NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD.versusJAGGA SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS.& ANR.

                [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 809

                NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD.                          A
                                v.
   JAGGA SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS.& ANR.
          (CIVIL APPEAL No. 3033 OF 2008)
                     NOVEMBER 15, 2011
                                                                   B
        [CYRIAC JOSEPH AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition of land -
  Determination of market value - In the year 1983, State
  Government acquired 29. 68 acres of land in village Bhatinda     C
  to meet the requirement of dwelling houses for the employees
  of NFL - Award passed by Land Acquisition Collector - Not
  satisfied, respondents-landowners made reference to civil
  court - Additional District Judge determined compensation
  at the rate of Rs.32.50 per square yard considering inter alia   D
  the order of the High Court in SS's case - Order of Additional
  District Judge upheld by Single Judge of High Court - Letters
  Patent Appeals - Division Bench of High Court held that for
  assessment of market value of the land acquired in the
  present case, the order passed by the High Court in the case     E
  of SS could not be preferred over the order of the High Court
  passed in the case of KS, and determined Rs. 1201- per Square
  yard as just and reasonable market value for the land
  acquired in the present case after adopting the reasoning
  given in the order of the High Court in the case of KS -         F
  Justification - Held: The reliance on order of the High Court
1 passed in SS's case by the Additional District Judge and the
  Single Judge was not correct because the land in SS's case
  which was acquired for military cantonment was far away from
  the land acquired in the present case which wa~ located          G
  adjacent to the colony of NFL and other colonies .,.. Also,
  compared to the land acquired in SS's case, the land
  acquired in KS's case was much more nearer to the land
  acquired in the present case - In KS's case, the mark$t value
                              809                                  H
    810   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A of land was worked out at Rs. 1761- per sq. yard - The Division
  Bench of the High Court applied a cut to this rate of Rs. 1761
  - per sq. yard and determined the rate of Rs. 1201- per sq. yard
  as just and reasonable value of the land acquired in the
  present case considering the location and potentiality of the
B acquired land - The Division Bench took into consideration
  the fact that the land in KS's case was located in the heart of
  the Bhatincm town, whereas the land acquired in the present
  case was slightly away from the heart of the town and was
  located adjacent to the existing colony of the NFL - No merit
C in the submission of the appellant that a cut of 60% should
  have been applied to the rate as determined in KS's case
  considering the larger size and lower quality of the land
  acquired in the present case - The cut applied by the Division
  Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment so as to
  reduce the value from Rs.1761- per sq. yard to Rs.1201- per
D sq. yard was just and reasonable in the facts of the present
  case.

         The National Fertilizers Limited (NFL) is a
    Government of India Undertaking engaged in the
E   business of manufacturing fertilizers and has a plant in
    Bhatinda in the State of Punjab. To meet the requirement
    of dwelling houses for the employees of NFL, the State
    of Punjab acquired 29.68 acres of land in village Bhatinda
    by notification dated 24-01-1983 issued under Section 4
F   of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition
    Collector determined the compensation. Not satisfied
    with the award, the respondents-landowners made
    reference under Section 18 of the Act to the civil court.
    The Additional District Judge determined the
G   compensation at a rate of Rs.32.50 per square yard after
    considering two unregistered sale agreements (Exhibits
    A-X and A-Y) and the order of the High Court in Sadhu
    Singh's case determining the compensation for land
    acquired for extension of the military cantonn:ient in the
H   year 1976. On appeal, the Single Judge of the High Co~rt
   NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. v. JAGGA SINGH         811
         (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS.
sustained the determination of compensation made by       A
the Additional District Judge.

