RAMESH KUMAR V. BHATINDA INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE COTTON SPINNING MILL AND ORS.versusBHATINDA INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE COTTON SPINNING MILL AND ORS.

                        [2021] 7 S.C.R. 787                              787


                        RAMESH KUMAR                                     A
                                  v.
           BHATINDA INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE
             COTTON SPINNING MILL AND ORS.
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 3875 – 3876 of 2009)                    B
                       SEPTEMBER 13, 2021
         [M. R. SHAH AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
        Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4 and 23 – Compensation –
Enhancement of – A Notification u/s.4 was issued on 06.06.1988
                                                                         C
and the land in question was acquired for public purposes for
establishing Cotton Spinning and Ginning Mills – The Land
Acqusition Officer awarded compensation considering the value of
the land at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre – The Reference Court
relying upon the sale deed dated 24.05.1979 as Ex. AW6/C by which
the land admeasuring 43 kanals 13 marlas out of the acquired at          D
the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre and thereafter granted the increase
of 12% per acre and thereafter adopting the cut of 25% determined
the compensation at Rs.1,12,000/- per acre – However, the High
Court determined the value at Rs.88,400/- per acre after adopting
cut of 15% – On appeal, held: In the present case both, the Reference
                                                                         E
Court as well as the High Court, have determined the value of the
land considering the sale deed dated 24.05.1979 which is more
than 9 years before the notification of the acquisition – Considering
the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel that it is reasonably safe to determine
the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the            F
approved market value of nearby lands in the previous years, when
relied on sale transactions/acquisitions precede the subject
acquisition by only a few years, i.e., upto 4-5 years and beyond
that it may be unsafe – The fact that time gap between the sale deed
relied upon and the date of notification of acquisition is more than
                                                                         G
9 years in the instant case, the courts below ought to have been
very cautious in relying upon the sale deed dated 24.05.1979 – Be
that it may and assuming that the sale deed dated 24.05.1979 was
the best evidence available to determine the value of land acquired,
in that case also taking annual increase at the rate of 12% is not
justified – In the instant case, in the facts and circumstances of the   H
                                   787
788            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A     case the annual increase/escalation ought to have been at the rate
      of 10% maximum – The High Court rightly adopted the cut of 15%,
      which in the facts and circumstances of the case is not required to
      be interfered with – Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with
      the impugned judgment of the High Court.
B           Dismissing the Appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1. The questions which are posed for consideration
      of this Court are :
           (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the
      Courts below have erred in taking annual increase at the rate of
C     12% at the flat rate and not applying the cumulative rate?
           (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the
      High Court has erred in adopting the cut/deduction of 15%, while
      determining the value of the land acquired?

D           2. In the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, it is
      specifically observed and held that when market value is sought
      to be ascertained with reference to transactions which took place
      before the acquisition, the law adopted is to collect the year to
      year increase. It is further observed and held that as the
      percentage of increase is always with reference to the previous
E     year’s market value, the appropriate method is to adopt the
      increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. However, at
      the same time it is also observed and held in the said decision
      that it is reasonably safe to determine the market value by
      providing appropriate escalation over the approved market value
F     of nearby lands in the previous years, when relied on sale
      transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only
      a few years, i.e., upto 4-5 years. It is further observed in the said
      decision that beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a
      neighbouring land. In the present case both, the Reference Court
      as well as the High Court, have determined the value of the land
G     considering the Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979 which is more than
      9 years before the notification of the acquisition. Therefore,
      considering the observations made by this Court in the case of
      Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and considering the fact that time
      gap between the sale deed relied upon and the date of notification
      of acquisition is more than 9 years, the courts below ought to
H
  RAMESH KUMAR v. BHATINDA INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE                     789
          COTTON SPINNING MILL AND ORS.

