RADHEY SHAMversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

1022                     [2022] REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   14 S.C.R. 1022             [2022] 14 S.C.R.


 A                              RADHEY SHAM
                                        v.
                  THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
                         (Civil Appeal No. 7391 of 2022)
 B                             OCTOBER 17, 2022
                [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
              Land Acquisition: s.4 notification issued on 29.08.2005 –
       Award made under s.11 – Reference made at the instance of land
       owners for enhancement of compensation - Reference court by
 C
       judgment dated 31.05.2014 assessed market value at Rs.1000 per
       square yard – Dissatisfied land owners filed appeals before High
       Court for enhancement of compensation – State accepted judgment
       dated 31.05.2014 – High Court allowed appeals filed by land owners
       and assessed the market value of acquired land at Rs.4173 per
 D     square yard – Both landowners as well as the State preferred appeals
       before this Court – By judgment dated 16.05.2018, this Court
       allowed the appeals preferred by the State and set aside the judgment
       passed by the High Court and remitted the matter to the High Court
       for fresh consideration – On remand, High Court remitted matter to
       Reference Court by observing that some sale instances/sale
 E
       exemplars relied upon on behalf of the landowners were not taken
       into consideration by Reference Court – On remand, Reference
       Court assessed amount of compensation at Rs. 750/- per square
       yard – Landowners as well as the State filed appeals before High
       Court – By the impugned judgment, High Court dismissed
 F     landowners appeals and allowed the State’s appeals and restored
       the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the amount
       of compensation reduced between Rs. 166/- per square yard to Rs.
       200/- per square yard – Hence instant appeals by the original
       landowners – Held: It is not in dispute that so far as the State
       Government is concerned, the State did not challenge the common
 G
       judgment dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Reference Court assessing
       the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- per square
       yard and it was the landowners who preferred appeals before the
       High Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation – Non-
       filing of the appeals by the State against the common judgment dated
 H     31.05.2014 was also taken note of by this Court while disposing of
                                         1022
 RADHEY SHAM v. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                           1023


the appeals by common judgment dated 16.05.2018 – Even                    A
otherwise, on a fair reading of the judgment and order dated
16.05.2018 passed by this Court and the subsequent order dated
28.08.2019 passed by the High Court, the matter was remanded to
the Reference Court to consider the sale deeds for the purpose of
enhancement of the amount of compensation, while considering the
                                                                          B
sale deeds relied upon by the landowners – In any case, once the
judgment and order passed by the Reference Court dated 31.05.2014
determining the compensation at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard attained
finality so far as the State is concerned, the landowners shall be
entitled to the compensation at least at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard
– Now so far as the submission on behalf of the original landowners       C
to enhance the amount of compensation beyond Rs. 1,000/- per
square yard is concerned, most of the sale deeds relied upon by the
landowners were much prior to the date of s.4 notification (ranging
between 1992 to 1994) – Some of the sale deeds were post s.4
notification – Only three to four sale deeds were nearer to s.4
                                                                          D
notification – However, all those sale deeds were with respect to
small area of lands and even the price is also at variance – Therefore,
it was not safe to determine the compensation relying upon those
sale deeds which are nearer to s.4 notification – The claimants/
landowners entitled to compensation of the acquired land at least
at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard.                                           E
      Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
       HELD: 1. The landowners shall be entitled to the
compensation considering the market value of the acquired land
at least at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard as per the earlier judgment
and order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Reference Court. It is           F
not in dispute that so far as the State Government is concerned,
the State did not challenge the common judgment and order dated
31.05.2014 passed by the Reference Court assessing the market
value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard and it
was the landowners who preferred appeals before the High Court            G
for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Non-filing of
the appeals by the State against the common judgment and order
dated 31.05.2014 was also taken note of by this Court while
disposing of the appeals vide common judgment and order dated
16.05.2018. Even otherwise, on a fair reading of the judgment
                                                                          H
1024            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 14 S.C.R.