      The Division Bench of the High Court, however, held
 that as Exhibits A-X and A-Y were unregistered and did
not bear any date, these documents could not be 8
considered for determination of compensation. The
 Division Bench also found from the site plan that the
 military cantonment for which Sadhu Singh's land was
acquired was far away from the land acquired in the
 present case; and further that the land of Karam Singh C
which had been acquired for a municipal park in the year
1983 was much nearer to the land acquired in the present
case. The Division Bench, therefore, took the view that
the order passed by the High Court in the case of Sadhu
Singh could not be preferred over the order of the High
Court passed in the case of Karam Singh for making the D
assessment of market value of the land acquired in the
present case and determined Rs.120/- per square yard as
just and reasonable market value for the land acquired
in the present case after adopting the reasoning given in
the order dated 08.11-.1989 of the High Court in the case E
of Karam Singh.

    In the instant appeals, the question that arose for
consideration was whether compensation for the lands
acquired as determined by the Additional District Judge F
and as upheld by the order of the Single Judge was a
correct assessment of the market value of the acquired
land or the compensation as determined by the Division
Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment was
a more accurate assessment of the market value of the G
land acquired in present case.

   Dismissing the appeals, the Court

    HELD:~ .1. The Additional District Judge took into
consideration two sale agreements (Exts. A-X and A-Y).    H
   812    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A Exhibit A-X was executed by one Satish Gupta agreeing
  to transfer h.is plot of land measuring 400 sq. yards for
  Rs.17,300/- to one Sham Singh and Exhibit A-Y was
  executed by one Bairam Shukla agreeing to transfer his
  plot of 400 sq. yards for Rs.17,000/- to Satnam Singh. It
B is seen that the sale agreement between Bairam Shukla
  and Satnam Singh does not mention the date on which
  the agreement has been entered into. In the absence of
  any date of the sale agreement, the sale agreement could
  not have constituted the basis for determination of the
c market value of land in 1983 when the land was acquired
  in the present case. The Division Bench of the High
  Court, therefore, was right in taking the view that Exhibits
  A-X and A-Y cannot constitute the basis for determination
  of the market value of the acquired land in the present
D case. [Para 11} [822-F; 823-B-CJ
         1.2. The reliance on order of the High Court passed
    in Sadhu Singh's case by the Additional· District Judge
    and the Single Judge was not correct because from the
    site plan it appears that the land in Sadhu Singh's case
E which was acquired for military cantonment was far away
    from the land acquired in the present case which was
    located adjacent to the colony of NFL and other colonies .
  . From the site plan, it is also found that compared to the
    land acquired in Sadhu Singh's case, the land acquired
F in Karam Singh's case was much more nearer to the land
    acquired in the present case. [Para 12] [823-H; 824-A-B]

       1.3. The land in the case of Karam Singh was
  acquired for a municipal park by notification issued
G under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30.08.1983
  and is located within the municipal limits. In Karam
  Singh's case there was evidence of three transactions of
  sale of the same date i.e., 29.06.1973, showing that some
  land in the area had been sold at the rate of Rs.100/- per
H sq. yard, some land in the area had been sold at Rs.70.30
   NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. v. JAGGA SINGH         813
         (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS.
 paise per sq. yard and some land in the area had been A
 sold at the rate of Rs.62.50 per sq. yard and the Court
 took the average rate of the three sale transactions which
 worked out to Rs.BO/- per sq. yard. The Court then added
 an increase of 12% per annum for ten years to arrive at
 the value of the land in the year 1983 when the land was B
 acquired and the figure worked out at Rs.176/- per sq.
 yard. For finding out the market value of the land
 acquired in the present case, the Division Bench of the
 High Court applied a cut to this rate of Rs.176/- per sq.
 yard and determined the rate of Rs.120/- per sq. yard as c
just and reasonable value of the land acquired in the
 present case considering the location and potentiality of
the acquired land. The Division Bench has, therefore,
taken into consideration the fact that the land in Karam
Singh's case was located in the heart of the Bhatinda D
town, whereas the land acquired in the present case was
slightly away from the heart of the town and was located
adjacent to the existing colony of the NFL and other
colonies, namely, the residential colonies of the thermal
plant, and reduced the market value of the land acquired E
in the present case. [Para 13] [824-C-H; 825-A]

