Supreme Court of India
RAMESHWAR DASSversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 366
- Decided
- 14 March 2019
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Holding
The High Court's determination of market rates, using the factors of location, quality and distance as affirmed in Hari Singh, is correct and cannot be interfered with; no further enhancement or interest is payable.
Summary
The State of Punjab acquired 14.49 acres of land in nine villages for the Satluj‑Yamuna canal project. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation rates, which were enhanced by the Civil Court and subsequently by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the latter relying on the lead judgment in Hari Singh v. State of Punjab. The appellant, Rameshwar Dass, challenged the High Court's enhancement, seeking a further increase and interest on the compensation. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly determined the market value of the land by considering location, quality, and distance from Chandigarh, and whether any additional enhancement or interest was warranted. It held that the High Court's methodology was sound, there was no ground for further enhancement, and no interest was payable, thereby dismissing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the Punjab & Haryana High Court was justified in enhancing compensation based on the Hari Singh judgment.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to a further increase in compensation beyond the High Court's award.
- Whether interest is payable on the compensation for the period 13 January 2009 to 1 August 2013.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 4, s. 6
Subjects
Land acquisitionCompensationMarket value determinationSpecial Leave PetitionPunjabSatluj‑Yamuna canalInterest on compensation
Judgment
190 [2019]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 4 S.C.R. 190 [2019] 4 S.C.R.
A RAMESHWAR DASS
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(Civil Appeal No. 3024 of 2019)
B MARCH 14, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.5513/14,
Respondent-State acquired the total land measuring around 14.49
C acres (situated in 9 villages) for construction of Satluz-Yamuna canal
– Appellant is the landowner of the land in question, located in the
village Bhago Majra – Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) determined
the compensation – Landowners including the appellant sought
reference to the Civil Court – Civil Court enhanced the rates of the
D land – Landowners including the appellant filed appeal – High
Court enhanced the compensation in view of its decision in Hari
Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Anr. – In C.A.@ SLP(C)
No.17144/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No. 8073/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No.29928/
14 and C.A.@ SLP (C) No.8098/14 also, the appeals were disposed
of by the High Court in view of its decision in Hari Singh’s case – In
E C.A.@ SLP(C) No.6261/14, the appeal filed was dismissed by the
High Court upholding the order of the Civil Court – Application
filed inter alia for enhancing the compensation, which was dismissed
– Held: In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.5513/14, main order was passed by
the High Court in the lead appeal filed by another landowner- Hari
F Singh – Hari Singh’s case also arose out of the same land acquisition
proceedings out of which the present bunch of appeal arises – In
Hari Singh’s case, the High Court threadbare examined the issue of
determination of market rate of the acquired land situated in each
of the 9 villages, keeping in view the quality, location, and the
distance of acquired land from Chandigarh and then worked out
G the rates of the lands situated in each village after giving appropriate
deduction/escalation, as the case may be – High Court’s approach
cannot be faulted with and calls for no interference – High Court
fixed appropriate rates for the lands situated in each of the 9 villages
including Bhago Majra village – No ground to further enhance the
compensation– In view of the order passed in C.A.@ SLP(C)
H
190
RAMESHWAR DASS v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB 191
No.5513/14, the C.A.@ SLP(C) No.17144/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No. A
8073/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No.29928/14 and C.A.@ SLP (C) No.8098/
14 are dismissed – In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.6261/14, appellant entitled
to the same relief as in the case of Hari Singh, but not entitled to
interest for the period 13.01.2009-01.08.2013.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court B
HELD: In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 5513/14
1.1 The main order was passed by the High Court in the
lead appeal filed by another landowner- Hari Singh by which the
High Court partly allowed the other several appeals filed by the
landowners and enhanced the compensation payable to the C
landowners in relation to their land situated in 9 different villages
and, in consequence, dismissed the appeals filed by the State
against the award of the Reference Court. Hari Singh’s case also
arose out of the same land acquisition proceedings out of which
the present bunch of appeal arises. The appeal filed by Hari Singh D
was treated as the lead appeal by the High Court for determining
the market rate of the land situated in 9 villages. By common
judgment, the High Court partly allowed the landowners’ appeals,
enhanced the rate of compensation and in consequence dismissed
the State’s appeals. In Hari Singh’s case, the High Court
threadbare examined the issue of determination of market rate E
of the acquired land situated in each village (total 9) keeping in
view the quality, location, and the distance of acquired land
situated in 9 villages from Chandigarh. [Paras 14-16][195-D-F]
1.2 The High Court took into account all the aspects, such
as location of each village, distance from the city of Chandigarh F
and its quality as was done by the LAO and then worked out the
rates of the lands situated in each village after giving appropriate
deduction/escalation, as the case may be, which varied from 10%,
20% and 25% depending upon the aforementioned factors. The
aforementioned approach of the High Court also examined on G
perusal of the site map cannot be faulted with. It is just and
proper calling for no interference. The High Court fixed
appropriate rates for the lands situated in each of the 9 villages
including Bhago Majra village after taking into account their
location and the potentiality from all angles. Like the appellant,
H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R.
