INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCHversusT.N. SANIKOP & ANR. ETC. ETC.

                       [2014] 12 S.C.R. 242


A         INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH
                                  v.
                 T.N. SANIKOP & ANR. ETC. ETC.
             (Civil Appeal Nos. 10172-10175 of 2014)
                       NOVEMBER 12, 2014
B
        [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
               ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

         Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 4, 23, 54 - Land
c· acquisition - Compensation enhancement - Acquisition of
   land measuring 40 guntas for establishment of Medical
   Research Centre by State Government - Award of
   compensation at the rate of Rs. 10501- per gunta by the Land
   acquisition Officer which was enhanced to Rs. 7,0001- by the
D Reference Court - Land owners seeking enhancement of the
   quantum of compensation payable - High Court enhanced
   the compensation payable to the land owners from Rs. 70001
   - per gunta to Rs. 99, 0001- per gunta being the fair market
   value of the acquired lands on the date of acquisition along
E with the other statutory benefits - Justification of - Held:
   Having regard to all the relevant factors, the fair market value -
   of the land reasonably worked out at Rs. 70,000/- per gunta
   in place of Rs. 99, 0001- per gunta which is just and reasonable
   - Thus, the award modified accordingly.
F       Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. Having regard to the total scenario
  emerging from the record of the case, such as the
  location of land, its potentiality, surroundings, the rate at
G which the developed small piece of land (4 guntas) in the
  adjoining area to the acquired lands was sold (Rs.
  6,60,0001-) few months prior to the date of acquisition, the
  condition of the acquired undeveloped lands, the
  expenditure required to develop the acquired land to start
H                              242
- INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. T.N.            243
                   SANIKOP
the construction for the project for which it was acquired,    A
percentage of deduction to be made, its proximity' to
various places in the town, the fair market value of the
respondents' land can reasonably be worked out at Rs.
70,000/- per gunta in place of Rs. 99,000/- per gunta which
was determined by the High Court. The High Court was           s
 not right in determining the fair market rate of acquired
 land at Rs. 99,000/- per gunta but instead it should have
determined at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per gunta. [Para 20]
 [256-B-D]

      1.2. The figure of Rs.70,000/- per gunta is arrived at   C
 after applying all relevant factors laid down on the date
 of acquisition. The rate determined is just, reasonable and
 represents fair market value of the land in question.
 Indeed in such cases, one can never come to any exact
 figure of price of lands because in the very nature of        D
 things. However, courts in such cases always exercise
 their discretion within the permissible parameters after
 appreciating the evidence on record and applying
 relevant legal principles. [Para 21] [256-E-G]
                                                               E
      1.3. All other findings of fact recorded by the High
 Court on the issues are upheld, which are based on
 proper appreciation of evidence calling no interference
 in the jurisdiction under Article 136. [Para 22] [257-B]

     Chandrashekar (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Land            F
 Acquisition Officer and Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 390: 2011 (15)
 SCR 414 - referred to.
                     Case Law Reference:
     2011 (15) SCR 414       Referred to          Para 12
                                                               G

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
 10172-10175 of 2014.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 23.03.2007 of th~ High    H
    244      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A   Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFAs No. 5723, 5722, 6332
    and 6868 of 2005.

                                WITH

    C.A. Nos. 10176-10179 of 2014.
B
        Raju Ramachandran, Deepak Yadav, Madhu Sikri, Anitha
    Shenoy, Neha Singh for the Appellant.

     Kiran Suri, S.J. Amith, Dr. Vipin Gupta, C.M. Angadi,
C Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

D        2. These appeals arise out of judgment dated 23.03.2007
    passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA
    Nos. 5723/2005, 5722/2005, 6332/2005 and 6868/2005 which
    arise out of award dated 31.03.2005 passed by the Ill Addi.
    Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Belgaum in L.A.C. Nos. 11/1999, 12/
    1999, 13/1999 and 14/1999.
E
       3. By the impugned judgment/decree, the Division Bench
  of the High Court partly allowed the first appeals filed by the
  respondents herein (land owners) and while modifying the
  award of the Addi. Civil Judge, Belgaum in respondents' favour
F enhanced the quantum of compensation payable to the
  respondents for their lands which were acquired by the State
  under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
  as "the Act"). Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by the
  High Court, the appellant (Central Government Organization) for
G whose benefit the lands in question are acquired has filed these
  appeals by way of special leave.