have been very cautious in relying upon the Sale Deed dated           A
24.05.1979. Be that it may and assuming that the Sale Deed dated
24.05.1979 was the best evidence available to determine the value
of land acquired in that case also taking annual increase at the
rate of 12% is not justified. This Court is of the opinion that, in
the facts and circumstances of the case the annual increase/
                                                                      B
escalation ought to have been at the rate of 10% maximum. Even
otherwise, it is required to be noted that State of Punjab suffered
due to militancy from 1979 onwards till 1992 and because of that
the prices would have crashed. Therefore, to grant the escalation/
price rise at the rate of 12% would not be justified at all. After
considering the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, it is observed    C
and held by this Court in the case of Lal Chand that even if the
transaction is 2 to 3 years prior to the acquisition, the Court
should, before adopting a standard escalation satisfy itself that
there were no adverse circumstances. It is further observed and
held that the question is therefore, necessary before increasing
                                                                      D
the price with reference to the old transactions. Therefore,
assuming that the appellants are right in submitting that the
increase in land value should have been adopted on cumulative
basis, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted
hereinabove, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court. [Para 6.3][796-H;        E
797-A-C; 797-G-H; 798-A-E]
       3. Now so far as the deduction at the rate of 15% towards
the development charges, it also does not call for any interference
of this Court considering the fact that the land in question at the
relevant time was an agricultural land. However, taking into          F
consideration the fact that the sale instance dated 24.07.1979
relied upon was a quite big chunk of land and the location of the
acquired land and the land was acquired for spinning mill, the
High Court has rightly adopted 15% cut, which in the facts and
circumstances of the case is not required to be interfered with.
[Para 6.5][798-F-G]                                                   G

      ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008)
      14 SCC 745 : [2008] 11 SCR 927 – relied on.
      Mehrawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot and Ors. v. State of
      Punjab and Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 432 : [2012] 4 SCR                 H
790            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A           24; Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and
            Ors. (2015) 15 SCC 200; Atma Singh v. State of Haryana
            (2008) 2 SCC 568 : [2007] 12 SCR 1120; Anjani Molu
            Dessai v. State of Goa and Anr. (2010) 13 SCC 710 :
            [2010] 14 SCR 997; Trishala Jain and Anr. v. State of
            Uttaranchal and Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 47 : [2011] 8 SCR
B
            520; Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769 :
            [2009] 13 SCR 622 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
      [2012] 4 SCR 24                  referred to           Para 4(i)
C     [2008] 11 SCR 927                relied on             Para 4(iii)
      (2015) 15 SCC 200                referred to           Para 4(iii)
      [2007] 12 SCR 1120               referred to           Para 4(v)
      [2010] 14 SCR 997                referred to           Para 4.1
D
      [2011] 8 SCR 520                  referred to          Para 4.1
      [2009] 13 SCR 622                referred to           Para 5.1
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.3875-
      3876 of 2009.
E           From the Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2008 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA Nos.1507 and 3476 of
      1999.
            With

F           Civil Appeal Nos. 5669, 5670 of 2021 and Civil Appeal Nos.9185-
      9196 of 2017.
            Nikhil Goel, Naveen Goel, Vinay Mathew, Yadav Narender Singh,
      Vijay Kumar Sharma, Jagdish Prashad, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
      Sridhar Potaraju, Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Aayush Kumar, Advs. for the
      Appellant.
G
            Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Puneet Kansal, Ms. Anita Pandey,
      Ms. Indu Kaul, Advs. for the Respondents.



