliminary notification was issued on 23.11.1992 and by award
dated 29.04.1998 (Ex. P7), the reference court awarded
c compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/- per square yard. Being
aggrieved thereto, the claimants and the Government of
Haryana both preferred Regular First Appeals before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court vide Judgment
dated 26.8.1999 allowed Regular First Appeal No. 3502/1998
D of the claimants titled Ved Prakash & Anr. v. State of Haryana
and enhanced the market value to Rs. 291/- per square yard.
A copy of the judgment dateq 26.08.1999 [Ex.. PX] of the High
Court was placed on record of the reference court in the present
proceedings, which was not objected to and disputed by the
E NTPC. The reference court relying on the said judgment of the
High Court came to the conclusion that the land in question was
similar in quality and by adding 5% increase, the market value
of the acquired land is enhanced from Rs.250/- per square yard
to Rs.291/- per square yard. The High Court has also observed
F that by all standards there existed similarity of location and
potential value of the land acquired by NTPC and the land for
Sector-II, Faridabad which was utilized for urbanization.
13. It is the evidence of Mohinder Singh-claimant [P.W. 4]
that the boundaries of villages Mujheri and Sihi adjoin the
G
boundaries of lands situated in villages Okhla and Muharajpur.
He stated that at the time of publication of Notification under
Section 4 of the Act in the present cases, the market value of
the land was approximately Rs. 1,200/- to Rs. 1,500/- per
t
square yard. There is pucca road from Ballabgarh to village
H
'
FARIDABAD GAS POVVER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 935
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
Tigaon which is extended upto village Manjhawali and the land A
situated at village Mujheri adjoins the land situated at
Ballabgarh-Tigaon Road. It is his evidence that the potential
value of the land falling within the vicinity of village Mujheri and
village Sihi are the same. This witness has given speculative
market value of the land without any basis. Therefore, his B
evidence in regard to the market value of the land does not lead
us to believe that the market value of the acquired land was
approximately Rs.1,200/- to Rs.1,500/- per square yard. The
evidence of this witness mainly deals with the location of the
acquired land. c
14. R.W. 4 - Dharambir Singh, Deed Writer, District Court,
Faridabad is the subscriber of original sale deed Exhibit R5.
In cross-examination this witness admitted that village Mujheri
is situated on Ballabgarh-Tigaon Road. He also admitted that
the acquired land of village Mujheri adjoins the land of village D
Si hi, a part of which has also been acquired for the purpose of
NTPC and out of the vast track of lands, some area was earlier
acquired for development of Sector-II, Faridabad. He stated
that many factories are in existence in the village. There exists
a water treatment plant just opposite to the acquired land in E
village Mujheri and on the opposite side of village Mujheri, a
vast track of land falling in village Neemka has been acquired
by HUDA for the purpose of establishment of big industries.
According to him, at the time of Notification issued under
Section 4 of the Act, the value of the acquired land was Rs. F
.. 900/- to Rs. 1,000/- per square yard. R.W. 6 - Bisham Singh,
at the relevant time was posted as Patwari in Land Acquisition
Collector's Office, Faridabad. He has placed on record two
awards of the reference court passed in LAC Case No. 607/
1997 and LAC Case No. 282/1997. In cross-examination, he G
admitted that he has seen the land acquired in village Mujheri
and the land earlier acquired for development of Sector-II,
Faridabad. He stated that Agra Canal falls between land at
village Mu)het'i and land in Sector-II, Faridabad and the land .