 A     and order dated 16.05.2018 passed by this Court and the
       subsequent order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the High Court,
       the matter was remanded to the Reference Court to consider
       the sale deeds for the purpose of enhancement of the amount of
       compensation, while considering the sale deeds relied upon by
       the landowners. In any case, once the judgment and order passed
 B
       by the Reference Court dated 31.05.2014 determining the
       compensation at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard attained finality so
       far as the State is concerned, the landowners shall be entitled to
       the compensation at least at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard. [Paras
       5, 6][1089-B-F]
 C           2. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the original
       landowners to enhance the amount of compensation beyond Rs.
       1,000/- per square yard is concerned, most of the sale deeds relied
       upon by the landowners are much prior to the date of Section 4
       notification (ranging between 1992 to 1994). Some of the sale
 D     deeds are post Section 4 notification. Only three to four sale deeds
       are nearer to Section 4 notification. However, all those sale deeds
       are with respect to small area of lands and even the price is also
       at variance. Therefore, it is not safe to determine the
       compensation relying upon those sale deeds which are nearer to
       Section 4 notification. The claimants/landowners shall be entitled
 E     to compensation of the acquired land at least at Rs. 1,000/- per
       square yard. [Paras 7, 8][1029-F-H; 1030-A-B]
             Ashrafi and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
             (2013) 5 SCC 527 : [2013] 6 SCR 148 – referred to.

 F                           Case Law Reference
       [2013] 6 SCR 148               referred to            Para 2.2
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7391
       of 2022.
             From the Judgment and Orders dated 04.03.2022 of the High
 G
       Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal
       No. 2016 of 2021 (O&M).
             With
             Civil Appeal Nos. 7372, 7371, 7204-7222, 7346-7349, 7223-7230,
 H     7233-7234, 7373-7390, 7350, 7351-7370 of 2022.
 RADHEY SHAM v. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                             1025


      Abhinash Jain, Dy. AG, Alok Sangwan, AAG, Dr. Bharat Bhushan          A
Parsoon, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Manoj Swarup, Sr. Advs., Dinesh K. Garg,
Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Ishaan Tiwari, Dr. Monika Gusain,
Hari Om Yaduvanshi, Miss. S. Harini, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Anurag
Kulharia, Sandeep, Apoorv Yadav, Vipul Dahiya, Ms. Sonam Priya, Ayush
Kumar Singh, Anurag Mishra for M/s. Bakshi & Associates, Siddharth
                                                                            B
Batra, Ms. Aarzoo Aneja, Ms. Ira S. Mahajan, Ms. Shilpa Ohri, Ms.
Archna Yadav, Ms. Shivani Chawla, Chinmay Dubey, Rhythm Katyal,
Ms. Sakshi Shukla, Aniket Jain, Umang Shankar, Vidyut Kayarkar, Sanjay
Singh, Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Ms. Kanti Day, Aditya Jain, Mohan
Lal Sharma, Sukant Vikram, M/s V. Maheshwari & Co., Advs. for the
Appellant.                                                                  C
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 04.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Punjab      D
& Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 2016/2021 and other allied
First Appeals, by which the High Court has allowed the said First Appeals
preferred by the respondents herein – State of Haryana and others and
has quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 31.05.2014
passed by the Reference Court and has restored the awards declared
by the Land Acquisition Collector determining the amount of compensation    E
with respect to the lands acquired at village Hansi and Dhana, District
Hisar, Haryana, the original landowners have preferred the present
appeals.
         2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as
under:                                                                      F
       That the land situated at village Hansi and Dhana, District Hisar,
Haryana admeasuring 229.13 acres and 20.77 acres respectively came
to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1894’) for development of the
residential and commercial sectors – Sectors 3, 5 & 6 at Hansi. A common    G
notification under Section 4 of the Act 1894 was issued on 29.08.2005.
That declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued on
29.08.2006. The land Acquisition Collector declared the award under
Section 11 of the Act 1894 on 3.8.2007, vide award Nos. 1 & 2 for both
villages, Hansi & Dhana, by adopting the belting method/system and
                                                                            H
1026             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 14 S.C.R.