         4. The question that arises for consideration in these
    appeals is whether the High Court was justified in partly
    allowing the respondents' appeals by enhancing the rate/
H
 INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. T.N.                245
     SANIKOP [A8HAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
quantum of compensation payable to the respondents (land          A
owners) for their acquired lands under the Act?

    5. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in these
appeals, it is necessary to state the relevant facts infra.

     6. The respondents are the owners of the land bearing R.S. 8
Nos. 1323 CTS No. 5435-18, R.S. No. 1323-18-2 CTS No.
5435-18-2, R.S. No. 1323-81 CTS No. 5435-8 and R.S. No.
1323-18-3 CTS No. 5435-8-3 measuring total 40 guntas
situated near Nehru Medical College, 8elgaum. In exercise of
the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Act, the State C
Government issued a notification on 19.12.1994 and acquired
a large chunk of land measuring 40 guntas for establishment
of Indian Medical Research Centre. This acquisition of land was
for the benefit of Indian Council of Medical Research (in short
"the ICMR") - an Institute wholly owned and controlled by the D
Central Government, who were desirous of setting up one
Medical Center in 8elgaum town, for the benefit of public at
large. It was followed by the declaration published on
30.11.1995 under Section 6 of the Act. The respondents' lands
in question were acquired pursuant to the aforementioned ~ E
Notification under Section 4 of the Act. This led to initiation of
proceedings for determination of compensation payable to
each land owner including that of the respondents herein by the
Land Acquisition Officer (in short called "the LAO"). Notices
were accordingly issued to the respondents as per Section 9 F
of the Act calling upon them to participate in the land acquisition
proceedings to enable the LAO to determine the fair market
value of the land on the date of acquisition as provided under
Section 23 of the Act so that the compensation is paid to the
 land owners at such determined rate. The LAO held an enquiry G
and after affording an opportunity to the respondents passed
an award on 06.03.1998.

     7. The LAO fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs .1050/
- per gunta = Rs. 42,000/- per acre, payable to the respondents
for their lands in question as in his opinion, the respondents    H
    246       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2014) 12 S.C.R.


A were entitled to claim compensation for their lands at the rate
  of, Rs. 1050/- per gunta being the fair market value of the
  acquired lands in question.

         8. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the respondents
    sought reference to the Civil Court for re-determination of the
8
    compensation made by the LAO. The reference Court, on the
    basis of the evidence, partly answered the respondents'
    reference in their favour and by judgment dated 31.03.2005
    enhanced the rate of compensation from Rs.1050/- per gunta
    to Rs.7,000/- = Rs.2,80,000/- per acre. In other words, the
C reference Court held that the respondents were entitled to get
  . compensation for their lands at the rate of Rs.7000/- per gunta
    = Rs.2,80,000/- per acre being the fair market value of their
    lands from the date of the preliminary notification, i.e.,
    19.12.1994.
D
       9. Dissatisfied with the determination made by the
  reference Court, the respondents filed appeals under Section
  54 of the Act before the High Court challenging the legality and
  correctness of the award of the reference Court out of which
E these appeals arise.

       10. The Division Bench of the High Court by impugned
  judgment/decree partly allowed the respondents' appeals and
  enhanced the compensation from Rs.7000/- per gunta to
  Rs.99,000/- per gunta. The High Court held that fair market
F value/rate of the acquired lands on the date of acquisition was
  Rs.99,000/- per gunta and hence, the respondents were entitled
  to get the compensation at the rate of Rs.99,00Q/, per gunta
  along with the other statutory benefits payable under the Act. It
  is against this judgment/decree, the ICMR, for wh'Ose benefit
G the lands are acquired, has filed these appeals by way of
  special leave before this Court.