acquired at village Mujheri is situated on Ballabgarh - Tigaon H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A Road. R.W. 7 - Ashok Kumar Patwari, village Mujheri, Tehsil
Ballabgarh stated that lands of villages Sihi and Mujheri are
situated on Ballabgarh-Tigaon Road and there exists a disposal
tank just opposite to the acquired land across the Ballabgarh
- Tigaon Road which is located in Mirjapur. He deposed that
B near the acquired land at village Mujheri, there are three or four
factories in existence, besides gas godowns etc. and the abadi
of village Sihi has extended upto Agra Canal near Sector-II and
Sector-Ill, Faridabad. He admitted that the value of the land near
Sectors-II and Ill, Faridabad are not less than Rs. 1000/- per
C square yard and the value of lands at village Mujheri and village
Sihi could not be assessed less than Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per
sq. yard during the years 1996 to 1999. It is the evidence of
R.W. 8 - Mohanlal, Field Kanungo posted at Ballabgarh that
in terms of the order of the Tehsildar, he demarcated the
acquired land at the time of acquisition. He stated that on the
0
western side of the lands, there are agricultural lands of village
Sihi and on the eastern side of the acquired lands there is a
track of agricultural lands of the land owners of villages Neemka,
Navada, Tigaon and Mujheri respectively. He admitted that
abadi of Ballabgarh has extended upto Sector-II, Faridabad and
E after Sector-II there exists Agra Canal and farther thereto village
Sihi is situated. He also stated that two small factories are in
existence apart from gas godowns adjoining to village Mujheri
and the land acquired for NTPC adjoins Ballabgarh-Tigaon
Road. He further stated that the land in question acquired at
F villages Mujheri, Neemka and Sihi were of the same quality and
potentiality.
15. The evidences led by both sides shows that the relied
upon judgment relates to acquisition of lands for development
G of Sector-II, Faridabad, situated on the western side of Agra
canal and the lands acquired for NTPC, which are subject-
matter of these appeals, are situated on the eastern side of the
Agra canal. The evidence also discloses that the areas of
villages Mujheri and Sihi on the western side of the Agra canal
H are far better developed and are close to urban areas. On the
FARIDABAD GAS POV\IER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 937
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
other hand, the lands on the eastern side of the Agra canal A
acquired for NTPC were undeveloped and purely agricultural
in nature. The evidence also shows that the distance between
the two lands separated by the Agra canal may vary from 1 km
to 2.5 km.
B
16. The evidence of RW.7-Ashok Kumar, Patwari Halqa
Mujheri, Tehsil Ballabgarh, clearly establishes that the acquired
land was agricultural land which was surrounded by left out
agricultural lands of the owners. His statement finds
corroboration with RW-8-Mohan Lal, Field Kanungo, who also
.C
deposed that on the western side of acquired land there exists
large area of agricultural land situated at village Sihi and on the
eastern side there are agricultural lands of villages Neemka,
Mujheri, Navada and Tigoan and on the northern side there is
a Tigaon Road and agricultural lands of village Neemka and
on the southern side there are agricultural lands at village D
Mujheri. It has come in the evidence of PW-1 Satya Prakash
Mittal, Draftsman in Civil Court Premises, Faridabad that
'abadi' of village Sihi falls on the western side of Agra Canal
whereas the acquired lands were situated to the east of Agra
Canal at a distance of 1 km on eastern side of Agra Canal. E
17. On an independent scrutiny of the above-referred to
entire evidence placed on record, it is proved that the entire
chunk of acquired land was purely agricultural in quality and of
>- lesser potentiality. The lands acquired for Sector-II, Faridabad, F
.. as per notification dated 23.11.1992 were situated in a better
developed area with greater potentiality than the lands acquired
for NTPC.
18. On the facts and circumstances of the matters before
us and difference in quality and potentiality of the lands G
,. acquired, we are of the view that the market value of the
acquired lands for NTPC when compared to the lands acquired
for Sector-II, Faridabad, should be reduced by at least one-fifth
(20%). The value of Sector-II lands had been determined at
Rs.291/- per square yard with reference to a preliminary H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A notification issued on 23.11.1992. As on 16.08.1995 (date of
preliminary notification in regard to the acquired lands), the
market value of lands acquired for Sector-II was Rs.291/- plus
a cumulative increase of 7.5% per year for three years, which
works out to be Rs.361.50p. per square yard. If 20% is
.
B deducted from the said market value on account of lesser
potential value and quality of the acquired land and the distance
between the two areas, the market value of the acquired land
would be Rs.289/- per square yard. We, accordingly, hold that
the market value for the acquired agricultural lands situated at
c Mujheri, Sihi and Neemka should be Rs.289/- per square yard.
