HARI RAM (DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. AND ANR.versusLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER GURGAON AND ORS.

664                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   15 S.C.R. 664              [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A          HARI RAM (DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. AND ANR.
                                       v.
               LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR CUM
          DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER GURGAON AND ORS.
B                       (Civil Appeal No. 7762 of 2022)
                              OCTOBER 20, 2022
                [M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
             Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4 – Compensation –
      Enhancement of – Land in question came to be acquired under the
C
      provisions of the 1894 Act for setting up of Liquified Petroleum
      Gas Plant – Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded the
      compensation @ Rs.5,30,000 per acre for irrigated lands and Rs.
      2,00,000/- per acre for non-irrigated lands – Reference Court fixed
      compensation at Rs.5,30,000/- per acre for both irrigated as well
D     as the non-irrigated land – The High Court enhanced the amount
      of compensation to Rs.7,00,000/- per acre – Before the High Court
      and the Reference Court, the landowners had heavily relied upon
      the sale exemplars/sale instances produced as Ex. P1 to Ex.P4 –
      The High Court discarded the sale instances Exs. P1, P3 and P4
      relied upon on behalf of the landowners by observing that there is
E
      a price variation between the sale deeds produced as Ex. P1 and
      the sale deeds produced as Exs. P3 and P4, thus opined that sale
      deeds produced as Exs. P3 and P4 are not genuine – On appeal,
      held: The sale deeds Exs. P1, P3 and P4 were by and/or in favour
      of a company and the variation in the prices mentioned in the Exs.
F     P1, P3 and P4 cannot be a ground to hold Exs. are not genuine –
      Exs. P3 and P4 are with respect to the smaller parcel of land
      considering that there has to be a proper deduction – Looking at
      Location, potentiality and the purpose of acquired lands, not much
      development was required like the housing scheme and/or as required
      for other similar purposes, therefore, if 35% is deducted considering
G
      the evaluation with respect to Sale Deed at Ex. P4, the same can be
      said to be just, reasonable and proper compensation to the original
      landowners – Therefore, the original landowners shall be entitled
      to Rs. 12,16,800/- per acre towards compensation for the lands
      acquired – High Court judgment and order is modified to the said
H     extent.
                                       664
    HARI RAM (DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. v. LAND ACQUISITION               665
      COLLECTOR CUM DIST. REVENUE OFFICER GURGAON


      Partly allowing the appeals, the Court                            A
      HELD: 1. The reasoning given by the High Court
discarding the sale exemplars/sale instances produced as Exs.
P1, P3 and P4, this court is of the opinion that the High Court has
committed a very serious error in discarding the sale instances/
sale exemplars produced as Exs. P3 and P4. The High Court has           B
not properly appreciated the fact that so far as the sale deed Ex.
P1 is concerned, the same was executed by a company in favour
of a private person and on the other hand, the sale deeds Exs. P3
and P4 were executed in favour of a company. Therefore, when
after purchasing the land, a company had sold the land the prices
are bound to be higher. Merely because the sale deeds Exs. P1,          C
P3 and P4 were by and/or in favour of the company and there was
variation in the prices mentioned in the Exs. P1, P3 and P4 cannot
be a ground to hold that the sale exemplars Exs. P3 and P4 are
not genuine and therefore required to be discarded. [Para 7][668-
A-C]                                                                    D
       2. It will be safe to rely upon and/or consider the sale deeds
produced as Exs. P3 and P4. However, at the same time,
considering the fact that the Sale Deeds produced as Exs. P3 and
P4 are with respect to the smaller parcel of land, there has to be
a proper deduction on the ground of smaller area of the land and        E
development. Looking to the location and the potentiality of the
lands acquired and as the acquired lands were required to be
used for Liquified Petroleum Gas Plant, not much development
was required like the housing scheme and/or as required for other
similar purposes, therefore, if 35% is deducted considering the
evaluation with respect to Sale Deed at Ex. P4, the same can be         F
said to be just, reasonable and proper compensation to the original
landowners. Therefore, the original landowners shall be entitled
to Rs. 12,16,800/- per acre towards compensation for the lands
acquired. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court is required to be           G
modified. [Para 8][668-D-F]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7762
of 2022.

