MOHAMMAD YUSUF AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

                        [2018] 3 S.C.R. 1075                             1075


        MOHAMMAD YUSUF AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.                              A
                                  v.
              STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 3807-3825 of 2018)
                          APRIL 16, 2018                                 B
       [R. K. AGRAWAL AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4, 9, 18 and 23 – Land in
Firozpur village acquired by respondent-State for construction of
Mini Secretariat – Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) assessed the
                                                                         C
market value of the acquired land as Rs. 16 lakhs per acre along
with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount to the landholders
– Land Acquisition Collector-cum-SDO(C) on reference enhanced
the compensation to Rs. 72,00,000/- per acre and applied the
development cut at the rate of 55% and a further cut of 5% on
account of waiting period, totaling to 60% and determined                D
compensation at Rs. 28,80,000/- per acre along with the statutory
benefits – Cross appeals filed before High Court by landholders as
also the State – High Court partly allowed the appeals of the
landholders by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 64,80,000/- per
acre, however, reduced the cut on development charges to 10% –
                                                                         E
Cross appeals filed by State were dismissed – Held: In the present
case, after having regard to the circumstances of the case and perusal
of the sale deeds of adjourning area, the compensation granted at
the rate of Rs.72 lacs per acre is as per the law and no injustice
had occurred to the appellants-landholders – Further, a cut at the
rate of 10% is very reasonable towards development of acquired           F
land as some further development would obviously be required to
make it fit for the purpose for which it was acquired – Impugned
decision of the High Court not interfered with – Constitution of
India – Art.300A.
     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Meaning of –            G
Discussed.
      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.23A – Compensation under –
Basis for calculation of – Discussed.

                                                                         H
                                1075
1076            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A           Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Deduction on account of
       development charges – Factors to be considered for – Discussed.
             Dismissing the appeals, the Court
              HELD: 1.1 The intention behind the enactment of the Land
       Acquisition Act, 1894 was to acquire land for welfare purposes
 B     and to compensate the owners adequately. It is well known fact
       that the Right to Property is a Constitutional Right (earlier it was
       a Fundamental Right until 1978) as provided under Article 300A
       of the Constitution of India. The term “compensation” was
       interpreted by Supreme Court in a number of cases that it is to
 C     be “a just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of.”
       Hence, the acquisition must pass the test of compensation being
       reasonable, just and fair. In a catena of cases, Supreme Court has
       held that compensation should be adequate and there must be
       no injustice with the land owners since they stand deprived from
       their very vital right i.e. Right to Property. At the same time, it is
 D     also to be kept in mind that no hypothetical view shall be taken
       as it may be harmful to the public exchequer in case of acquisition
       for public purposes. Hence, courts must maintain balance between
       both the parties.[Paras 10, 11][1081-C-D, E-F]
             1.2 On a plain reading of Section 23 of the LA Act, it is
 E     evident that the compensation has to be calculated according to
       the value of the land to the owner and the question to be
       considered is whether the person from whom the land was taken
       was to lose by having it taken from him. The probable use to
       which the land might be put was necessarily an element to be
 F     taken into consideration for calculating the compensation of
       acquired land. The land owners get compensation on the basis of
       the value of the land, in its actual condition at the time of the
       publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. [Para
       13][1082-H; 1083-A-B]

 G           1.3 It is a well established rule that in the cases of
       calculation of compensation, there cannot be a straight jacket
       formula, hence, each case has to be dealt in the light of
       circumstances of each case. Common sense is the best and most
       reliable guide. It is a well settled law that when there are several
       exemplars with reference to similar land, usually the highest of
 H
         MOHAMMAD YUSUF v. STATE OF HARYANA                              1077