H
   RAMESH KUMAR v. BHATINDA INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE                             791
           COTTON SPINNING MILL AND ORS.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                               A
      M. R. SHAH, J.
      Civil Appeal Nos. 3875-3876 OF 2009
       1. Arising out of the impugned common judgment and order dated
19.09.2008 passed by the High Court in RFA No.3476 of 1999 filed by
                                                                               B
the original claimants for enhancement and RFA No.1507 of 1999 filed
by the Bhatinda Integrated Co-operative Cotton Spinning & Ginning Mills
Ltd.
      Special Leave Petition No.9470 of 2010
      Leave granted.                                                           C
       Arising out of RFAs No.2648 of 1999 (Bant Singh and Ors. vs.
State of Punjab and Ors.), the appeal which was filed by the original
claimants for enhancement of the compensation. However, it is required
to be noted that RFA No.1505 of 1999 filed by the Bhatinda Integrated
Co-Operative Cotton Spinning & Ginning Mills Ltd. vs. Bant Singh and
                                                                               D
others is not under challenge.
      Special Leave Petition No.15117 of 2010
      Leave granted.
        Arising out of RFA No.2645 of 1999 which was filed by the original
claimants Gurbachan Singh and others for enhancement of compensation.          E
It is required to be noted that no appeal has been preferred by the original
claimants (Gurbachan Singh and others) challenging the order passed in
RFA No.1505 of 2019 which was filed by the Bhatinda Integrated
Co-Operative Cotton Spinning & Ginning Mills Ltd. which has been
allowed by the High Court and the amount of compensation has been
                                                                               F
reduced.
      CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9185-9196 of 2017
      Civil Appeal Nos.9895-9897 of 2017 arising out of RFA Nos.2642,
2643, 2644, 2645, 2646, 2648 of 1999 and RFA Nos. 1505, 1508, 1509,
1510, 1515 and 1516 of 1999.                                                   G
      2. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of
appeals, all these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this
common Judgment and Order.
      2.1 Vide notification dated 06.06.1988 issued under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the lands owned by      H
792             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A     the original claimants admeasuring 297 Kanals and 1 Marla situated in
      the revenue estate of Jassi Pau Wali, Distt. Bhatinda, Punjab came to be
      acquired for public purpose, namely, establishment of Bhatinda Integrated
      Cooperative Cotton Spinning and Ginning Mills Ltd. (for short, ‘the
      Spinning Mill’). The same was followed by a notification under Section
      6 of the Act on 08.06.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer vide Award
B
      dated 05.10.1989 determined the value of the land at Rs.25,000/- per
      acre and awarded the compensation accordingly. At the instance of the
      land owners the references were made to the Reference Court. Vide
      common Judgment and Award dated 27.02.1999, the Reference Court
      determined the market value of the land at Rs.1,12,000/- per acre. Before
C     the Reference Court it was the case on behalf of the land owners that
      the acquired land is situated just on the main Bhatinda Mansa Road and
      has a very potential value of being used for commercial and residential
      purposes as well as the industrial purposes. Before the Reference Court
      the land owners heavily relied upon the registered Sale Deeds Ex.A.W.6/
      C to Ex. A.W.6/H executed on or about 24.05.1979 at the rate of
D
      Rs.50,000/- per acre. The Reference Court took into account the aforesaid
      sale deed Ex.A.W.6/C to determine the market value of the lands acquired
      and considering the time gap of about 9 years between the date of the
      execution of the aforesaid sale deeds and Section 4 Notification thereby
      granted the increase of 12% in the price of the land per year and applied
E     the cut of 25% and finally determined the value of the land at
      Rs.1,12,000/-per acre and accordingly enhanced the award of
      compensation by common Judgment and Order dated 27.02.1999.
             2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common Judgment
      and Award passed by the Learned Reference Court whereby it enhanced
F     the amount of compensation considering the market value of the land at
      Rs.1,12,000/- per acre, both, the original claimants as well as the Spinning
      Mill preferred the appeals before the High Court. The land owners
      preferred the appeals for enhancement of the compensation. By impugned
      common Judgment and Order the High Court has allowed the appeals
      preferred by the Spinning Mill reducing the amount of compensation and
G     determining the value of acquired land at Rs.88,400/- per acre. The
      High Court also considered the Sale Deed Ex.AW6/C as a base for
      determining the value of the acquired land and also added 12% annual
      increase. However, the High Court imposed the cut of 15% instead of
      25% as adopted by Learned Reference Court. Thus, the appeals
H     preferred by the Spinning Mill came to be partly allowed. Consequently,
   RAMESH KUMAR v. BHATINDA INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE                            793
     COTTON SPINNING MILL AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the appeals preferred by the original land owners which were filed for        A
the enhancement of the compensation came to be dismissed by the High
Court.
       2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common impugned
Judgment passed by the High Court partly allowing the appeals preferred