A all other landowners whose land is situated in village Bhago Majra
have also got the compensation at the uniform rate depending
upon the quality of three classes of land. No good ground found
to further enhance the rate of compensation than what has been
enhanced by the High Court. [Paras 14-16, 18, 19, 21-23]
[196-F-H; 197-B, C, F
B
In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.17144 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.
8073 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.29928 of 2014 and C.A.@
S.L.P.(C) No.8098 of 2014
1.3 In view of the order passed in C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.5513/
C 2014, these appeals are also dismissed. [Paras 3]
C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 6261 of 2014
1.4 In view of the order passed in Hari Singh & Ors., which
is affirmed and the compensation has been allowed to all the
landowners of village Bhago Majra at more or less uniform rates,
D this appellant deserves the same relief. Hence, the order dated
20.11.2013 dismissing the application for recall as also the order
dated 01.08.2013 in RFA are set aside. This appellant is also
held entitled to the same relief as allowed in the case of Hari
Singh & Ors. but he shall not be entitled to any interest for the
E period 13.01.2009 to 01.08.2013. [Paras 3]
Hari Singh and others vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
Decision dtd. 01.07.2013 of Punjab & Haryana High
Court in RFA No.953/1994 – referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3024
F of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2013 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No. 1943 of 1996.
WITH
G Civil Appeal Nos. 3028, 3026, 3029, 3027, 3025 of 2019.
Rohit Sharma, Anshul Chowdhary, Atul Agarwal, Rounak Nayak,
O. P. Bhadani, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms.Uttara Babbar, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Advs. for the
Respondent.
H
RAMESHWAR DASS v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB 193
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.5513/2014
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order B
dated 25.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in R.F.A. No.1943 of 1996.
3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is
necessary to set out a few relevant facts hereinbelow.
C
4. The appellant is a landowner of the land in question whereas
the respondent is the State of Punjab. This appeal along with other
connected appeals arises out of determination of the compensation made
by the High Court in relation to the appellant’s land that was acquired in
land acquisition proceedings.
D
5. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the
State (respondent herein) acquired the total land measuring around 14.49
acres on 29.03.1988 for execution of public purpose, namely, “construction
of Satluz-Yamuna canal”. It was followed by publication of declaration
as required under Section 6 of the Act on 03.05.1988. E
6. The acquired land (14.49 acres) is situated in 9 villages,
namely,(1) Jandpur, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (2) Dharak Khurd,
Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (3) Pamour, Tahsil Sirhind, District Patiala;
(4) Majat, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (5) Matran, Tahsil Kharar,
District Ropar; (6) Bhago Majra, Tahsil Kharar, District Roopnagar; (7) F
Siampur, Tahsil Kharar, District Roopnagar; (8) Mataur, Tahsil Mohali,
District Kharar; and (9) Manak Majra, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar.
So far as the appellant’s land is concerned, it is located in the village
Bhago Majra
7. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) under Section 11 of the G
Act initiated the proceedings for determination of compensation payable
to the landowners of the aforementioned 9 villages. So far as the village
of Bhago Majra is concerned, by his award dated 21.08.1990, the LAO
determined the compensation payable to the landowners in relation to
claim of land as under:
H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R.