the exemplars which is a bonafide transaction, will be considered.       A
[Paras 14, 15][1083-D-E]
       1.4 The appellants produced various sale deeds. The vital
sale deed dated 05.10.2005, wherein land admeasuring 1 kanal 6
Marlas, situated in village Ferozpur Namak, Tehsil Nuh, was sold
for a sale consideration of Rs. 11,70,000/- in the same village. If      B
the value of per acre in terms of the above sale deed is calculated
then it stands at Rs 72 Lakhs per acre. The date of this sale deed
is 05.10.2005 which is proximate to the date of Notification i.e.,
18.10.2005 under Section 4 of the LA Act. In the present case,
after having regard to the circumstances of the case and perusal
of the sale deeds of adjourning area, the compensation granted           C
at the rate of Rs. 72 lacs per acre is as per the law and no injustice
has occurred to the appellants herein. [Para 16][1084-D-F]
       1.5 It is a matter of record that the Reference Court
determined 60% (55% as development charges and 5% for
waiting period) in totality towards development charges which            D
later on in appeal reduced by the High Court to 10%. Deductions
may be made for a variety of reasons, which may differ in different
cases. However, in the backdrop of judicial precedents on this
issue, it is well settled position that all deductions should not
cumulatively be exceeded the upper benchmark of 75% and at               E
the same time, it should be kept in mind that no hypothetical
view shall be taken in order to calculate the percentage of the
development charges. The appellants contended that the acquired
land has all basic facilities such as water, electricity, sewer,
telephone etc which respondent-State has not disputed. These
are, however, not enough to meet the purpose of acquisition. To          F
make such land suitable for the acquisition purpose i.e. for the
construction of Mini Secretariat at Nuh, some further
development is sine qua non. For calculating the percentage of
development charges, various factors need to be taken into
consideration such as location of land, facilities available in nearby   G
area, size of the land, purpose of acquisition etc. The present
acquired land of Firozpur Namak village which is located at some
distance from the Nuh Town needs to be developed in proper
manner like construction of better and wide roads etc., to make
it suitable for the acquisition purposes. The fact that facilities
                                                                         H
1078            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A     already available such as sewer, electricity etc., seems to be taken
       into consideration properly while reducing the development
       charges by the High Court from 60% to 10%. In the case at
       hand, in view of the facts and circumstance noticed hereinabove,
       a cut at the rate of 10% is very reasonable towards development
       of acquired land as some further development would obviously
 B
       be required to make it fit for the purpose for which it was acquired.
       [Paras 17, 18 and 19][1084-H; 1085-A-F]
             Major General Kapil Mehra and Ors. v. Union of India
             & Anr. (2015) 2 SCC 26 – referred to.
 C                             Case Law Reference
             (2015) 2 SCC 26           referred to             Para 11
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3807-
       3825 of 2018.

 D           From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2016 in Regular First
       Appeal Nos. 6617, 6611, 6612, 6613, 6614, 6615, 6616, 7141, 7142 of
       2012, R.F.A. Nos. 476, 2155, 5590 of 2013, X (Cross) Objection No. 50-
       CI/2013 in R.F.A. No. 3460, X (Cross) Objection No. 51-CI/2013 in
       R.F.A. No. 3458, X (Cross) Objection No. 52-CI/2013 in R.F.A. No.3453,
       X (Cross) Objection No. 53-CI/2013 in R.F.A. No.3456, X (Cross)
 E     Objection No. 58-CI/2013 in R.F.A. No.3455, X (Cross) Objection No.
       59-CI/2013 in R.F.A. No.3461 and Order dated 27.07.2016 in R. F. A.
       No. 7143 of 2012 (O&M) of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
       Chandigarh.
                                       WITH
 F
             C. A. Nos. 3826 and 3827-3859 of 2018.
              Abhimash Jain, AAG, R. S. Suri, P. S. Patwalia, Sr. Advs., Ms.
       Nabila Hasan, Mukul Kaushik, Ms. Pallavi Tayal Chadha, Avinash Kumar,
       Pawan Sharma, Balraj Dewan, Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Harshika, Advs.
       for the appearing parties.
 G
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             R. K.AGRAWAL, J. 1. Leave granted.
           2. The above appeals have been filed against the impugned
       common judgment and order dated 03.06.2016 passed by learned single
 H
         MOHAMMAD YUSUF v. STATE OF HARYANA                                 1079
                [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A.       A
No. 6617 of 2012 (O&M) and other connected matters whereby the
High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants herein while
dismissing the cross appeals of the respondent-State.
      3. Brief Facts:-
                                                                            B
       (a) The Government of Haryana, Revenue Department, vide
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’) dated 18.10.2005 has notified
the land of Village Ferozpur Namak, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat for the
construction of Mini Secretariat at District Mewat, admeasuring 372
karnals 2 marlas (i.e. 46 acres 4 karnals and 2 marlas). Consequently,      C
the Government of Haryana, vide Notification dated 25.05.2006, issued
declaration that the land is required for a public purpose.
      (b) Notice under Section 9 of the LA Act was issued to all the
landholders and interested persons. The Land Acquisition Collector
(LAC), Nuh, Mewat, vide Award No. 1 dated 05.11.2007 assessed the           D
market value of the acquired land at the uniform rate of Rs 16 lakhs per
acre along with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount to the
landholders.
       (c) Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed a Reference under
Section 18 of the LA Act which was registered as LA Case No. 394/           E
01.12.10/19.09.11 before the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-SDO(C)
Nuh, Mewat. On 28.08.2012, the Reference Court, enhanced the
compensation to Rs. 72,00,000 lakhs per acre and applied the development
cut at the rate of 55% and a further cut of 5% on account of waiting
period, totaling to 60%. Thus, the compensation was determined at Rs.
                                                                            F
28,80,000/- per acre along with the statutory benefits.
       (d) Being not satisfied, the appellants herein preferred a Regular
First Appeal (RFA) being No. 6617 of 2012 alongwith other set of appeals
before the High Court. Respondent-State also filed cross appeals before
the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide common
                                                                            G
judgment and order dated 03.06.2016, partly allowed the appeals of the
landholders by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 64,80,000 per acre
along with other benefits while dismissing the cross appeals filed by the
respondent-State.

