HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.versusSATPAL & OTHERS ETC. ETC.

1016                       [2023]
                SUPREME COURT     3 S.C.R. 1016
                               REPORTS                     [2023] 3 S.C.R.


 A         HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE
            DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.
                                        v.
                        SATPAL & OTHERS ETC. ETC.
         (Civil Appeals Nos. [Arising out of SLP (C)18428-18432, 18434-
 B
             18438, 18440-18454, 18456-18494, 18496, 18498-18501,
               18503-18509, 18511-18572 & 18574-18584 of 2021])
                              FEBRUARY 09, 2023
                   [M. R. SHAH AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
 C            Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Determination
       – Land acquired vide notifications dated 30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007
       of villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi in District Sonipat,
       Haryana – For land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005
       for villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi, the High Court
 D     enhanced the compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre and for
       land acquired vide notification dated 05.03.2007 for the aforesaid
       villages, the High Court awarded compensation @ Rs. 45,00,000/-
       per acre – Challenge to – Held: The amount of compensation
       assessed and determined for the land acquired vide notification
       dated 30.06.2005 acquired of very villages Badh Malik, Pritampura
 E     and Rasoi can be said to be the governing factor even while
       determining the compensation for the land acquired vide notification
       dated 5.3.2007 as under both the notifications the lands acquired
       are for the same public purpose, namely, development of industrial
       sector 39, Sonipat, Haryana – While assessing and determining the
 F     compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre for the land acquired
       vide notification dated 30.06.2005, the High Court considered the
       sale deeds produced as Ex. P43 & P44 – If one considers the main
       Ex. P43 & P44, which are the sale deeds dated 15.04.2005 and
       thereafter applying the cut off of 50%, the market value of the land
       would come to Rs. 24,43,693/- per acre – Instead, without any
 G     adequate reasons, the High Court assessed and enhanced the
       amount of compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre – Therefore,
       the High Court committed very serious error in assessing and
       determining the compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre for the
       land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 – After making
       the round figure, the landowners /claimants shall be entitled to
 H
                                      1016
    HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE                             1017
         DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. v. SATPAL

compensation @ Rs.24,50,000/- per acre with respect to the land           A
acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, with all other statutory
benefits, which may be available under the provisions of the 1894
Act – So far as the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007
is concerned, there shall be a corresponding increase looking to
the time gap of approximately one year and nine months and giving
                                                                          B
8 to 12 percent cumulative increase – However, the High Court
determined the compensation @ Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre on the
basis of the sale deed (Ex. P4) by applying 10% cut – Notably, so
far as the first notification dated 30.06.2005 is concerned, the High
Court applied the cut of 50% – Even otherwise, the sale deed
produced as Ex. P4 is dated 2.11.2006 and the acquisition of the          C
same villages commenced vide notification dated 30.06.2005 and
therefore the sale deed after the first notification dated 30.06.2005
could not have been the basis for assessing/determining the
compensation with respect to the subsequent acquisition – On the
contrary, giving 8 to 12 percent cumulative increase on the amount
                                                                          D
of compensation awarded for the land acquired vide notification
dated 30.06.2005, would be a safe and guiding factor – If that be
so, compensation with respect to the land acquired vide notification
dated 5.3.2007, would come to Rs. 30,73,280/- per acre (Rs.
24,50,000/- + 12% increase = Rs.27,44,000/- + 12% increase =
Rs.30,73,280/-) – Impugned common judgment of the High Court              E
accordingly modified.
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.
(Arisingf out of SLP(C) Nos.18428-18432, 18434-18438,18440-18454,
18456-18494, 18496, 18498-18501, 18503-18509, 18511-18572 & 18574-
18584 of 2021.                                                            F
      From the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2019 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA Nos. 1172, 1173, 1174,
1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186,
1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198,
1199, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492,   G
1983, 1984, 1996, 1997, 2214, 2215, 2216, 2217, 2277, 2278, 2279, 2280,
2415, 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419, 2420, 2421, 2422, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2426,
2427, 2428, 2429, 2430, 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436, 2437, 2438,
2439, 2440, 2441, 2589, 2590, 2736, 2737, 2738, 2739, 2740, 2741, 2742,
2743, 2744, 2752, 2753, 2754, 2755, 2756, 2796, 2797, 2802, 2803, 2867,
                                                                          H
1018            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 3 S.C.R.