by the Spinning Mill and dismissing the appeals preferred by the land         B
owners for enhancement of compensation and determining the value of
the acquired land at Rs.88,400/- per acre, the land owners have preferred
the present appeals.
       3. Shri Vinay Mathew, Shri Yadav Narender Singh and Shri Sridhar
Potaraju, Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the appellants –           C
original land owners and Shri Puneet Kansal, Learned Advocate appearing
on behalf of the Respondent – Spinning Mill. At this stage, it is required
to be noted that so far as the Bhatinda Integrated Co-operative Cotton
Spinning & Ginning Mills Ltd. is concerned, it has been ordered to be
wound up and the Liquidator has been appointed and Shri Puneet Kansal,
Learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of Liquidator of the Spinning         D
Mill.
      4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners have
made the following submissions:
      (i)     that both, the Learned Reference Court as well as the High      E
              Court have failed to consider the exemplar being the sale
              deed dated 04.05.1981 by which the land admeasuring 70
              meters away from the acquired land was sold at
              Rs.1,17,600/- per acre. It is submitted that as held by this
              Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot
              and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 432         F
              the highest of the exemplars which is a bona fide transaction
              has to be considered. It is submitted that the said sale deed
              was executed in the year 1981 and considering the time
              given of 7 years the annual increase of 7 years was required
              to be taken;                                                    G
      (ii)    that the High Court has erred in taking annual increase at
              the rate of 12% at the flat rate which would lead to
              anomalous results as opposed to cumulative rate;
      (iii)   it is submitted that exemplar sale deed that was accepted
              by the courts below is dated 24.05.1979 which is more than      H
794               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A                   9 years before the notification of acquisition was made and
                    thus 9 years of cumulative increase has to be applied to the
                    value of the land at Rs.50,000/- per acre. Heavy reliance is
                    placed on the decision of this Court in ONGC Ltd. vs.
                    Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., (2008) 14 SCC 745.
B                   In the aforesaid decision, it is categorically held by this Court
                    that it is logical, practical and appropriate to apply cumulative
                    rate as opposed to flat rate. It is submitted that aforesaid
                    decision has been subsequently followed and/or applied in
                    the case of Ashok Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana
                    and Ors., (2015) 15 SCC 200;
C
            (iv)    that Reference Court as well as the High Court both have
                    erred in adopting cut of 25%/15% of the value towards
                    development. It is submitted that while the Reference Court
                    has adopted cut of 25% of the market price, the High Court
                    deducted 15%. It is submitted that considering the location
D                   and nature of the land that was acquired as well as the
                    purpose for which it was acquired (for commercial purpose
                    for spinning mill) no cut from the market price should have
                    been made and the land owners were entitled to the market
                    price without any cut. It is further submitted that the acquired
E                   land is only 30 acres and the nature of the land is semi
                    urban and the same was adjoining the municipal limits of
                    Bhatinda and it was further found that the area surrounding
                    the acquired land consisted of factories, go-downs,
                    residential houses and the cantonment areas thus no
                    deduction on account of any development charges should
F                   have been made;
            (v)     that the land was acquired for setting up profit making
                    enterprise i.e. cotton spinning mill and therefore, also no
                    deduction should have been made in the price of the
                    exemplar. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court
G                   in the case of Atma Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 2
                    SCC 568.
             4.1 Making the above submissions and further relying the decisions
      of this Court in the cases of Anjani Molu Dessai vs. State of Goa and
      Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 710 and Trishala Jain and Anr. Vs. State of
H
   RAMESH KUMAR v. BHATINDA INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE                             795
     COTTON SPINNING MILL AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Uttaranchal and Anr., (2011) 6 SCC 47, it is prayed to allow the present       A
appeals and enhance the amount of compensation considering the value
of the land of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.
      5. All the appeals are opposed by Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Liquidator of Spinning Mill. It is submitted on behalf of the
Learned Counsel for Liquidator - Spinning Mill that the mill was a Co-         B
operative Society and became operational only in 1992. The mill went
into huge losses because of various factors which resulted in complete
erosion of the capital on account of which the mill was brought into
winding up vide orders dated 09.05.2003. All the land owners have