          11. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

          12. Shri Raju Ramchandran, learned Senior counsel,
H
                         '
  INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. T.N.                  247
      SANIKOP [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
 placing reliance on the principles laid down in the decision of      A
 this Court in Chandrashekar (Dead) by L.Rs. and Others
 v. Land Acquisition Officer and Another, (2012) 1 SCC 390,
 contended that the High Court erred in enhancing the rate of
  land from Rs.7000/- per gunta to Rs.99,000/- per gunta.
  According to him, there was neither any evidence nor any basis      B
  for enhancing the rate from Rs.7000/- per gunta to Rs.99,000/
  - per gunta. Learned senior counsel urged that when admittedly
  the acquired land was a large area of undeveloped land, which
  needed a lot of expenditure for its development requiring
  deductions between the range of 40 % to 75 %, the High Court        c
  should not have relied upon the solitary sale deed (Ex-P-10)
, because admittedly Ex-P-1 O pertained to sale of very small
   piece of developed land, i.e., 4 guntas which in no case could
   be compared with the real market value of the acquired lands
   in question. In other words, the submission was that the lands
                                                                      0
   in question being large and undeveloped could not have been
   placed at par with the land (4 guntas) sold by Ex-P-10 for
   Rs.6,60,000/- as the latter was small in size and developed
   one. Learned senior counsel further urged that it is not
   appropriate to compare such lands for determining their rates      E
   as has been held by this Court in the case relied upon by him.
   Learned senior counsel further contended that there being no
   other evidence except Ex-P-10 to decide the comparative sales
   effected in· the adjacent area of the acquired lands, the entire
   basis of the High Court while determining the rate by giving
   phenomenal rise does not appear to be legally justified and        F
   hence, respondents' appeals should have been dismissed by
   the High Court by upholding the award of the reference court
   or in any event, the rate could have been enhanced by giving
   reasonable rise after keeping in view the law laid down.
                                                                      G
      13. Mrs. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel for the
 respondents supported the impugned judgment and contended
 on the basis of cross objections filed in these appeals that the
 respondents are entitled for more compensation than what has
 been awarded by the High Court. According to her, the High           H
                                           .
    248      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A Court should have awarded more compensation to the
  respondents because the market value of the lands on the date
  of acquisition was more than what is determined by the High
  Court and this, according to the respondents, can be proved
  on the basis of the evidence on record.
B
       14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
  on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the
  submissions urged by the learned senior counsel for the
  appellant and hence we are inclined to allow these appeals in
  part and accordingly modify the impugned award to the extent
C indicated below by reducing the rate of acquired lands and in
  consequence, the compensation determined by the High Court.

       15. Law on the question as to how the Court is required
  to determine the fair market value of the acquired land is fairly
D well settled and remains no more res integra by several
  decisions of this Court.

       16. It is apposite to take note of some decisions
  summarized in the case of Chandrashekar (supra) which are
E as follows:

          "In Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement
          Trust, (1982) 1 SCC 419, this Court opined, that where
          a large area of undeveloped land is acquired,
          provision has to be made for providing minimum
F         amenities of town life. Accordingly it was held, that
          a deduction of 20% of the total acquired land should
          be made for land over which infrastructure has to be
          raised (space for roads, etc.). Apart from the
          aforesaid, it was also held, that the cost of raising
G         infrastructure itself (like roads, electricity, water,
          underground drainage, etc.) needs also to be taken
          into consideration. To cover the cost component, for
          raising infrastructure, the Court held, that the
          deduction to be applied would range between 20%
H
INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. T.N.               249
     SANIKOP [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
  to 33%. Commutatively viewed, it was held, that                A
  deductions would range between 40% and 53% .
  ..... In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Land Acquisition
  Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751 while referring to the factors
  which ought to be taken into consideration while               8·
  determining the market value of the acquired land, it
  was observed that a smaller plot was within the
  reach of many, whereas for a larger block of land
  there were implicit disadvantages. As a matter of
  illustration it was mentioned that a large block of land       C
  would first have to be developed by preparing its
  layout plan. Thereafter, it would require carving out
  roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller
  plots, waiting for purchasers (during which the
  invested money would remain blocked). Likewise, it
  was pointed out, that there would be other known               D
  hazards of an entrepreneur. Based on the aforesaid
  likely disadvantages it was held, that these factors
  could be discounted by making deductions by way
  of allowance at an appropriate rate, ranging from
  20% to 50%. These deductions, according to the                 E
  Court, would account for land required to be set apart
  for developmental activities. It was also sought to be
  clarified that the applied deduction would depend on,
  whether the acquired land was rural or urban,
  whether building activity was picking up or was                F
  stagnant, whether the waiting period during which
  the capital would remain locked would be short or
  long; and other like entrepreneurial hazards .