     1.4. In the case of Karam Singh, it is seen that the
High Court has not mentioned the size of the lands which
were sold under the three sale deeds. In the absence of
the size of the plots of land 'which were sold under the F
sale deeds, which were taken into consideration by the
High Court.while determining the market rate of the land
in Karam Singh's case, it is difficult to accept the
contention of the appellant that the determination of
market value Of the land in Karam Singh's case was in G
respect of land which was sold was much smaller in size
as compared to the land which was acquired in the
present case. Regarding quality of the land acquired in
the present case, the appellant submitted that the land in
Karam Singh's case was developed urban land meant for H



                                                     '
    814   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A residential and commercial purpose, whereas the land
  acquired in the present case was low, water-logged
  agricultural land. However, it is found from the evidence
  of Patwari, Land Acquisition, Industries Department
  Punjab, Chandigarh, examined as RW-1, that the level of
B the land, which was acquired in the present case, was that
  of the existing land of the township of NFL. The
  Additional District Judge in fact held, after considering all
  the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the
  parties, that the market value of the land acquired in the
C present case has to be determined on the basis of its
  potentiality for urban development and not on the basis
  of the revenue or agricultural classification of the land as
  done by the Collector because the land acquired in the
  present case had a great potential value for urban
  purposes, i.e. commercial, industrial and residential.
0
  There is therefore no merit in the submission of the
  appellant that a cut of 60% should have been applied to
  the rate as determined in Karam Singh's case considering
  the larger size and lower quality of the land acquired in
  the present case. The cut applied by the Division Bench
E of the High Court in the impugned judgment so as to
  reduce the value from Rs.176/- per sq. yard to Rs.120/- per
  sq. yard was just and reasonable in the facts of the
  present case. [Para 14] [825-E-H; 826-A-D]

F      Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition
  Officer, Poona and Another (1988) 3 SCC 751 : 1988 (1)
   Suppl. SCR 531; Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons and Others
  v. State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 422 : 1995 ( 2 ) Suppl.
   SCR 363; K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer
G (LAO) (1995) 5 sec 426: 1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 376; Kanta
  Devi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another (2008) 15
  SCC 201 : 2008 (10) SCR 367; Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and
  Others v. Executive Engineer,. Gujarat and Another (2001) 9
  SCC 584; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
H Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another (2008)
   NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. v. JAGGA SINGH           815
         (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS.
14 SCC 745 : 2008 (11) SCR 927; Pal Singh and Others v.      A
Union Territory of Chandigarh [(1992) 4 SCC 400 : 1992 ( 1
) Suppl. SCR 452 - Cited.

                    Case Law Reference:

    1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 531      Cited           Para 6      B
    1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 363 Cited                Para 6

    1995 (2) Suppl. SCR 376 Cited                Para 6

    2008 (10) SCR 367            Cited           Para 6      c
    (2001) 9 sec 584             Cited           Para 8

    2008 (11) SCR 927            Cited           Para 9

    1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 452 Cited                Para 9
                                                             D
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3033 of 2008.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 13.7.2005 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent    E
Appeal No. 430 of 1995.

                          WITH
C.A. Nos. 3095, 3114, 3105, 3102, 3101, 3099, 3112, 3097,
3100,3109,3094,3093,3110,3098,3103,3096, 3111,3107,          F
3115, 3113, 3117, 3108, 3104 , 3116 of 2008.

    Pallav Shishodia, Diksha Rai Goswami, Sanjiv Kumar
Saxena, Ghanshyam Joshi for the Appellant.