been paid in full as per the High Court Judgment.
                                                                               C
        5.1 Now so far as reliance placed upon the decision in the case of
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (Supra) by the land owners to apply the
rate of 12% increase cumulatively; it is submitted that the said decision
is distinguishable on facts. It is submitted that in the subsequent decision
in the case of Lal Chand vs. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769, this
Court has held that the Court should, before adopting a standard escalation,   D
satisfy itself that there were no adverse circumstances. It is submitted
in the present case that the State of Punjab was engulfed in militancy
from 1979 onwards till 1992. There was large scale exodus of families
belonging to one particular community from the State on account of
which there were practically no buyers for the land. It is submitted that      E
as such on account of militancy prices had crashed to around
Rs.25,000/- per acre.
        5.2 It is submitted that therefore, even the compensation granted
to the land owners is already on the higher side. It is submitted therefore
in the facts and circumstances of the case the submission on behalf of         F
the land owners that there should not be any deduction at all may not be
accepted.
      5.3 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the Sale Deed dated
04.05.1981, it is submitted that the sale deed was for small portion of
land being 1 Kanal 14 Marlas against 297 Kanal 1 Marla of land and             G
therefore, the same has not been rightly accepted by the Reference
Court as well as the High Court.
      5.4 It is further submitted that even otherwise the cut of 15%
towards development charges does not require any interference as the
land was agricultural (soft soil) acquired for industrial purpose.
                                                                               H
796            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A           5.5 It is submitted that therefore, considering the oral facts and
      circumstances of the case no interference of this Court is called for.
      Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.
            6. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties respectively at length.
             6.1 In the present case the Notification under Section 4 of the Act
B     has been issued on 06.06.1988. The land in question was acquired for
      the public purpose for establishing Bhatinda Integrated Cooperative
      Cotton Spinning and Ginning Mills Ltd. The Land Acquisition Officer,
      Bhatinda awarded the compensation considering the value of the land at
      the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre. The Reference Court relying upon the
C     sale deed dated 24.05.1979 as Ex. AW6/C by which the land admeasuring
      43 kanals 13 marlas out of the acquired land was purchased by Shri
      Sudarshan Kumar and Mrs. Surinder Anand at the rate of Rs.50,000/-
      per acre and thereafter adding 12% per acre and thereafter adopting
      the cut of 25% determined the compensation at Rs.1,12,000/- per acre.
      Thereafter the High Court by the impugned common Judgment and Order
D     has allowed the appeals preferred by the spinning mills and dismissed
      the appeals preferred by the land owners, by determining the value at
      Rs.88,400/- per acre after adopting cut of 15%.
            6.2 Having heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties
      the questions which are posed for consideration of this Court are:
E
            (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Courts
                below have erred in taking annual increase at the rate of 12%
                at the flat rate and not applying the cumulative rate?
            (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High
F                Court has erred in adopting the cut/deduction of 15%, while
                 determining the value of the land acquired?
            6.3 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the land owners
      that while considering the annual increase at the rate of 12%, the High
      Court ought to have applied the cumulative rate and reliance placed
      upon the decision of this Court in Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (Supra)
G
      and in the case of Ashok Kumar (Supra) are concerned, it is true that
      as held by this Court in aforesaid two decisions increase in the market
      value should be at a cumulative rate and not at a flat rate. In the case of
      Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (Supra) in paragraph 18, it is specifically
      observed and held that when market value is sought to be ascertained
H     with reference to transactions which took place before the acquisition,
   RAMESH KUMAR v. BHATINDA INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE                            797
     COTTON SPINNING MILL AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the law adopted is to collect the year to year increase. It is further        A
observed and held that as the percentage of increase is always with
reference to the previous year’s market value, the appropriate method
is to adopt the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate.
However, at the same time it is also observed and held in the said decision
that it is reasonably safe to determine the market value by providing
                                                                              B
appropriate escalation over the approved market value of nearby lands
in the previous years, when relied on sale transactions/acquisitions
precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, i.e., upto 4-5 years.
It is further observed in the said decision in para 15 that beyond that it
may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. In para 15 it is