   .. . .. ..In Kasturi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354,   G
   this Court opined, that in respect of agricultural land
   or undeveloped land which has potential value for
   housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd
   amotJnt of compensation should be deducted.,
    250       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A         depending upon the location, extent of expenditure
          involved for development, the area required for roads
          and other civic amenities, etc. It was also opined, that
          appropriate deductions could be made for making
          plots for residential and commercial purposes. It was
B         sought to be explained, that the acquired land may
          be plain or uneven, the soil of the acquired land may
          be soft or hard, the acquired land may have a hillock
          or may be low-lying or may have deep ditches.
          Accordingly, it was pointed out, that expenses
c         involved for development would vary keeping in
          mind the facts and circumstances of each case. In
          Kasturi case it was held, that normal deductions on
          account of development would be 1/3rd of the
          amount of compensation. It was however clarified
          that in some cases the deduction could be more than
D
          1/3rd and in other cases even less than 1/3rd .

          ...... In Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 679,
          it was held that to determine the market value of a
          large tract of undeveloped agricultural land (with
E         potential for development), with reference to sale
          price of small developed plot(s), deductions varying
          between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed
          plot(s) could be made .

F         ...... In A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy,
          (2010) 12 sec 707, having examined the existing
          case law on the point it was concluded, that
          deductions on account of development could vary
          between 20% to 75%. In the peculiar facts of the case
          a deduction of 1/3rd towards development charges
G
          was made from the awarded amount to determine the
          compensation payable .

          ..... In Land Acquisition Officer v. M.K. Rafiq Saheb,
          (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 950, this Court after having
H
. INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. T.N.             251
       SANIKOP [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
    concluded, that the land which was the subject-             A
    matter of acquisition was not agricultural land for all
    practical purposes and no agricultural activities
    could be carried out on it, concluded that in order to
    determine fair compensation, based on a sale
    transaction of a small piece of developed land              B
    (though the acquired land was a large chunk), the
    deduction made by the High Court at 50%, ought to
    be increased to 60%."

After taking note of the aforesaid cases and placing reliance   C
upon the principles laid down therein, this Court in
Chandrashekar and Others (supra) observed as under:

    "It is essential to earmark appropriate deductions out
    of the market value of an exemplar land, for each of
    the two components referred to above. This would D
    be the first step towards balancing the differential
    factors. This would pave the way for determining the ·
    market value of the undeveloped acquired land on
    the basis of market value of the developed exemplar
    land.                                                  E
    As far back as in 1982, this Court in Brig. Sahib Singh
    Kalha case held, that the permissible deduction
    could be up to 53%. This deduction was divided by
    the Court into two components. For the "first
                                                                F
    component" referred to in the foregoing paragraph,
    it was held that a deduction of 20% should be made.
    For the "second component", it was held that the
    deduction could range between 20% to 33%. It is
    therefore apparent that a deduction of up to 53% was
    the norm laid down by the Court as far back as in           G
    1982. The aforesaid norm remained unchanged for
    a long duration of time, even though, keeping in mind
    the peculiar facts and circumstances emerging from
    case to case, different deductions were applied by
                                                                H
    252      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2014) 12 S.C.R. ·


A         this Court to balance the differential factors between
          the exemplar land and the acquired land. Recently
          however, this Court has approved a higher
          component of deduction.

          In 2009 in Lal Chand case and in 2010 in A.P.
B
          Housing Board case it has been held that while
          applying the sale consideration of a small piece of
          developed land, to determine the market value of a
          large tract of undeveloped acquired land, deductions
          between 20% to 75% could be made. But in 2009 in
c         Subh Ram case, this Court restricted deductions on
          account of the "first component" of development, as
          also, on account of the "second component" of
          development to 33?% each. The aforesaid
          deductions would roughly amount to 67% of the
D         component of the sale consideration of the exemplar
          sale transaction(s)."

       17. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, we have
  perused the evidence. It is not in dispute that total acquired
E land is around 40 guntas. It is also not in dispute that the
  respondents (land owners) filed only one sale deed (Ex-P-10)
  in support of their case to prove the market rate of lands in
  question for claiming more compensation. It is also not in
  dispute that evidence other than Ex-P-1 O is of no relevance. It
F was also not relied upon by the reference Court or/and the High
  Court while determining the fair market value of the acquired
  lands.

        18. We have seen the evidence and are of the view that
  Ex-P-10 alone can be looked into to some extent. Though, it
G pertains to 4 guntas and sold for Rs.6,60,000/- on 23.03.1994,
  it is situated near the acquired land.

