STATE OF HARYANAversusGURBAX SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS & ANR. ETC.

                    [2008] 7 S.C.R. 1191


                  STATE OF HARYANA                           A
                             v.
     GURBAX SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS & ANR. ETC.
         Civil Appeal Nos. 2461-2465 of 2000
                       MAY 8, 2008
                                                             B
     [ALTAMAS KABIR AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Compensation -
Quantum of - Land acquired from villages Ratgal, Sunderpur
and Palwal forpublic purpose by Notification dated 08.02.1983c
- Award of compensation @ Rs. 40, 0001- per acre for Chahi
land and Rs. 25, 0001- per acre for Gair Mumkin land - Claim
for enhancement by land owners - Additional District Judge
awarding compensation @ Rs. 72, 6001- per acre whereas
Single Judge of High Court enhancing it to Rs. 99, 668 per 0
acre - In appeal, Division Bench of High Court enhancing
12% p.a. for two years and founding off the market value of
land at Rs. 1,25,0001- per acre - Challenge to, by both land
owners and State - Held: Division Bench justified in marginally
increasing the compensation to Rs.1,25,0001- per acre - E
However, it gave a vague finding regarding the distance of the
present lands and the lands which were subject matter of
documents filed before the court - Lands are abutting
Kurukshetra town and can easily be said to be a part and parcel
of the town, having great potential - Division Bench should F
have taken into consideration both the documents while
deciding the market. price - It approached the matter in a
casual way- Thus, that part of the judgment set aside - Matters
remanded to Division Bench of High Court for reconsideration.
     Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 2466-2470 of 2000 are _G
land owners. Their land was acquired for public purpose
in Kurukshetra by a Notification dated 08.02.1983. The
Collector awarded compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre
in respect of Chahi land and Rs. 25,000/- per acre with
                            1191                            H
    1192    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2008] 7 8.C.R.


A regard to Gair Mumkin land was awarded. The Reference
  was filed. The Additional District Judge holding the market
  value of the land being @ of Rs. 15 per sq. yard, awarded
  compensation @ Rs. 72,6000/- per acre. Some of thEi land
  owners were also given additional compensation.
B Aggrieved, appellants filed appeals. The Single Judge 0f
  High Court found the land value being Rs. 20.59 per sq.
  yard and fixed the market value at Rs. 99,668 per acre.
  Aggrieved, appellants filed LPA before the Division Elench
  of High Court. Three land owners filed application for
c permission to enhance claim as also produce additional
  documents consisting of the judgment in RFA No.7of1992
  and award given by District Judge in land acquisition case
  No.22/4 of 1990. These documents were produced along
  with the applications as Annexure A-1 and A-2. The
o Division Bench considered the documents but did not find
  any justification in the claim. It considered the sale deeds
  executed in January and March, 1981 and ordered
  increase of 12% p.a. for two years and rounded off the
  market value of land at Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre. Henc:e the
E present appeals.
         Dismissing the appeals by the State and allowing the
    appeals by the private parties and remanding the matter
    to Division Bench of High Court, the Court
F       HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench marginally incrnased
  the compensation from Rs.99,668/- per acre to Rs.1,25,000/
  - per acre. It merely gave the benefit of the two Sale Deeds
  in a very limited manner by ordering the enhancemt~nt at
  the rate of 12% per annum for two years sinc1e the
G acquisition in this case had taken place in the year 1983
  whereas those sale deeds were of January and March,
  1981. The Division Bench justified this increase by
  observing that there was continuous rise in the pric:es of
  land; that though the two transactions were in resp1ect of
H the small pieces of lands, however, the State did not
     STATE OF HARYANA v. GURBAX SINGH (DEAD) BY           1193
~
                  LRS & ANR. ETC.

    challenge the action of the Single Judge in accepting those A
    sales as a valid basis; that there was no evidence that the
    market value of the land was lesser than the one
    mentioned in the two sale deeds. There is nothing wrong
    in this and, therefore, the appeals filed by the Government
    of Haryana against the marginal increase are dismissed. B
    [Para 7] [1197-D,E,F, 1198-A]
          1.2 The Division Bench vaguely mentioned that the
    present lands are situated at some distance from the lands
    covered in the above judgments. It is only on this basis
    that the Division Bench went on to hold that it would not     c
    be safe to say that the compensation awarded by the
    court would be the correct measure for assessing the
    market value of the land in the present proceedings. Again
    a statement seems to have been made that despite the
    acquisition of lands vide notification dated 29.06.1973 and   D
    11.03.1981 and the fact that the city of Kurukshetra was
    developing, the price of land in the three villages had not
    shown any upward trend. It is on these grounds the claims
    of the appellants were rejected holding that the said
    documents could not be made the basis for deciding the        E
    correct market value of the land in question. This is not
    the right approach. It appears that the application under
    Order 41 Rule 27 seems to have been allowed since the
    Division Bench has specifically referred to those two
    documents in its judgment. It was seen from those             F
    judgments that the land was acquired for establishment
    of an urban estate and was abutting the Pipli-Kurukshetra
    route. It also noted that it was on this land that part of
    town of Kurukshetra was established. The Division Bench
    having considered the documents in question should not        G
    have written the vague finding regarding the distance of
    the land covered in the judgments and the land covered
    by the present proceedings. Further it should not have
    casually observed that the prices of lands in the three
    villages had not showed any upward trend. It would be         H
                                        (
    1194       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 7 S.C.R.