    Manoj Swarup, Shivendra Swaroop, Ankit Swarup, Ashok     G
Anand, Rohit Kumar Singh, Ajay Choudhary, Jagjit Singh
Chhabra, Dr. Kailash Chand for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                             H
    816     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. These are the appeals by way of
    special leave against the judgment and order dated 13.07.2005
    of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court,
    Chandigarh, in Letters Patent Appeals determining the market
    value of acquired land @ Rs.120/- per square yard (for short
B   'the impugned judgment').

         2. The facts relevant for deciding these appeals briefly are
    that the National Fertilizers Limited (for short 'the NFL') is a
     Government of India Undertaking engaged in the business of
C    manufacturing fertilizers and has a plant in Bhatinda in the State
    of Punjab. To meet the requirement of dwelling houses for the
    employees of NFL, the State of Punjab acquired 29.68 acres
    of land in village Bhatinda by notification dated 24.01.1983
    issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
    short 'the Act'). The District Collector sent the market rates to
D   the Land Acquisition Collector for different classes of
    agricultural or revenue land and these were for Nehri -
    Rs.56,000/- per acre, for Sarani - Rs. 23,000/- per acre and
    for Gair Mumkin - Rs.23,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition
    Collector determined the compensation at 50% above the rates
E   sent by the District Collector for each of the aforesaid classes
    of land in his award dated 19.03.1986. Not satisfied with the
    award, the landowners made a reference under Section 18 of
    the Act to the civil court. Besides the State, NFL was impleaded
    as a defendant in the reference. By order dated 29.04.1991,
F   the learned Additional District Judge determined the
    compensation for all the three classes of land at a uniform rate
    of Rs.32.50 per square yard after considering two unregistered
    sale agreements (Exhibits A-X and A-Y) and the order of the
    High Court in Sadhu Singh's case determining the
G   compensation for land acquired for exter.sion of the military
    cantonment in the year 1976. The land o· iners challenged the
    order of the Additional District Judge before the High Court in
    Regular First Appeals. The State of Punjab and NFL also
    challenged the order of the learned Additional District Judge
H   before the High Court in Regular First Appeals. The learned
   NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. v. JAGGA SINGH               817
  (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
Single Judge of the High Court, who heard the appeals,          A
sustained the determination of compensation made by the
learned Additional District Judge and dismissed the appeals
by a common order dated 09.09.1994.

       3. Aggrieved, the land owners as well as NFL challenged B
 the order dated 09.09.1994 of the learned Single Judge before
 the Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeals.
 In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court
 held that as Exhibits A-X and A-Y were unregistered and did
 not bear any date, these documents could not be considered
 for determination of compensation. The Division Bench also C
 found from the site plan that the military cantonment for which
 Sadhu Singh's land was acquired was far away from the land
 acquired in the present case. The Division Bench also found
 that the land of Sadhu Singh was acquired for the military
 cantonment in the year 1976 whereas the lands acquired in the D
 present case were included in the municipal limits of Bhatinda
 city in 1977 and around the land acquired in the present case,
 various colonies had come up in the municipal limits of
 Bhatinda. The Division Bench further found from the site plan
 that the land of Karam Singh which had been acquired for a E
 municipal park was much nearer to the land of the land owners
acquired in the present case. The Division Bench, therefore,
took the view in the impugned judgment that the order passed
by the High Court in the case of Sadhu Singh for the land
acquired for military cantonment could not be preferred over the F
order of the High Court passed in the case of Karam Singh for
land acquired for municipal park in the year 1983 for making
the assessment of market value of the land acquired in the
present case and determined Rs.120/- per square yard as just
and reasonable market value for the land acquired in the G
present case and adopted the reasoning given in the order
dated 08.11.1989 of the High Court (Exhibit A-15) in the case
of Karam Singh (RFA No.906 of 1988).