         19. The finding of the High Court on the issue in question
    is contained in Paras 8 to 11. It is reproduced infra in verbatim:
H
INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. T.N.           253
     SANIKOP [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
   "8. We are now left with the question of determining     A
 · the market value of the lands in question. The sale-
   deed at Exhibit-P10 is dated 23rd July, 1994. It shows
   that the total sale consideration of Rs. 6,60,000/-
   (Rupees six lakhs sixty thousand only) is paid for an
   extent measuring four guntas. That it is a genuine       B
   sale transaction; that the property covered under
   Exhibit-P1C and the lands in question fall within the
   limits of Belgaum Urban Agglomeration are not in
   dispute at all. Further the purchaser of the property
   at Exhibit-P10 is also examined as PW2. He has           c
   deposed that the area in question is the commercial
   area and that the plots therein are not readily
   available on sale. His further evidence is that the
   value of the acquired lands is higher than that of the
   properties situated on the Club road.                    D
  9. PW I (Appellant No. 1) has given the evidence that
  in the vicinity of the acquired lands, a KPTCL office,
  Dental College, Polytechnic School, High Schools
  and Colleges are situated. He erected a building and
  started his business venture of vehicle showroom          E
  and an auto garage. It is his further evidence that the
  water supply and electrical connection were given to
  the building erected on the land of PW.1. Plantand
  machinery was installed in the building. On account
  of the compulsory acquisition of the land, the            F
  appellant had to close down his business and pay a
  compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) to
  his workmen. Totally he claims to have incurred loss
  of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of dislocation of his
  business activities.                                      G

  10. In our considered view, the sale-deed Exhibit-P10
  forms the reliable basis for the determination of the
  market value of the lands in question. However, the
  price of Rs. 1,65,000/- given for one gunta of land
                                                            H
    254       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 12 S.C.R.


A         cannot be straight away made applicable for the
          acquired lands. Because, as revealed by the
          respondent- Land Acquisition Of?cer's award at
          Exhibit-01, the lands in question were agricultural
          lands as on the date of the issue of the preliminary
B         noti?cation. They were not converted into non-
          agricultural lands. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme
          Court in a catena of cases, there is difference
          between a developed area and an area having
          potential value which is yet to be developed. That the
c         lands if adjacent to developed area will not ipso facto
          make every land situated in the area also developed
          so as to be valued as a building site or plot. The
          acquired land is just abutting National Highway-4. In
          the vicinity of the acquired lands a number of
          commercial establishments, Government offices and
D
          educational institutions were already in ex.istence
          at the time of the issuance of the Preliminary
          Notification in 1994. Under these circumstances, we
          have no doubt that the lands in question had
          acquired high potential value; but that by itself does
E         not enable the lands in question to be treated as
          developed lands. Lot of development activities are to
          be undertaken like laying of roads and creating
          facilities and amenities, viz. electricity and water
          supply, culverts, sewerage, parks, etc. We also give
F         our anxious consideration to the submissions made
          on behalf of the Government that there was not even
          the preliminary earthwork and that the lands continue
          to retain their agrarian character for all practical
          purpose. Thus the appellants are required to incur
G         enormous       amount      of    expenditure      tow-
          ards conversion earthwork, formation of layout, etc.

          11. Now, we have to provide for deduction of certain
          percentage towards the cost of development, taking
H
     INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. T.N.         255
         SANlkOP [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.)
       the value of the developed plot at Rs. 1,65,000/- per A
       gunta. There has been a serious contest at the 'bar
       regarding the percentage of deduction towards the
       cost of development of land; it can vary from 20% to
       53%. The facts of the instant case are entirely
       different from the facts of the case of SMT. BASAWA B
       (supra). None can have any dispute over the well
       considered position laid down by the Hon'ble
       Supreme Court that the time-long for real
       developmental and the waiting period for
       development are also relevant considerations for c
       determination of just and adequate compensation. In
       the instant case, one of the acquired lands was
       already being used for non-agricultural, i.e.
       commercial purpose. Therefore we are afraid the
       said reported decision does not come to the rescue
                                                               0
       of the Government in any way. There is no hard and
        rigid formula of yardstick for providing the
        percentage towards the cost of development. It
       depends on the facts of each case. In our considered
       view, as the acquired lands have attained high
        potentiality value and they were acquired for the E
        purpose of setting up a Medical Research Centre, not
        too many internal roads are required to be formed;
        hence there is also the likelyhood of utilising more
       space. We therefore feel it safe, reasonable and just
        t-0 hold that 40% of Rs.1,65,000/- per gunta has to be F
       earmarked for developmental activities. 40% of Rs.
        1,65,000/- comes to Rs. 99,000/- (Rupees ninety nine
-I      thousand only). We therefore enhance the market
-I
        value of the lands in question from Rs. 7,000/- per
       gunta to Rs. 99,000/- per gunta. Needless to observe G
       that the appellants are entitled to proportionate
        increase in the solatium and additional market value
       besides the interest thereon."