observed and held as under:                                                   C
      “Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market
      value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market
      value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale
      transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any
      contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable         D
      lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe
      where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the
      subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five
      years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a
      neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is
      only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard             E
      where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market
      value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase
      method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980
      may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years,
      the `rate’ of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change         F
      apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of
      stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very
      standard of increase.
       In the present case both, the Reference Court as well as the High
Court, have determined the value of the land considering the Sale Deed        G
dated 24.05.1979 which is more than 9 years before the notification of
the acquisition. Therefore, considering the observations made by this
Court in para 15 in the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (Supra)
reproduced hereinabove and considering the fact that time gap between
the sale deed relied upon and the date of notification of acquisition is
                                                                              H
798             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A     more than 9 years, the courts below ought to have been very cautious in
      relying upon the Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979. Be that it may and
      assuming that the Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979 was the best evidence
      available to determine the value of land acquired in that case also taking
      annual increase at the rate of 12% is not justified. We are of the opinion
      that, in the facts and circumstances of the case the annual increase/
B
      escalation ought to have been at the rate of 10% maximum. Even
      otherwise, it is required to be noted that State of Punjab suffered due to
      militancy from 1979 onwards till 1992 and because of that the prices
      would have crashed. Therefore, to grant the escalation/price rise at the
      rate of 12% would not be justified at all. After considering the case of
C     Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (Supra), it is observed and held by this
      Court in the case of Lal Chand (Supra) that even if the transaction is 2
      to 3 years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, before adopting a
      standard escalation satisfy itself that there were no adverse
      circumstances. It is further observed and held that the question is
      therefore, necessary before increasing the price with reference to the
D
      old transactions. Therefore, assuming that the appellants are right in
      submitting that the increase in land value should have been adopted on
      cumulative basis, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
      noted hereinabove, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned
      judgment and order passed by the High Court.
E            6.4 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants of
      not taking into consideration the other sale deeds, it is required to be
      noted that those sale deeds are with respect to small portions of land and
      thereafter rightly discarded.
             6.5 Now so far as the deduction at the rate of 15% towards the
F     development charges, it also does not call for any interference of this
      Court considering the fact that the land in question at the relevant time
      was an agricultural land. However, taking into consideration the fact
      that the sale instance dated 24.07.1979 relied upon was a quite big chunk
      of land and the location of the acquired land and the land was acquired
G     for spinning mill, the High Court has rightly adopted 15% cut, which in
      the facts and circumstances of the case is not required to be interfered
      with.
            7. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that though the land
      was acquired in the year 1988, the same was made operational only in
H     the year 1992 and therefore, has gone into liquidation in the year 2003.
   RAMESH KUMAR v. BHATINDA INTEGRATED COOPERATIVE                       799
     COTTON SPINNING MILL AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

The entire amount of compensation as determined by the High Court        A
has been paid.
      We see no reason to interfere with the common Judgment and
Order passed by the High Court. In view of the reasons stated
hereinabove all these appeals fail and deserve to be dismissed. The
appeals are dismissed accordingly.                                       B
      However, no order as to costs.


Ankit Gyan                                          Appeals dismissed.

                                                                         C




                                                                         D




                                                                         E




                                                                         F




                                                                         G




                                                                         H