 A     3499, 3931, 3932, 3933, 3934, 3935, 3936, 3937, 3938, 4416, 4436, 4493,
       4982, 5070, 5270, 5271, 5272, 5273, 5274, 5275, 5276, 5277, 5278, 5279,
       5280, 5281, 5282, 5283, 5284, 5285, 5286, 5287, 5288, 5289, 5416, 6841,
       7137 of 2013 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563 , 2201, 3706, 8695, 8696, 8697,
       8698, 8786, 8787, 8788, 8789, 8790, 8791, 8792, 8793 of 2014 and 885 of
       2015.
 B
             Alok Sangwan, Sr. AAG, Anurag Kulharia, Sumit Kumar Sharma,
       Sandeep, Apoorav Yadav, Vipul Dahiya, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for
       the Petitioners.
             Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv., Jitesh Malik, Rahul Singh, N
 C     D Kaushik, Satish Kumar, Ronak Karanpuria, Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj,
       Vedant Bharadwaj, Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Mrs. Surbhi Sharma,
       Miss Aanchal Jain, Karan Dewan, Vikram Singh Punia, Anas Chaudhary,
       Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Advs. for the
       Respondents.
 D           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             M. R. SHAH, J.
              1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
       judgment and order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab
       & Haryana at Chandigarh in the respective first appeals, by which for
 E     the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 for villages Badh
       Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi, the High Court has enhanced the
       compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre and for the land acquired vide
       notification dated 05.03.2007 for the aforesaid villages, the High Court
       has assessed and awarded the compensation @ Rs. 45,00,000/- per
 F     acre, the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development
       Corporation Limited (for short, ‘HSIIDC’) has preferred the present
       appeals.
              2. A large chunk of land situated at villages Badh Malik, Jatheri,
       Pritampura, Akbarpur Barota, Rasoi etc. in District Sonipat, Haryana
       came to be acquired for the purpose of construction of the Express
 G
       Highway known as “Kundli – Manesar – Palwal Highway (for short,
       ‘KMP’) connecting National Highway No.1 in District Sonipat, Haryana,
       by different notifications. In the present appeals, we are concerned with
       the land acquired vide notifications dated 30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007 of
       villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi. The lands were acquired
 H     for the expansion of industrial sector 39 also.
    HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE                                   1019
   DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. v. SATPAL [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      2.1 The Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded                   A
compensation @ Rs.16,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced
the compensation to Rs. 19,00,000/- per acre for villages Badh Malik
and Rasoi with respect to the land acquired vide notification dated
30.06.2005. The Reference Court did not enhance the amount of
compensation so far as village Pritampura is concerned.
                                                                                B
      With respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007,
the Reference Court did not enhance the amount of compensation in
respect of villages Badh Malik and Pritampura, however, enhanced the
amount of compensation to Rs. 23,00,000/- per acre for village Rasoi.
      2.2 In the first round of litigation before the High Court, the High      C
Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 40,00,000/- per acre
up to depth of 4 acres and Rs.30,40,000/- per acre beyond that with
respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005.
       Similarly, in the first round of litigation before the High Court, the
High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 50,00,000/-               D
per acre up to depth of 4 acres and Rs. 38,00,000/- per acre beyond that
with respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007. The
judgments and orders passed by the High Court were the subject matter
of Civil Appeals before this Court being Civil Appeal No. 12847/2017
and Civil Appeal No. 20050/2017 along with other allied appeals. By
judgments and orders dated 6.9.2017 & 28.11.2017, this Court disposed           E
of the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the High Court and
remitted the matters to the High Court for a fresh decision. This Court
did not approve adoption of belting system by the High Court by observing
that being an acquisition for an Express Way passing through different
parcel of land, there is no need or justification for adopting the belting      F
system. This Court also observed that if the land value is to be fixed for
KMP project acquisition, the relevant factors which are to be noted are
mainly the value that was prevalent in the locality prior to 13.08.2004.
      2.3 That thereafter on remand, in the second round of litigation
before the High Court, by the impugned common judgment and order,               G
the High Court has assessed and determined and awarded compensation
@ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre with respect to the land acquired vide
notification dated 30.06.2005 and has enhanced the amount of
compensation to Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre with respect to the land acquired
vide notification dated 5.3.2007.
                                                                                H
1020            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 3 S.C.R.