 A     assessed the market value of the land abutting the G.T. Road (Delhi-
       Hisar Road) at Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre up to the depth of 2 acres and
       for the land abutting the Jind By-pass Road, at Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre
       up to the depth of 2 acres and for the remaining land, the market value
       was assessed at Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre.
 B            2.1 That at the instance of the landowners, the references were
       made to the Reference Court. By common judgment and order dated
       31.05.2014, the Reference Court allowed the respective reference
       petitions filed by the landowners and assessed the market value at
       Rs.1,000/- per square yard (Rs. 48,20,000/- per acre).
 C             2.2 Having not satisfied with the amount of compensation
       determined by the Reference Court, the landowners preferred first
       appeals before the High Court for enhancement of compensation. At
       this stage, it is required to be noted that so far as the State is concerned,
       the State accepted the common judgment and order dated 31.05.2014
       passed by the Reference Court determining the amount of compensation/
 D     market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard. That
       the High Court, by common judgment and order dated 28.05.2016 passed
       in RFA No. 7324/2014 and other allied first appeals, allowed the said
       first appeals preferred by the landowners and assessed the market value
       of the acquired land at Rs. 4,173/- per square yard, relying upon the
 E     decision of this Court in the case of Ashrafi and Others v. State of
       Haryana and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 527.
              2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment
       and order passed by the High Court dated 28.05.2016 passed in RFA
       No. 7324/2014 and other allied first appeals, the original landowners as
 F     well as the State preferred appeals before this Court. By judgment and
       order dated 16.05.2018, this Court allowed the appeals preferred by the
       State and set aside the judgment and order dated 28.05.2016 passed by
       the High Court and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh
       consideration. While setting aside the judgment and order dated
       28.05.2016 passed by the High Court, this Court observed that the High
 G     Court committed an error in determining compensation at Rs. 4,173/-
       per square yard, considering the decision of this Court in the case of
       Ashrafi (supra). This Court observed that as the land in the case of
       Ashrafi (supra) was acquired in the year 1995 and was a very small
       piece of land and it was for a commercial purpose and in the present
 H     case the land has been acquired in the year 2005 and thus there is a gap
 RADHEY SHAM v. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                             1027
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

of about 10 years between the two acquisitions, relying on such an          A
acquisition of a decade ago may be unsafe.
      2.4 That thereafter on remand, the High Court vide common
judgment and order dated 28.08.2019 remitted the matter to the Reference
Court by observing that some sale instances/sale exemplars relied upon
on behalf of the landowners were not taken into consideration by the        B
Reference Court. Therefore, the High Court remanded the matter to
the Reference Court by observing that it would be appropriate that the
Reference Court as such examines the issue threadbare and after
examining the sale deeds produced from both sides comes to the conclusion
that what is the correct market value.
                                                                            C
       2.5 That thereafter on remand, the Reference Court assessed the
amount of compensation at Rs. 750/- per square yard. The common
judgment and order passed by the Reference Court on remand assessing
the compensation/market value at Rs. 750/- per square yard was the
subject matter before the High Court at the instance of the landowners
as well as the State. By the impugned common judgment and order, the        D
High Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by the landowners and
allowed the appeals preferred by the State and has restored the award
passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. By the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the amount of compensation
is reduced between Rs. 166/- per square yard to Rs. 200/- per square        E
yard.
      2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original landowners
have preferred the present appeals.
      3. We have heard learned Senior Advocates/counsel appearing           F
on behalf of the respective original landowners and Shri Alok Sangwan,
learned Additional Advocate General along with Dr. Monilka Gusain,
learned counsel for the State of Haryana.
       3.1 Learned Senior Advocates/counsel appearing on behalf of
the original landowners have vehemently submitted that as such the State    G
accepted the earlier judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the
Reference Court determining the market value at Rs. 1,000/- per square
yard and the landowners preferred appeals before the High Court for
enhancement of compensation. It is submitted that once the State accepted
the earlier judgment and order passed by the Reference Court, allowing
                                                                            H
1028            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 14 S.C.R.