    4. Learned counsel ;appearing for the appellant submitted   H
    818   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A that the Division Bench of the High Court was not correct in
  coming to the conclusion that the assessment of compensation
  in Karam Singh's case was more comparable and relevant for
  making assessment of market value of the land acquired in the
  present case. He submitted that in Karam Singh's case a very
B small area of land measuring 1058 sq. yards was acquired
  whereas in the present case a much bigger area of acre 29.68
  was acquired. He submitted that in Karam Singh's case the land
  was a developed land located in the heart of the Bhatinda town,
  but in the present case the acquired land was water-logged and
C used for agricultural purpose and was away from the city. He
  referred to the order of the High Court passed in Karam Singh's
  case to show that the land acquired in that case had a great
  potential value for being used for commercial and residential
  purposes. He submitted that the land acquired in Karam
D Singh's case was at a distance of about 200 karmas from the
  scheme of Improvement Trust on the Amrik Singh Road. He
  submitted that at a short distance from the land acquired in
  Karam Singh's case, towards the city, there were shops of
  jewellers, iron furniture factory, cinema hall as well as Sepal
  Hotel. He argued that these facts made a big difference to the
E value of the land that was acquired in Karam Sing h's case and
  that the assessment of compensation in Karam Singh's case
  was not at all relevant to the assessment of compensation for
  the land acquired in the present case.

F       5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
   learned Additional District Judge and the learned Single Judge
   have therefore rightly taken the view that the value of the land
   acquired in the case of Karam Singh could not be the basis
   for determining the compensation for the land acquired in the
G present case. He submitted that the learned Additional District
   Judge and the learned Single Judge of the High Court have in
   the present case taken the average price of two sale
 . transactions in Exhibits A-X and A-Y as well as the market value
   of the land acquired in the year 1976 in the case of Sadhu
H Singh and after adding an increase of 12% per annum arrived
    NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. v. JAGGA SINGH                819
   (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
at the value of the land acquired in the present case in 1983 at   A
Rs.32.50 per sq. yard, which was just and reasonable.

    6. Learned counsel for the appellant cited Chimanlal
Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and
Another ((1988) 3 SCC 751] in which this Court has listed the      B
 plus factors and minus factors which have to be taken into
 consideration for determining the market value of land in land
 acquisition cases. He submitted that in this decision this Court
 has mentioned largeness of area of land in the list of minus
factors for determination of the market value of the land. He also C
 relied on Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons and Others v. State of
 Gujarat ((1995) 5 SCC 422] in which deduction to the extent
of 60% of the value of land on account of the large size of the
land adopted by the High Court was found to be justified. He
also relied on K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional
Officer (LAO) [(1995) 5 sec 426] in which it was held that D
sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at the just and
fair market value of large tracts of land, which were not
developed. He also relied on Kanta Devi and Others v. State
of Haryana and Another [(2008) 15 SCC 201] in which this
Court made deduction of 60% for meeting the expenditure E
towards development charges .

    . 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-land owners, on the
other hand, submitted that all the witnesses produced by the
land owners before the Additional District Judge have testified    F
to the fact that the acquired land is situated on the National
Highway leading from Bhatinda to Ferozepur via Goniana and
was within the municipal limits of Bhatinda and was situated
by the side of a metal road. He submitted that the witnesses
have also testified that the acquired land was surrounded by       G
many industrial concerns and residential colonies, such as
thermal plant, the plant of NFL as well as colony of the
employees of the two plants and Sucha Singh Colony, Amar
Singh Colony, Khela Singh Colony, Mandir Colony etc. He
submitted that the witnesses have also stated that the abadi       H
    820    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A of Bhatinda town has extended towards the land acquired in
  the present case and three sides of the acquired land are
  already occupied and on the fourth side is the metal road. He
  submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has taken
  note of all such evidence or the witnesses and has held that
B the land acquired in the present case has the potentiality of
  urban land and not of agricultural land.