                                                                            H
1080             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A            (e) The landholders, being aggrieved by the judgment and order
       dated 03.06.2016, has preferred these appeals by way of special leave
       before this Court.
              4. Heard Mr. R.S. Suri, learned senior counsel for the appellants
       and Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the respondent-State
 B     and perused the records.
              Point(s) for consideration:-
              5. The short point of consideration arises before this Court is as to
       whether in the light of present facts and circumstances of the case, any
       interference is sought for by this Court?
 C            Rival contentions:-
              6. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued
       that the High court failed to consider that the land acquired had great
       future potential for being developed as residential as well as commercial
       area, hence, the compensation ought to have been awarded accordingly.
       Learned senior counsel further contended that the assessment of the
 D
       compensation has not been done considering the following factors like
       potential value, location of land, future prospects, the development of
       land in question and the likely injury to be sustained by the appellants
       herein for loss of their future earnings etc. It was also contended that
       the High Court has not considered the facts that the acquired land has
 E     immense potential which is situated at a distance of half kilometers from
       the Nuh City, and also situated within 30 kms from the cyber city and
       could be directly approachable from Indira Gandhi International Airport,
       New Delhi.
              7. Further, the Reference Court allowed a cut of 55% on account
 F     of development for raising infrastructural activities and other amenities
       and a cut of 5% on account of waiting period which was reduced by the
       High Court to 10% which is also not in accordance with law vis-à-vis
       the fact that the acquired land has all the infrastructural facilities on the
       date of Notification.
              8. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent-State
 G
       submitted that the High Court has rightly determined the compensation
       while condoning the potentiality of the area and also after having regard
       to the sale deeds of adjoining areas and a cut of 10% on the assessed
       value of the acquired land has been applied in accordance with law vis-
       à-vis the fact that the acquired land has all the infrastructural facilities
 H     on the date of Notification.
          MOHAMMAD YUSUF v. STATE OF HARYANA                                     1081
                 [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