Re : Lands at Jhajru
19. The LAC awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,57 ,000/- for Chahi lands and Rs.1,50,000/- for Gair
D Mumkin and Banjar Kadim lands. The reference court
increased it to Rs.190/- per square yard (Rs.9, 19,600/- per
acre). The lands at village Jhajru are far away from the acquired
lands of villages Mujheri, Sihi and Neemka. Lands at village
Jhajru were also agricultural lands situated beyond Sectors 58
E & 59 of Faridabad Town. The reference court relied upon the
market value of Rs.155/- per square yard as determined in
respect of an acquisition of land on 10.06.1988 for Sector-59.
As the acquisition for NTPC was in 1995, it determined the
market value as Rs.190/- per square yard, by providing an
F increase of Rs.5/- per year.
20. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that at
least the market value of the acquired land ought to have been
-
determined at the rate of Rs.425/- per square yard awarded
for acquisition of land for Sector-59 by notification dated
G 10.07.1995 and covered by award of the reference court in
LAC No.26 of 14.08.2003 decided on 31.03.2004.
Alternatively, it was submitted that yearly increase should have
been calculated at the rate of 10% per annum for 7 years over
the market value of Rs.155/- per square yard and increase
H awarded in these cases at the rate of Rs.5/- per year is at a
FARIDABAD GAS POVVER PROJECT, NTPC LTD., ETC v. 939
OM PRAKASH & ORS. ETC. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
~~
~--.,.
lower rate and wholly unjustified. A
21. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that
the reference court should have worked out the market value
of the acquired land by calculating an increase at least at the
cumulative rate of 7.5% per annum for 7 years to arrive at the B
market value as determined in the year 1995 and then it ought
to have deducted 20% in that value as the acquired lands were
farther away from Sector-59. Thus, we determine the market
value for the Jhajru lands at Rs.205/- per square yard (that is
80% of Rs.155/- increased by 7.5% for 7 years).
c
Re : Land at Pyala:
22. A small track of 0.96 acres of land was acquired in
village Pyala. This village is located in the close vicinity of
Sector-59, Faridabad. The Collector awarded compensation D
for the acquired land in this village at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/
- per acre irrespective of the quality of land. The reference court
vide Award dated 21.02.2000 enhanced the compensation at
the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. The NTPC in support of its
case has produced copies of Mutation of Sale (Exs. R2 and
E
R4) pertaining to the period 1992 to 1995 for determining the
market value of the acquired land in this village. Exs. R1 and
R7 are the final development plans for Faridabad-Ballabhgarh
Controlled Area which show the exact location of the acquired
land. As per Aks Shajra (Ex. R3), the acquired land was
F
situated at a distance of 2 to 3 Kilometres from Delhi-Mathura
Road. It has come in the evidence of Hukam Singh, who at that
time was posted as Patwari at village Pyala, that the acquired
land was surrounded by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and
Indian Oil Corporation, etc. He also admitted that the land was
acquired by NTPC for commercial purposes. The reference G
court and the High Court both have not found any tangible
evidence led by NTPC to rebut the claim of the claimants. In
that view of the matter, we do not find any manifest error or
perversity in the judgment of the reference court fixing the
market value of the acquired land at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
;...
A which has been confirmed by the High Court. r-~
23. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of as
follows:-
(i) The Civil Appeals filed by the NTPC in regard to
B the lands acquired at villages Mujheri, Sihi and
Neemka are allowed in part and as a result thereof
the market value of the lands acquired is reduced
from Rs.306/- per square yard to Rs.289/- per
square yard.
c
(ii) The appeals filed by claimants-land owners for
enhancement of compensation in regard to
acquisition of lands of villages Mujheri, Sihi and
Neemka are dismissed.
D
(iii) In regard to the lands at village Jhajru, the appeals
of NTPC are dismissed and the appeals of the
land-owners of Jhajru are allowed in part and the
market value is increased from Rs.190/- to Rs.205/
- per square yard.
E
(iv) In regard to lands at village Pyala, the appeals are
dismissed and the compensation determined is
confirmed.
(v} The solatium, additional amount and interest
F
awarded by the reference court and confirmed by
the High Court are left in tact.
(vi) Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
G R.P. Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search