          8. Learned counsel for the respondent-landowners
    submitted that the land acquired in the present case may be
    at some distance from the land acquired in Karam Singh's
C   case but this cannot be a ground for not treating the acquired
    land in the present 9ase as comparable with the land acquired
    in Karam Singh's case for the purpose of determination of
    compensation. In support of his submission he relied on
    Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Others v. Executive Engineer,
D   Gujarat and Another [(2001) 9 SCC 584] in which this Court
    has held that if the quality, including potentiality, of two areas
    of land is similar then distance between the two would not by
    itself lead to a change in their respective market values. He
    submitted that it is not correct as has been submitted on behalf
E   of the appellant that the acquired land was a low waterlogged
    agricultural land and as per the evidence of RW-1, the Patwari,
    Land Acquisition, Industries Department, Government of
    Punjab, the level of the acquired land was the same as that of
    the existing land of township of the NFL. He submitted that the
F   quality of the acquired land and the quality of the land acquired
    in the case of Karam Singh were therefore one and the same
    and the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that
    the compensation determined for the land acquired in the case
    of Karam Singh should be the basis for determination of
G   compensation of the acquired land in the present case. He
    submitted that in any case the value of the acquired land in
    Karam Singh's case was determined by the High Court under
    Ext.A-15 at Rs.176/- per square yard and the Division Bench
    in the impugned order has applied a cut and determined the
H   compensation for the land acquired in the present case at a
   NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. v. JAGGA SINGH                821
  (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
 reduced rate of Rs.120/- per square yard and this was a just    A
 and reasonable compensation awarded for the land acquired
 in the present case.

      9. Learned counsel for the respondent-landowners next
 submitted that the determination of compensation by the B
 learned Single Judge of the High Court in the present case on
the basis of land acquired in Sadhu Singh's case was not at
all correct because the land acquired in the case of Sadhu
 Singh was located in the cantonment area and the acquisition
was in 1976, whereas the Municipal Council of Bhatinda was C
constituted only in 1977 and the land in the present case was
acquired in 1983 when the land was within the municipal limits.
He submitted that the acquisition in Sadhu Singh's case was
made in 1976 more than seven years before the acquisition in
the present case and therefore the value of land as determined
in Sadhu Singh's case cannot be the basis for determination D
of compensation in the present case. He cited General ·
Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another [(2008) 14 SCC
  745] in which this Court has held that sale transactions which
 precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, i.e. upto E
 four to five years, can be relied upon but relying on sale
 transactions beyond that would be unsafe, even if it relates to
 a neighbouring land. He submitted that in the absence of any
 appropriate sale transaction of the year 1983 in respect of land
 in an around the acquired land in the present case, the Division F
Bench rightly relied on the judicial precedent in the case of
Karam Singh and determined the compensation at the rate of
Rs.120/- per square yard. He relied on Pal Singh and Others
v. Union Territory of Chandigarh [(1992) 4 SCC 400] wherein
this. Court has observed that a judgment of a court in a land G
acquisition case determining the market value of a land in the
vicinity of the acquired lands, even though not inter partes, is
admissible in evidence either as an instance or one from which
the market value of the acquired land could be deduced or
inferred. He submitted that Ext.A-15 which was the order of the H
    822   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A High Court in the case of Karam Singh has therefore been
  rightly relied upon by the Division Bench of the High Court in
  determining the compensation of Rs.120/- per square yard for
  the land acquired in the present case.

       10. We have considered the submissions of the learned
8
  counsel for the parties and we find that while the case of the
  appellant is that the learned Additional District Judge and the
  learned Single Judge correctly determined the compensation
  payable to the landowners for the land acquired in the present
  case at the rate of Rs.32.50 per sq. yard, the case of the
C respondent-landowners is that the Division Bench of the High
  Court has correctly determined the compensation in the
  impugned judgment at the rate of Rs.120/- per sq. yard.
  Therefore, the question that we have to decide in these appeals
  is whether the compensation for the lands acqu.ired as
D determined by the Additional District Judge and as upheld by
  the order of the learned Single Judge is a correct assessment
  of the market value of the acquired land or the compensation
  as determined by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
  impugned judgment is a more accurate assessment of the
E market value of the land acquired in present case.