       9. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the compensation         A
awarded is adequate in terms of principles incorporated under Section
23 of the LA Act as also interpreted by this Court in a catena of cases.
Learned senior counsel finally contended that the amount of
compensation has been awarded considering the factors like potential
value location of land, future prospects, the development of land in
                                                                                 B
question and the likely injury to be sustained by the appellants, if any, and
no interference is sought for by this Court in the matter.
       Discussion:-
        10. The intention behind the enactment of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 was to acquire land for welfare purposes and to compensate             C
the owners adequately. It is well known fact that the Right to Property is
a Constitutional Right (earlier it was a Fundamental Right until 1978) as
provided under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. The term
“compensation” was interpreted by this Court in a number of cases that
it is to be “a just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of.”
Hence, the acquisition must pass the test of compensation being                  D
reasonable, just and fair. The term justice as enshrined in the preamble
includes justice in economic terms and the term economic justice in itself
mandatorily requires compensation to be adequate.
       11. In a catena of cases, this Court has held that compensation
should be adequate and there must be no injustice with the land owners           E
since they stand deprived from their very vital right i.e., Right to Property.
At the same time, it is also to be kept in mind that no hypothetical view
shall be taken as it may be harmful to the public exchequer in case of
acquisition for public purposes. Hence, courts must maintain balance
between both the parties. In the cases of land acquisitions, generally           F
courts confronted with the short but important question that what ought
to be the ideal market value for the acquired land. This Court, in Major
General Kapil Mehra and Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (2015) 2
SCC 262 while dealing with the matter held as under:-
        “10. Market Value: First question that emerges is what would be          G
the reasonable market value which the acquired lands are capable of
fetching. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land
Acquisition Officer is required to keep in mind the following factors:- (i)
existing geographical situation of the land; (ii) existing use of the land;
(iii) already available advantages, like proximity to National or State
                                                                                 H
1082             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A     Highway or road and/or developed area and (iv) market value of other
       land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to
       the acquired land.”
             12. For the purpose of deciding compensation of land in case of
       acquisition, Section 23 of the LA Act is the fundamental section which
 B     says that some vital factors to be considered while determining
       compensation. At this juncture, it is pertinent to re-produce the said section
       herein below:
              23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.-
              (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for
 C            land acquired under this Act, this court shall take into consideration-
              First, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of
              the notification under section 4,sub-section(1);
              Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason
              of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the
 D            land at the time of the Collector’s taking possession thereof;
              Thirdly, the damage ( if any) sustained by the person interested,
              at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by
              reason of severing such land from his other land;
              Fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested,
 E
              at the time of Collector’s taking possession of the land ,by reason
              of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable
              or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
              Fifthly , if , in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the
              Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his
 F
              residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any)
              incidental to such change; and
              Sixthly, the damage (if any) Bonafide resulting from diminution of
              the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the
              declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector’s taking
 G            possession of the land.
              13. On a plain reading of Section 23 of the LA Act, it is evident
       that the compensation has to be calculated according to the value of the
       land to the owner and the question to be considered is whether the person
       from whom the land was taken was to lose by having it taken from him.
 H
         MOHAMMAD YUSUF v. STATE OF HARYANA                                    1083
                [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