                                                                        H
666            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A           From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2019 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No. 597 of 2004.
            With
            Civil Appeal Nos. 7764, 7766, 7765, 7763, 7770, 7771, 7767, 7768,
      7772, 7769 of 2022.
B
            Rakesh Dahiya, Aditya Dahiya, Satyavan Kudalwal, Pulkit
      Srivastava, Siddharth Mittal, Prabhat Kumar, Kshitiz Chauhan, Sahil
      Amarnath, Ms. Shilpa G. Mittal, Gaurav Kejriwal, Abdul Hamid,
      Abhimanyu Mahajan, Ms. Anubha Goel, Nagarkatti Kartik Uday,
      Ms. Prakriti Joshi, Mayank Joshi. Advs. for the Appellants.
C
            Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Priya Puri, Rishabh Sharma,
      Chandratanay Chaube, Ranjay Dubey, Sharad Puri, Samar Vijay Singh,
      Vipin Singh Bansal, Ms. Amrita Verma, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D           M. R. SHAH, J.
            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
      judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
      Chandigarh in First Appeal Nos. 597 of 2004 and other allied first appeals,
      by which the High Court has partly allowed the said first appeals and
E     has enhanced the amount of compensation for the lands acquired to Rs.
      7,00,000/- per acre for irrigated and non-irrigated lands, the original
      landowners have preferred the present appeals.
             2. That the lands in question situated within the revenue estate of
      Village Bhondsi, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon came to be acquired
F     under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
      referred to as the “Act, 1894”) for setting up of Liquified Petroleum Gas
      Plant at Bhondsi. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on
      19.06.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded the
      compensation @ Rs. 5,30,000/- per acre for irrigated lands and
      Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre for non-irrigated lands. The Reference Court
G     fixed the compensation at Rs. 5,30,000/- per acre for both the irrigated
      as well as the non-irrigated lands. By the impugned common judgment
      and order, the High Court has determined and enhanced the amount of
      compensation to Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre. Feeling aggrieved and
      dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by
H     the High Court determining the compensation for the lands acquired @
   HARI RAM (DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. v. LAND ACQUISITION                      667
COLLECTOR CUM DIST. REVENUE OFFICER GURGAON [M. R. SHAH, J.]


Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre, the landowners have preferred the present appeals    A
for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
      3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
landowners as well as Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the beneficiaries – Indian Oil Corporation.
       4. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the           B
High Court and even from the judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court, it appears that the landowners heavily relied upon the
sale exemplars/sale instances produced as Ex. P1 to Ex. P10. However,
the landowners have heavily relied upon the sale exemplars / sale instances
produced as Ex. P1 to Ex. P4, which are as under:-                            C




                                                                              D
       5. The acquiring body and the Indian Oil Corporation relied upon
the sale exemplars/sale instances produced as Ex. R1 to Ex. R13, more
particularly, Ex. R.12, which was also relied upon and considered by the
Land Acquisition Officer, the particulars of Ex. R12 is as under:-
                                                                              E


       6. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court
has discarded the sale exemplars/sale instances Exs. P1, P3 and P4
relied upon on behalf of the landowners by observing that the said sale       F
deeds are by or in favour of the company, M/s. Orient Express Pvt. Ltd.
and there is a price variation between the sale deeds produced as Ex.
P1 and the sale deeds produced as Exs. P3 and P4. Therefore, the High
Court opined that the sale deeds/sale exemplars produced as Exs. P3
and P4 are not genuine. That thereafter, relying upon and considering
the sale exemplar/sale deed produced as Ex. R12, the High Court has           G
partly allowed the appeals and enhanced the amount of compensation to
Rs. 7,00,000/- per acre, hence the present appeals are at the instance of
the original landowners.
      7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and having gone through the impugned common                H
668             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     judgment and order passed by the High Court and the reasoning given
      by the High Court discarding the sale exemplars/sale instances produced
      as Exs. P1, P3 and P4, we are of the opinion that the High Court has
      committed a very serious error in discarding the sale instances/sale
      exemplars produced as Exs. P3 and P4. The High Court has not properly
      appreciated the fact that so far as the sale deed Ex. P1 is concerned, the
B
      same was executed by M/s. Orient Express Pvt. Ltd. in favour of a
      private person and on the other hand, the sale deeds Exs. P3 and P4
      were executed in favour of M/s Orient Express Pvt. Ltd. Therefore,
      when after purchasing the land, a company had sold the land the prices
      are bound to be higher. Merely because the sale deeds Exs. P1, P3 and
C     P4 were by and/or in favour of the company and there was variation in
      the prices mentioned in the Exs. P1, P3 and P4 cannot be a ground to
      hold that the sale exemplars Exs. P3 and P4 are not genuine and therefore
      required to be discarded.
             8. In view of the above, it will be safe to rely upon and/or consider
D     the sale deeds produced as Exs. P3 and P4. However, at the same time,
      considering the fact that the Sale Deeds produced as Exs. P3 and P4
      are with respect to the smaller parcel of land, there has to be a proper
      deduction on the ground of smaller area of the land and development.
      Looking to the location and the potentiality of the lands acquired and as
      the acquired lands were required to be used for Liquified Petroleum Gas
E     Plant, not much development was required like the housing scheme and/
      or as required for other similar purposes, therefore, if 35% is deducted
      considering the evaluation with respect to Sale Deed at Ex. P4, the
      same can be said to be just, reasonable and proper compensation to the
      original landowners. Therefore, the original landowners shall be entitled
F     to Rs. 12,16,800/- per acre towards compensation for the lands acquired.
      To the aforesaid extent, the impugned common judgment and order passed
      by the High Court is required to be modified.
             9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
      appeals succeed in part. The impugned common judgment and order
G     passed by the High Court is hereby modified and it is observed and held
      that the original landowners shall be entitled to the compensation @ Rs.
      12,16,800/- for the lands acquired with all other statutory benefits and
      the interest, which may be available under the provisions of the Act,
      1894.

H
   HARI RAM (DECEASED) THR. HIS LRS. v. LAND ACQUISITION                     669
COLLECTOR CUM DIST. REVENUE OFFICER GURGAON [M. R. SHAH, J.]


      All these appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.          A
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan                                         Appeals partly allowed.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
                                                                             B




                                                                             C




                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H