A   better for the Division Bench to apply its mind to the facts
    and figures covered in the aforementioned judgments.
    [Para 9] (1198-G, 1199-A,B,C,D]
        1.3 The lands are abutting the Kurukshetra town and
  can easily be said to be a part and parcel of the
8
  Kurukshetra town, having a great potential. The Division .
  Bench should have taken into consideration both the
  Annexures A-1 and A-2 and then should have decideid the
  question of market price. Looking at the judgment of the
  Division Bench the impression is that the matter has been
C approached rather casually. Therefore, the appeals filed
  by the private appellants. are allowed and the matters are
  remanded to the Division Bench to reconsider the matter
  in the light of the observations made above. The firi;t part
  of the judgment of the Division Bench marginally
D enhancing the market price to Rs.1,25,000/- per acre,
  having been accepted that portion will remain untouched
  in the sense that if so considered appropriate in law, there
  may be only upward revision in the market price. [Paras
  12 and 14] [1201-B,C,E,F]
E
        Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kheda & Anr. v.
  Vasudev Chandrashankar and Anr 1997 (11) SCC 218; Union
  of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and Ors. 2005 (12) SCC 564 -
  relied on.
F       CIVli APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
    2461-2465 of 2000.
       From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.11.1998 of
  the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LP.A.
G Nos. 1213, 1311 & 1312of1988, 1019 & 1020of19BO.
                                 WITH
         Civil Appeal Nos. 2467, 2466, 2468, 2469 & 2470 of           ,...
    2000.
H          June Chaudhary, Manjit Singh, T.V. George, Om Pal Singh
 STATE OF HARYANA v. GURBAX SINGH (DEAD) BY                  1195
      LRS & ANR.·ETC. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

tanwar, Monohar Singh Bakshi, Oebasis Mishra, Balbir Singh           A
Gupta, Anil Kumar Baksh·i and Rakesh Kumar for the Appearing
Parties.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This Judgment will dispose of            B
Civil Appeal Nos.2461-2465 of 2000 filed by the State of
Haryana as also the other Civil Appeals being Civil Appeal
Nos.2466/2000, Civil Appeal No.2467/2000, Civil Appeal
No.2468/2000, Civil Appeal No.2469/2000 and Civil Appeal
No.2470/2000 which have been filed by the private parties            c
against the State of Haryana complaining against the impugned
judgment dated 5th November, 1998 passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
      2. The subject matter in all the appeals is common, i.e.,
quantum of compensation payable for the lands acquired from          D
Villages Ratgal, Sunderpur and Palwal.Tr,a total land which was
acquired was 185 Kanals 13 Marlas. The appellants in Civil
Appeal Nos.2466 to. 2470 of 2000 are the land owners. The
land was acquired for the public purpose of establishing
GovemmentAyurvedic College and Pharmacy at Kurukshetra.              E
Section 4 Notific.ation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was issued on 8th February,
1983 while notification under Section 6 was published on 11th
May, 1983. The Award was announced by the Collector on
30th March, 1984 who assessed the compensation at the rate           F
of Rs.40,000/- per acre in respect of "Chahi" land and
Rs.25,000/- per acre with regard to "Ghair Mum kin" land. The
land owners a,pplied for a Reference under Section 18 of the
Act. The Reference was accordingly placed before the
Additional District Judge who passed his Award on 27th               G·
February, 1985 and held that the market value should have
been at the rate of Rs.15 per square yard. Thus the
compensation at the rate of Rs.72,600/- per acre was awarded
by the Additional District Judge besides the statutory benefits.
Some of the land owners were given additional compensation           H
    1196      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2008] 7 S.C.R.