 A           2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
       judgment and order passed by the High Court with respect to the lands
       acquired vide notifications dated 30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007, HSIIDC has
       preferred the present appeals.
              At this stage, it is required to be noted that so far as the
 B     landowners’ appeals against the very impugned common judgment and
       order are concerned, the same had been dismissed earlier by this Court
       vide order dated 13.01.2010 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
       Diary No. 36995/2019 and other allied special leave petitions. Therefore,
       so far as the landowners are concerned, the impugned common judgment
       and order passed by the High Court had attained finality and the present
 C     appeals are required to be considered at the instance of HSIIDC only.
             Arguments of the learned counsel for the land acquired vide
       notification dated 30.06.2005
              3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has
 D     vehemently submitted that the High Court has seriously erred in enhancing
       the amount of compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre with respect to
       the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005. It is submitted that
       while enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre
       for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, the High Court
       has relied upon the builder’s sale deeds produced as Exhibits P43 & P44
 E     and has not considered the sale deeds produced by the State. It is
       submitted that the High Court has wrongly interpreted Section 25 of the
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’) and has not
       considered the sale deeds produced by the State.
             3.1 It is further submitted that even otherwise the High Court
 F     ought to have appreciated that the lands acquired were all agricultural
       lands and therefore while assessing the compensation, the High Court
       ought not to have relied upon and/or considered the builder’s sale deeds.
             3.2 It is further submitted that the High Court has not properly
       appreciated the fact that in the surrounding areas, the lands were already
 G     under acquisition commencing from the notification dated 13.08.2004. It
       is submitted that therefore the market price/value of the lands as on
       13.08.2004 ought to have been considered. It is submitted that even
       while remanding the matters to the High Court, this Court specifically
       observed that the value of the lands as on 13.08.2004 shall be the
       determinative factor. It is submitted that instead while assessing the
 H
    HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE                                1021
   DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. v. SATPAL [M. R. SHAH, J.]

compensation, the High Court has relied upon the sale deeds produced         A
as Exhibits P43 & P44 dated 15.4.2005.
        3.3 It is further submitted that even otherwise and assuming that
the High Court was right in relying upon the sale deeds produced as Ex.
P43 & P44, even in that case also and even as observed and held by the
High Court in giving a 50% cut, the High Court ought not to have enhanced    B
the amount of compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre. It is submitted
that if the main of two sale deeds (Ex. P43 & P44) is taken and thereafter
50% cut, as adopted by the High Court, is applied, in that case, the
compensation assessed would come to Rs. 24,43,693/- per acre. It is
submitted that therefore the High Court has committed a very serious
and grave error in determining and awarding compensation @ Rs.               C
29,54,000/- per acre for the lands acquired vide notification dated
30.06.2005.
        Arguments of the learned counsel for the land acquired vide
notification dated 05.03.2007
        3.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on      D
behalf of the HSIIDC that the High Court has materially erred in
enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre with
respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007.
        3.5 It is submitted that considering the time gap of approximately
one year and nine months and granting 8 to 12 percent cumulative increase    E
on the compensation awarded for the land acquired vide notification
dated 30.06.2005, the compensation awarded by the High Court @ Rs.
45,00,000/- per acre is too excessive and can be said to be on much
higher side.
        3.6 It is submitted that as such for the land acquired vide
                                                                             F
notification dated 13.08.2004 of the very villages Badh Malik and
Pritampura, the High Court earlier determined and awarded compensation
@ 21,00,000/- per acre and therefore considering the time gap of
approximately two and half years and granting 8 to 12 percent increase,
the amount awarded by the High Court at Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre is
unsustainable.                                                               G
        4. All these appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the original claimants/landowners.
        4.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original landowners
have vehemently submitted that in fact while determining the
compensation for the land acquired under both the notifications, the High    H
1022             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 3 S.C.R.