A
S.No. Class of land Rate per acre
aw arded by the
Land
Acquisition
Officer
B 1. Chahi Rs.55 ,000/-
2. Barani Rs.55 ,000/-
3. G air mumkin Rs.40 ,000/-
8. The landowners including the appellant herein felt aggrieved
by the offer made by the LAO, as mentioned above, sought reference to
C the Civil Court for re-determination of the rate of the compensation in
respect of the acquired land. In relation to the land belonging to the
appellant, the Civil Court by its award dated 17.04.1996 re-determined
the compensation and enhanced the rates of the land as under:
S.No. Class of land Rate per acre
D awarded by
the Reference
Court
1. Chahi Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Barani Rs.75,000/-
E 3. Gair mumkin Rs.55,000/-
9. The landowners including the appellant herein felt aggrieved
by the aforementioned award of the Reference Court and filed appeal in
the High Court.
10. When the matter came up for hearing before the High Court,
F
none appeared for the appellant. The High Court on hearing the State
counsel partly allowed the appeal in favour of the landowner (appellant
herein) in the light of the decision rendered in RFA No. 953 of 1994,
Hari Singh and others vs. State of Punjab & Anr. decided on 01.07.2013
and enhanced the rate of compensation as was determined by the High
G Court in the case of Hari Singh (supra). The impugned order reads as
under:
“No one has appeared for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the State very fairly submitted that the
claim made in the present appeal is squarely covered by
H
RAMESHWAR DASS v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB 195
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
judgment of this Court in RFA No.953 of 1994 Hari Singh A
& Ors. vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. decided on 1.7.2013.
For the reasons recorded in Hari Singh’s case (supra), the
present appeal is disposed of in the same terms.”
11. It is against this order, the appellant (landowner) has felt
aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court. B
12. So, the short question, which arises for consideration in this
appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in partly allowing the
appeal in the light of its earlier order dated 01.07.2013 passed in Hari
Singh and others vs. State of Punjab & Anr. and other connected
appeals (supra) or in other words, whether the appellant (landowner) is C
entitled to claim enhancement in the rate of compensation awarded by
the High Court.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal.
D
14. On perusal of the impugned order quoted above, it is clear
that the main order was passed by the High Court in the lead appeal
filed by another landowner - Hari Singh by which the High Court partly
allowed the other several appeals filed by the landowners and has
enhanced the compensation payable to the landowners in relation to
their land situated in 9 different villages and, in consequence, has dismissed E
the appeals filed by the State against the award of the Reference Court.
15. In other words, Hari Singh’s case (supra) also arose out of
the same land acquisition proceedings out of which the present bunch of
appeal arises. The appeal filed by Hari Singh was treated as the lead
appeal by the High Court for determining the market rate of the land F
situated in 9 villages. By a common judgment dated 01.07.2013, the
High Court partly allowed the landowners’ appeals, enhanced the rate
of compensation and in consequence dismissed the State’s appeals.
16. In Hari Singh’s case (supra), the High Court threadbare
examined the issue of determination of market rate of the acquired land G
situated in each village (total 9) keeping in view the quality, location, and
the distance of acquired land situated in 9 villages from Chandigarh.
The High Court took note of the assessments made in relation to the
lands situated at village Mehmudpur, Tehsil Sottal under the land
acquisition notification dated 18.09.1985 and while providing for
H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R.
A enhancement @ 10% for each year, enhanced the compensation for the
acquisition in question that was made in the year 1988, for the lands
situated at villages Matur, Matran, Siampur and Jandpur to Rs.2,50,000/
- for Chahi with proportionate decrease for Barani and Gair Mumkin
land. As regards the land situated at village Bhago Majra, the High
Court made deduction to the extent of 20% keeping in view the nature
B
of the land, its quality, location and distance from the city of Chandigarh
and accordingly enhanced the rate of compensation as under:
S.No. Class of land Rate per acre
awarded by the
C High Court
1. Chahi Rs.2,00,000/-
2. Barani Rs.1,60,000/-
3. Gair mumkin Rs.1,20,000/-
17. Learned counsel for the appellant (landowner), on the basis
D of the map of the site in question, argued that the land situated in village
Bhago Majra with which we are concerned in these appeals has more
potential as compared to the lands situated in other villages or in any
event, according to learned counsel, it should have been made at par
with the other lands where high rate has been determined. It was urged
that the land situated in Bhago Majra is also near to Mohali and Chandigarh
E
distance-wise and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to claim more
compensation than what has been determined by the High Court in Hari
Singh’s case (supra) or at least the appellant is entitled to claim the
same compensation as has been granted to the landowners of the land
which are situated in other villages.