       11. We may first deal with the determination of the
  compensation by the Additional District Judge as affirmed by
  the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the Regular First
F Appeals. The Additional District Judge has taken into
  consideration two sale agreements (Exts. A-X and A-Y). Exhibit
  A-X is executed by one Salish Gupta agreeing to transfer his
  plot of land measuring 400 sq. yards for Rs.17,300/- to one
  Sham Singh and Exhibit A-Y is executed by one Bairam Shu~la ·
G agreeing to transfer his plot of 400 sq. yards for Rs.17,000/-
  to Satnam Singh. The average sale price in these two sale
  agreements comes to Rs.42.87 per sq. yard. The sale
  agreements are between the employees of NFL, who were
  members of the NFL Employees Co-operative Society. The
  Division Bench of the High Court has held in the impugned
H                                                     ''
    NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. v. JAGGA SINGH                 823
   (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
judgment that these sale agreements, which have no details with     A
 regard to the date of execution and were not really sale deeds,
 could not have been taken into consideration for determining
the market value of the acquired land. We have perused a copy
of the sale agreement between Bairam Shukla and Satnam
Singh, which has been annexed in Civil Appeal No.3033 of            B
2008 as Annexure P-13 and we find that the sale agreement
does not mention the date on which the agreement has been
entered into. In the absence of any date of the sale agreement,
the sale agreement could not have constituted the basis for
determination of the market value of land in 1983 when the land     c
was acquired in the present case. The Division Bench of the
High Court, therefore, was right in taking the view that Exhibits
A-X and A-Y cannot constitute the basis for determination of
the market value of the acquired land in the present case.

       12. The learned Additional District Judge has also relied D
 on the order of the High Court determining compensation of
 land acquired in the case of Sadhu Singh (RFA No.1207 of
 1984). The land in the case of Sadhu Singh was acquired
 within the revenue village of Bhatinda for extension of the
 military cantonment by notification dated 29.10.1976 and the E
 High Court determined a rate of compensation of Rs.17/- per
sq. yard. The Additional District Judge has given an increase
of 12% per annum on this rate of Rs.17/- per sq. yard from
29.10.1976 to 24.01.1983 to arrive at the market value of the
land as -on 24.01.1983, i.e. the date of notification under F
Section 4 of the Act in the present case. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court while sustaining the order of the
learned Additional Judge, has held that although the exact
location of the land is not given in Sadhu Singh's case, yet the
same can be made the basis for determining the market value G
of the acquired land in the present case as the land acquired
in the Sadhu Singh's case was within municipal limits of
Bhatinda. In our considered opinion, the reliance on order of
the High Court passed in Sadhu Singh's case by the learned
Additional District Judge and. the learned Single Judge was not H
    824    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A correct because from the site plan it appears that the land in
  Sadhu Singh's case which was acquired for military cantonment
  was far away from the land acquired in the present case which
  was located adjacent to the colony of NFL and other colonies.
  From the site plan, we also find that compared to the land
B acquired in Sadhu Singh's case, the land acquired in Karam
  Singh's case was much more nearer to the land acquired in
  the present case.