 A     the reference petitions, and determining the market value at Rs.1,000/-
       per square yard, the landowners are entitled to the compensation at
       least at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard.
              3.2 It is submitted that even while disposing of the appeals by this
       Court in the common judgment and order dated 16.05.2018, this Court
 B     also specifically observed that the State had not preferred appeals and/
       or challenged the judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the
       Reference Court and the original landowners preferred appeals for
       enhancement. It is therefore submitted that in that view of the matter,
       the High Court ought not to have allowed the appeals preferred by the
       State and reduced the amount of compensation below Rs. 1,000/- per
 C     square yard, which as such was accepted by the State Government by
       not preferring appeals at the relevant time.
              3.3 Some of the learned Senior Advocates/counsel appearing on
       behalf of the original landowners have taken us to the sale deeds produced
       by the landowners. Relying upon those sale deeds, it is submitted that
 D     the claimants shall be entitled to the amount of compensation at more
       than Rs.1,000/- per square yard.
              4. While opposing the present appeals, learned Additional Advocate
       General appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that
       once the matter was remanded by this Court to the High Court and
 E     thereafter by the High Court to the Reference Court for fresh decision,
       even thereafter the Reference Court assessed the amount of
       compensation at Rs. 750/- per square yard, vide common judgment and
       order dated 29.01.2020. It is therefore submitted that merely because at
       the relevant time and for whatever reasons the State did not prefer
 F     appeals against the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court
       dated 31.05.2014 determining the compensation/market value at Rs.
       1,000/- per square yard, the original landowners shall not be entitled to
       the compensation at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard.
              4.1 It is submitted that by the impugned common judgment and
 G     order, the High Court has considered the sale deeds relied upon by the
       State as well as the sale deeds relied upon by the landowners and
       thereafter has come to the conclusion that the landowners have failed to
       produce any convincing evidence to prove that the award passed by the
       Land Acquisition Collector was erroneous. It is submitted that therefore
       no error has been committed by the High Court in allowing the appeals
 H
 RADHEY SHAM v. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                              1029
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

preferred by the State and in upholding the two different awards passed      A
by the Land Acquisition Collector.
      5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length
and considering the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, we
are of the firm opinion that the landowners shall be entitled to the
compensation considering the market value of the acquired land at least      B
at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard as per the earlier judgment and order
dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Reference Court. It is required to be
noted and it is not in dispute that so far as the State Government is
concerned, the State did not challenge the common judgment and order
dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Reference Court assessing the market
value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard and it was the     C
landowners who preferred appeals before the High Court for
enhancement of the amount of compensation. It is also required to be
noted that non-filing of the appeals by the State against the common
judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 was also taken note of by this
Court while disposing of the appeals vide common judgment and order          D
dated 16.05.2018.
      6. Even otherwise, on a fair reading of the judgment and order
dated 16.05.2018 passed by this Court and the subsequent order dated
28.08.2019 passed by the High Court, the matter was remanded to the
Reference Court to consider the sale deeds for the purpose of                E
enhancement of the amount of compensation, while considering the sale
deeds relied upon by the landowners. In any case, once the judgment
and order passed by the Reference Court dated 31.05.2014 determining
the compensation at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard attained finality so far
as the State is concerned, the landowners shall be entitled to the
compensation at least at Rs. 1,000/- per square yard.                        F

       7. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the original
landowners to enhance the amount of compensation beyond
Rs. 1,000/- per square yard is concerned, we have gone through and
considered the sale deeds relied upon on behalf of the landowners. Most
of the sale deeds relied upon by the landowners are much prior to the        G
date of Section 4 notification (ranging between 1992 to 1994). Some of
the sale deeds are post Section 4 notification. Only three to four sale
deeds are nearer to Section 4 notification. However, all those sale deeds
are with respect to small area of lands and even the price is also at
                                                                             H
1030              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 14 S.C.R.


 A     variance. Therefore, it is not safe to determine the compensation relying
       upon those sale deeds which are nearer to Section 4 notification.
              8. In view of the above and for the reasons state above, we are of
       the firm opinion that the claimants/landowners shall be entitled to
       compensation of the acquired land at least at Rs. 1,000/- per square
 B     yard. It is reported that the State has already deposited/paid the
       compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per square yard which is now
       sought to be recovered pursuant to the impugned common judgment and
       order passed by the High Court restoring the awards passed by the
       Land Acquisition Collector determining the compensation/market value
       ranging from Rs. 166/- per square yard to Rs. 200/- per square yard.
 C
              9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
       appeals succeed in part. The impugned common judgment and order
       dated 4.3.2022 restoring the awards passed by the Land Acquisition
       Collector dated 3.8.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is held that
       the original landowners/claimants shall be entitled to the compensation
 D     considering the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,000/- per
       square yard.
              10. All these appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.


 E     Devika Gujral                                          Appeals partly allowed.




 F




 G




 H