The probable use to which the land might be put was necessarily an             A
element to be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation
of acquired land. The land owners get compensation on the basis of the
value of the land, in its actual condition at the time of the publication of
the Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act.
       14. In the instant case, the appellants contented and invited our       B
attention to the fact that the valuation of the acquired land should be
assessed on urban land criteria since land had all basic amenities like
water, sewer, electricity and telephone lines were already present on the
date of Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. However for being
an urban area, there must be some other facilities like commercial
activities, population growth, education activities, paying capacity of        C
people, healthy public transport, infrastructure etc. It is also a well
established rule that in the cases of calculation of compensation, there
cannot be a straight jacket formula, hence, each case has to be dealt in
the light of circumstances of each case. Common sense is the best and
most reliable guide.                                                           D
       15. It is a well settled law that when there are several exemplars
with reference to similar land, usually the highest of the exemplars which
is a bonafide transaction, will be considered. In the present case, the
Reference Court, in Para 20 held as under:-
      “…..Here in this case, applying the said authority to the facts and      E
      circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that
      exemplar sale deed Exhibit P1 hold the fields in preference to the
      other sale deeds. Reason for exclusion of sale deeds Exhibit P2
      to P3 is that sale deed Exhibit P1 is of the highest land 1 kanal 6
      marlas and is of the highest amount, which is very close to the          F
      date of notification because vide sale deed Exhibit P1 dated
      5.10.2005, land measuring 1 kanal 6 Marlas, whose nature was
      “Narmot”, situated in village Ferozpur Namak, Tehsil Nuh, was
      sold for a sale consideration of Rs. 11,70,000/- by one Mahmood
      son of Inshe Khan in favour of Smt. Hanisha Khatoon wife of
      Mohammad Iqbal of the same village. The value per acre of the            G
      land, as per the said sale deed is calculated as Rs. 72,00,000/- per
      acre. The said sale deed was executed on 5.10.2005 whereas
      notification under Section 4 of the Act for the acquired land was
      published on 18.10.2005 and thus, this sale deed Exhibit P1 is
      proximate to the point of time from the date of issuance of              H
1084            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A           notification under Section 4 of the Act. No iota of evidence could
             be led by the respondents to rebut the veracity of this sale deed.
             There is nothing on record to show that the sale deed is not Bonafide
             and a genuine transaction. In fact despite availing number of
             opportunities, the respondents failed to lead any evidence to rebut
             the evidence led by the petitioners.”
 B
              16. On a perusal of the Map of the concerned area which is
       produced on record by the appellants, we find that the acquired land in
       the present case falls within the control area of Nuh and newly constructed
       Nalhar Medical College is at a distance of 3-4 kms from the acquired
       land. We also find that the said acquired land is situated on Palwal Road
 C     from one side and on Delhi Road on the other. However, it is a matter of
       record that such acquired land is far away from D.C. office and other
       offices. Also, Bus Stand as well as Nuh Town is situated far away from
       the acquired land. Hence, acquired land of Firozpur village in such terms
       cannot be said to be situated very near to the urban area of Nuh Town.
 D     The appellants produced various sale deeds for the perusal of this Court.
       The vital sale deed dated 05.10.2005, wherein land admeasuring 1 kanal
       6 Marlas, situated in village Ferozpur Namak, Tehsil Nuh, was sold for a
       sale consideration of Rs. 11,70,000/- by one Mahmood s/o Inshe Khan
       in favour of Smt. Hanisha Khatoon w/o Mohammad Iqbal of the same
       village. If we calculate the value of per acre in terms of the above sale
 E     deed then it stands at Rs 72 Lakhs per acre. It is pertinent to mention
       here that the date of this sale deed is 05.10.2005 which is proximate to
       the date of Notification i.e., 18.10.2005 under Section 4 of the LA Act.
       In the present case, after having regard to the circumstances of the
       case and perusal of the sale deeds of adjourning area, we are of the
 F     considered view that the compensation granted at the rate of Rs. 72 lacs
       per acre is as per the law and no injustice has been occurred to the
       appellants herein.
             17. Now coming to the point of development charges which applied
       by the High court @10% on the assessed value of acquired land.
 G     Appellants herein contended that the rate of deduction as applied by the
       High Court was not required as the acquired land is situated in the area
       already developed and have all the potential for development. It is a
       matter of record that the Reference Court determined 60% (55% as
       development charges and 5% for waiting period) in totality towards
       development charges which later on in appeal reduced by the High Court
 H
         MOHAMMAD YUSUF v. STATE OF HARYANA                                      1085
                [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

to 10%. Deductions may be made for a variety of reasons, which may               A
differ in different cases. However, in the backdrop of judicial precedents
on this issue, it is well settled position that all deductions should not
cumulatively be exceeded the upper benchmark of 75% and at the same
time, it should be kept in mind that no hypothetical view shall be taken in
order to calculate the percentage of the development charges.
                                                                                 B
       18. In the present case, the appellants contended that the acquired
land has all basic facilities such as water, electricity, sewer, telephone
etc which respondent-State has not disputed. These are, however, not
enough to meet the purpose of acquisition. To make such land suitable
for the acquisition purpose i.e. for the construction of Mini Secretariat at
Nuh, some further development is sine qua non. For calculating the               C
percentage of development charges, various factors need to be taken
into consideration such as location of land, facilities available in nearby
area, size of the land, purpose of acquisition etc. The present acquired
land of Firozpur Namak village which is located at some distance from
the Nuh Town needs to be developed in proper manner like construction            D
of better and wide roads etc., to make it suitable for the acquisition
purposes. The fact that facilities already available such as sewer,
electricity etc., seems to be taken into consideration properly while
reducing the development charges by the High Court from 60% to 10%.
      19. In the case at hand, after giving our thoughtful consideration         E
to the facts and circumstance noticed hereinabove, we are of the
considered view that a cut at the rate of 10 % is very reasonable towards
development of acquired land as some further development would
obviously be required to make it fit for the purpose for which it was
acquired.
                                                                                 F
       20. In view of above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere
with the impugned decision of the High Court. Accordingly, the appeals
are hereby dismissed leaving parties to bear their own cost.


Divya Pandey                                                Appeals dismissed.   G




                                                                                 H