 A     Court has not considered the other sale deeds except Ex. P43 & P44. It
       is submitted that if other sale deeds would have been considered and the
       development in the surrounding areas would have been considered, the
       amount of compensation awarded by the High Court can be said to be
       on the lower side. It is submitted that as it is a case of compulsory
       acquisition, the landowners are entitled to the just compensation on the
 B
       basis of the fair market value. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this
       Court in the cases of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas
       Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another,
       reported in (2008) 14 SCC 745 (paras 13 & 14); Mehrawal Khewaji
       Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others v. State of Punjab and others,
 C     reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432 (para 17).
              4.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original landowners
       have relied upon the sale deeds produced as Ex. P4, P3, P6, P7 & P5 of
       village Badh Malik and Badh Khalsa in support of their submission that
       in October 2005 and in the year 2006, the market value of the land was
 D     much much higher.
             4.3 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present
       appeals.
              5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
       length.
 E            We have gone through the impugned common judgment and order
       passed by the High Court in detail and have also considered the reasoning
       given by the High Court by assessing and determining the compensation
       @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre for the land acquired vide notification dated
       30.06.2005 and at Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre for the land acquired vide
 F     notification dated 5.3.2007.
              5.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case
       the lands were acquired of villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi in
       District Sonipat, Haryana, which were all agricultural lands and acquired
       for the purpose of industrial sector 39, Sonipat. It is also required to be
       noted that as such the time gap between the two notifications dated
 G
       30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007 would be approximately one year nine months.
       However, it is required to be noted that the acquisition with respect to
       the land situated at villages Badh Malik and Pritampura came to be
       acquired initially vide notification dated 13.08.2004 and thereafter from
       time to time the notifications were issued and the lands came to be
 H     acquired for different public purposes.
    HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE                                1023
   DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. v. SATPAL [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       At this stage, it is required to be noted that even while remanding   A
the matter to the High Court, this Court vide judgment and order dated
6.9.2017 specifically observed that if the land value is to be fixed for
KMP project acquisition, the relevant factors which are to be noted are
mainly the value that was prevalent in the locality prior to 13.08.2004.
However, in the present case, the lands acquired are for the expansion
                                                                             B
of industrial sector 39, Sonipat and therefore the amount of compensation
assessed and determined for the land acquired vide notification dated
30.06.2005 acquired of very villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi
can be said to be the governing factor even while determining the
compensation for the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007 as
under both the notifications the lands acquired are for the same public      C
purpose, namely, development of industrial sector 39, Sonipat, Haryana.
       6. Now so far as the land acquired vide notification dated
30.06.2005 is concerned, the High Court has assessed and determined
compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre. While assessing and
determining the compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre for the land         D
acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, the High Court has considered
the sale deeds produced as Ex. P43 & P44. The High Court took into
consideration the following sale deeds which are tabulated as under:


                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G

       Thereafter, the High Court has observed that Ex. P43 & P44
would be safe sale exemplars to fall back upon and after applying the
cut off of 50%, the High Court has assessed the compensation @ Rs.
29,54,000/- per acre.
                                                                             H
1024             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 3 S.C.R.


 A            7. If we consider the main Ex. P43 & P44, which are the sale
       deeds dated 15.04.2005 and thereafter applying the cut off of 50%, the
       market value of the land would come to Rs. 24,43,693/- per acre. Instead,
       without any adequate reasons, the High Court has assessed and enhanced
       the amount of compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre. Therefore, the
       High Court has committed a very serious error in assessing and
 B
       determining the compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre for the land
       acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005. After making the round figure,
       the landowners/claimants shall be entitled to compensation @
       Rs.24,50,000/- per acre with respect to the land acquired vide notification
       dated 30.06.2005, with all other statutory benefits, which may be available
 C     under the provisions of the 1894 Act.
              8. Now so far as the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007
       is concerned, there shall be a corresponding increase looking to the time
       gap of approximately one year and nine months and giving 8 to 12 percent
       cumulative increase. However, the High Court has determined the
 D     compensation @ Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre on the basis of the sale deed
       (Ex. P4) by applying 10% cut. It is to be noted that so far as the first
       notification dated 30.06.2005 is concerned, the High Court has applied
       the cut of 50%. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that the sale deed
       produced as Ex. P4 is dated 2.11.2006 and the acquisition of the same
       villages commenced vide notification dated 30.06.2005 and therefore
 E     the sale deed after the first notification dated 30.06.2005 could not have
       been the basis for assessing/determining the compensation with respect
       to the subsequent acquisition. On the contrary, giving 8 to 12 percent
       cumulative increase on the amount of compensation awarded for the
       land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, would be a safe and
 F     guiding factor. If that be so, compensation with respect to the land acquired
       vide notification dated 5.3.2007, would come to Rs. 30,73,280/- per acre
       (Rs. 24,50,000/- + 12% increase = Rs.27,44,000/- + 12% increase =
       Rs.30,73,280/-).
             To the aforesaid extent, the impugned common judgment and order
 G     passed by the High Court is required to be modified and the present
       appeals are required to be partly allowed accordingly.
              9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
       present appeals succeed in part. The impugned common judgment and
       order passed by the High Court insofar as the land acquired vide
 H     notification dated 30.06.2005 is concerned, is modified and it is ordered
    HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE                                   1025
   DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. v. SATPAL [M. R. SHAH, J.]

that the landowners/claimants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.           A
24,50,000/- per acre (instead of Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre), with all other
statutory benefits which may be available under the provisions of the
1894 Act.
       9.1 Insofar as the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007
is concerned, the impugned common judgment and order is modified and            B
it is ordered that the landowners/claimants shall be entitled to
compensation @ Rs. 30,73,280/- per acre (instead of Rs. 45,00,000/-
per acre) with all other statutory benefits which may be available under
the provisions of the 1894 Act.
      10. The present appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.       C
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                  Appeals partly allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)
                                                                                D




                                                                                E




                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H