F
18. We find no merit in this submission. In our view, the High
Court has taken into account all the aspects, such as location of each
village, distance from the city of Chandigarh and its quality as was done
by the LAO and then has worked out the rates of the lands situated in
each village after giving appropriate deduction/escalation, as the case
G may be, which has varied from 10%, 20% and 25% depending upon the
aforementioned factors.
19. In our view, the aforementioned approach of the High Court
which we have also examined on perusal of the site map cannot be
faulted with. It is just and proper calling for no interference.
H
RAMESHWAR DASS v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB 197
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
20. The appellant failed to show that the Courts below did not A
consider any material piece of evidence which had bearing over the
issue in question. Likewise, the appellant was also not able to show that
the High Court committed any fundamental error in determining the market
value of the land situated in 9 villages.
21. On the other hand, we also find that the High Court has fixed B
appropriate rates for the lands situated in each of the 9 villages including
Bhago Majra village after taking into account their location and the
potentiality from all angles.
22. Like the appellant, all other landowners whose land is situated
in village Bhago Majra have also got the compensation at the uniform C
rate depending upon the quality of three classes of land. It is clear from
the following chart indicating the respective rates awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer, Reference Court and the High Court qua the
appellant’s land:
S.No. Class of Rate per Rate per Rate per acre D
land acre acre awarded by
awarded by awarded by the Hi gh
the Land the Court
Acquisition Reference
Officer Court
1 Chahi Rs.55,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
2 Barani Rs.55,000/- Rs.75,000/- Rs.1,60,000/- E
3 Gair Rs.40,000/- Rs.55,000/- Rs.1,20,000/-
Mumkin
23. We are, therefore, unable to find any good ground to further
enhance the rate of compensation than what has been enhanced by the
High Court in the impugned order. F
24. As a consequence of the foregoing discussion, we find no
merit in this appeal. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.17144 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.
8073 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.29928 of 2014 and C.A.@
S.L.P.(C) No.8098 of 2014 G
1. Leave granted.
2. So far these appeals are concerned, these were also disposed
of by the High Court in the light of its earlier order dated 01.07.2013
passed in RFA No.953/1994 Hari Singh and others vs. State of Punjab
H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R.
A & Anr. (supra) except the difference being that in these appeals, the
appellants (landowners) were duly represented before the High Court.
3. In view of the order passed above in C.A.@ S.L.P.(C)
No.5513/2014, these appeals are also dismissed.
C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 6261 of 2014
B
1. Leave granted.
2. So far this appeal is concerned, the appeal was filed and
dismissed by the High Court by the order dated 13.01.2009 whereby the
order passed by the Civil Court came to be upheld. Thereafter, in the
C light of the decision rendered in Hari Singh & Ors.(supra), the appellant
preferred an application for recall on 01.08.2013 with a prayer for
enhancing the compensation. The said application was dismissed on
20.11.2013 on the ground that the appellant neither availed of further
remedy against the order dated 13.01.2009 nor filed application for recall
immediately thereafter.
D
3. In view of the order passed in Hari Singh & Ors.(supra),
which is affirmed hereinabove and the compensation has been allowed
to all the landowners of village Bhago Majra at more or less uniform
rates, this appellant deserves the same relief. Hence, the order dated
20.11.2013 dismissing the application for recall as also the order dated
E 01.08.2013 in RFA are hereby set aside. This appellant is also held entitled
to the same relief as allowed in the case of Hari Singh & Ors.(supra)
but he shall not be entitled to any interest for the period 13.01.2009 to
01.08.2013. The concerned authorities shall take necessary steps
immediately for disbursing the amount of compensation in accordance
F with law.
The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed.
Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of.
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search