          13. The Division Bench of the High Court has thus relied
C   upon its order in the case of Karam Singh (RFA No.906 of
    1988) passed on 08.11.1989 which was marked in the
    reference proceedings as Ext. A-15. The land in the case of
    Karam Singh was acquired for a municipal park by notification ,
    issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on
    30.08.1983 and is locc.ted within the municipal limits. In Karam
D   Singh's case there was evidence of three transactions of sale
    of the same date i.e., 29.06.1973, showing that some land in
    the area had been sold at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. yard,
    some land in the area had been S()ld at Rs.70.30 paise per
    sq. yard and some land in the area had bf'en sold at the rate
E   of Rs.62.50 per sq. yard and the Court took the average rate
    of the three sale transactions which worked out to Rs.80/- per
    sq. yard. The Court then added an increase of 12% per annum
    for ten years to arrive at the value of the land in the year 1983
    when the land was acquired and the figure worked out at
F   Rs.176/- per sq. yard. For finding out the market value of the
    land acquired in the present case, the Division Bench of the
    High Court applied a cut to this rate of Rs.176/- per sq. yard
    and determined the rate of Rs.120/- per sq. yard as just and
    reasonable value of the land acquired in the present case
G   considaing the location and potentiality of the acquired land.
    The Division Bench has, therefore, taken into consideration the
    fact that the land in Karam Singh's case was located in the
    heart of the Bhatinda town, whereas the land acquired in the
    present case was slightly away from the heart of the town and
H   was located adjacent to the existing colony of the NFL and other
    NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. v. JAGGA SINGH                825
   (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
colonies, namely, the residential colonies of the thermal plant,   A
Sucha Singh Colony, Amar Singh Colony, Kheta Singh Colony,
Mandir Colony, etc. and reduced the market value of the land
acquired in the present case.

       14. We may now consider whether any further cut to the
                                                                    B
  rate of Rs.120/- per sq. yard as determined by the Division
  Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment was called
 for, considering the size and quality of the land acquired in the
 present case. Regarding the size of the land, the argument of
 learned counsel for the appellant is that the size of the land C
 acquired in the case of Karam Singh was .04 acres (1058 sq.
 yards), whereas the size of the land acquired in the present
 case is acre 29.68 (143651 sq. yards). But on a reading of the
 order dated 08.11.1989 of the High Court in the case of Karam
 Singh (RFA No.906 of 1988) marked as Annexure Ext.A-15,
 we find that the High Court has taken into consideration three D
 sale deeds of the same date to work out the average rate of
 the land at Rs.80/- per sq. yard in 1973 and applied an increase
 of 12% per annum to arrive at the figure of Rs.176/- per sq.
yard, but has not mentioned the size of the lands which were
 sold under the three sale deeds. In the absence of the size of E
the plots of land which were sold under the sale deeds, which
were taken into consideration by the High Court while
determining the market rate of the land in Karam Sing h's case,
it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellant that the determination of market value of the land F
in Karam Singh's case was in respect of land which was sold
was much smaller in size as compared to the land which was
acquired in the present case. Regarding quality of the land
acquired in the present case, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the land in Karam Singh's case was developed G
urban land meant for residential and commercial purpose,
whereas the land acquired in the present case was low, water-
logged agricultural land. We, however, find from the evidence
of Basant Singh Patwari, Land Acquisition, Industries
                                                                   H
    826   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A Department Punjab, Chandigarh, examined as RW-1, that the
  level of the land, which was acquired in the present case, was
  that of the existing land of the township of NFL. The learned
  Additional District Judge in his order dated 29.04.1991 has in
  fact held, after considering all the oral and documentary
B evidence adduced by the parties, that the market value of the
  land acquired in the present case has to be determined on the
  basis of its potentiality for urban development and not on the
  basis of the revenue or agricultural classification of the land as
  done by the Collector because the land acquired in the present
c case had a great potential value for urban purposes, i.e.
  commercial, industrial and residential. We, therefore, do not
  find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the
  appellant that a cut of 60% should have been applied to the
  rate as determined in Karam Singh's case considering the
D larger size and lower quality of the land acquired in the present
  case. In our opinion, the cut applied by the Division Bench of
  the High Court in the impugned judgment so as to reduce the
  value from Rs.176/- per sq. yard to Rs.120/- per sq. yard was
  just and reasonable in the facts of the present case.

E       15. In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals
    and we dismiss the same and award a cost of Rs.10,000/- in
    favour of the respondents in each of the appeals.

    B.B.B.                                    Appeals dismissed.