                                                              H
    256      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 12 S.C.R.


A       20. We have given our anxious consideration to the whole
  issue keeping in view the peculiar facts, evidence adduced and
  the law quoted above. In our considered view, having regard
  to the total scenario emerging from the record of the case, such
  as the location of land, its potentiality, surroundings, the rate at
B which the developed small piece of land (4 guntas) ih the
  adjoining area to the acquired lands was sold few months prior
  to the date of acquisition (Ex-P-10), the condition of the
  acquired undeveloped lands, the expenditure required to
  develop the acquired land to start the construction for the project
c for which it was acquired, percentage of deduction to be made,
  its proximity to various places in the town, the fair market value
  of the respondents' land can reasonably be worked out at Rs.
  70,0001- per gunta in place of Rs. 99,000/- per gunta which was
  determined by the High Court. In other words, in our considered
  opinion, the High Court was not right in determining the fair
0
  market rate of acquired land at Rs. 99,000/- per gunta but
  instead it should have determined at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- ·
  per gunta.

       21. We have arrived at the figure of Rs.70,000/- per gunta
E after applying all relevant factors laid down by this case, which
  we have mentioned above. In our view, the rate determined by
  this Court is just, reasonable and represents fair market value
  of the land in question on the date of acquisition. Indeed in such
  cases, one can never come to any exact figure of price of lands
F because in the very nature of things, the prices are bound to
  vary from land to land and further depending upon the individual
  buyer-to-buyer, seller-to-seller, reasons behind the sale and
  purchase etc. etc. However,. Courts in such cases always
  exercise their discretion within the permissible parameters after
G appreciating the evidence on record and applying relevant legal
  principles. We have kept these factors in mind.

         22. We have also taken note of other arguments of learned
    senior counsel for the parties on various issues relating to grant
    of compensation. However, we do not think that in the light of
H
 INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. T.N. 257
     SANIKOP [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
our findings determining the rate at Rs. 70,000/- per gunta, any      A
more discussion .or/and separate finding is necessary. Even
otherwise, we do not find any merit in any of the submissions
urged by the learned counsel in support of their stand and
hence, we concur with all other findings of fact recorded by the
Hig·h Court on the issues, which, in our view, are based on           B
proper appreciation of evidence calling no interference in our
jurisdiction under Article 136.

     23. In the light of foregoing discussion, once we reduce
the rate of compensation determined by the High Court partly
in appellant's favour then in such circumstances, the question        C
of considering grant of further enhancement in compensation
to the respondents does not arise. It is for this reason, the cross
objections filed by the respondents become insignificant and
deserve to be dismissed as having rendered infructuous. It is
accordingly dismissed.                                                D

     24. We, therefore, decline to examine the legal issue
raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant by way
of his preliminary objection that cross objections filed by the
respondents under Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of Civil                   E
Procedure Code are not maintainable and leave this legal
question open for its decision in any other appropriate case
provided it is not yet decided by this Court.

     25. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals filed by
                                                                      F
the ICMR succeed and are accortjingly allowed in part. The
impugned judgment and decree is modified to the extent
indicated above.

     26. The concerned LAO is directed to calculate the
compensation payable to the respondents (land owners) for             G
their lands at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per gunta and accordingly
calculate all statutory compensation such as solatium, interest
etc. payable under the Act to every land owner whose land is
acquired by the State under the Act
                                                                      H
                                                                              :
    258          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 12 S.C.R.
                                                                 ..   ~   .



A        27. Let this calculation be made, as directed above, by the
    concerned LAO and the amount so calculated be paid to the
    respondents (land owners) after making proper verification
    within three (3) months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
    No costs.                           ·
B
    Nidhi Jain                                   Appeals partly allowed.