A   at the rate of 25% in respect of their unacquired land on account
    of severance caused by acquisition. Not satisfied with the
    Award, the land ownersfiled appeals before the ~gh Court of
    Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
B         3. The learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 25th
    May, 1988 found that the value of the land was Rs.20.59 per
    square yard and accordingly fixed the market value at Rs.99,668i
    - per acre. Further appeals.were filed before the Division Bemch
    by the land owners.
c       4. In all five Letter Patent Appeals came to be filed
  before the Division Bench. Three land owners preferred
  applications (in the Judgment in RFA No. 7 of 1982) for
  permission to enhance the claim as also to produce
  additional evidence and the Award given by the District Judge
D in Land Acquisition Case No.22/4 of 1990. These documents
  were produced along with applications as Annexures A-'I and
  A-2. The Division Bench considered both the documents,
  however, it did not find any justification for the claim made on
  behalf of the land owners. It, however, considered the two Sale
E deeds executed in January and March, 1981, which were on
  record. It was noted that there was no evidence to suggest that
  the market value of the land was less than the one evidenced in
  the two sale deeds. Therefore, the Division Bench ordered an
  increase of 12% per annum for a period of two years and
F rounded off the market value of the land at Rs.1,25,000/- per
  acre. The other benefits granted by the learned Single .Judge
  were also maintained.
      5. Now the Government of Haryana as also the private
  appellants have come up before us by way of the present
G appeals.
       6. We must first consider the appeals filed by the
                                                                        ,__.
  Government of Haryana but before that we must note that though
  the learned Single Judge has enhanced the compensation
H payable to the land owners from Rs.72,600/- per acre to
       STATE OF HARYANA v. GURBAX SINGH (DEAD) BY                 1197
            LRS & ANR. ETC. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

      Rs.99,668/- per acre, the Government of Haryana had ac9epted A
      that judgment and did not file any Letters Patent Appeal a~~il}st
      the same. The learned Single Judge had noted and taken--.fnto
      consideration Exhibits P-8 to P-16 being the Sale Deeds,
      Exhibit P-17 which was an advertisement issued by HUDA
      regarding allotment of plots, Exhibits P-28, P-29, R-1, R-2 and B
      R-3 which were the mutations in respect of different pieces of
      lands in the three villages as also Exhibit P-30 which was the
      Award dated 81h August, 1984 given by the Additional District
      Judge, Kurukshetra in respect of the land which was acquired
      vide notification dated 24.11.1978. Thus it has to be said that      c
      the Government of Haryana did not have any objection regarding
      the market value awarded by the learned Single Judge at .
      Rs.99,668/- per acre.
             7. The Division Bench has only marginally increased the
      compensation from Rs.99,668/- per acre to Rs.1,25,000/- per          D
      acre. The Divisio:-. Bench has merely given the benefit of t:1e
      two' Sale Deeds being Exhibits P-8 and P-9 in a very limited
      manner by ordering the enhancement at the rate of 12% per
      annum for two years since the acquisition in this case had taken·
      place in the year 1983 whereas those sale deeds were of              E
      January and March, 1981. We do not find anything wrong in this
      approach. The Division Bench has also justified this increase
      by observing that there was continuous rise in the prices of land.
      It has further justified that though the two transactions were in
      respect of the small pieces of lands, however, the State had not     F
      challenged the action of the learned Single Judge in accepting
      those sales as a valid basis. It has also further observed that
      there was no evidence that the market value of the land was
      lesser than the one mentioned in the two sale deeds. All that the
      Division Bench, however, did ,was to marginally increase the         G
      quantum of compensation by adding 12% per annum for a
...   period of two years and doing so, the Division Bench rounded
      off the market value for the year 1983 at Rs.1,25,000/-. We do
      not find anything wrong in this and, therefore, the appeals filed
      by the Government of Haryana (Civil Appeal Nos.2461-2465 of          H
        1198     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 7 S.C.R.


    A   2000) against this rnarginal increase would have to be
        dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. However, the
        matters do not stop here.

            8. The land owners - appellants have, however, filed the
    B appeals as they are not satisfied with the marginal increase
      ordered by the Division Bench. In fact it is suggested in the
      judgment that in LPA Nos.1213, 1311 and 1312 of 1988, ).e ..
      the LPAs filed by the land owners, an application was filed for
      permission to enhance the claim and to produce additional
      documents consisting of the judgment in RFA No.7of1!392 and
    C the Award given by the District Judge.in Land Acquisition Case
      No.22/4 of 1990. The two documents were filed as Annexures
      A-1 and A-2 with an application. Relying on those judgments it
      was pointed out that the concerned land was close to the Judicial
      Complex and the official residence of Deputy Commissioner
.   D and the Senior Superintendent of Police. A look at the judgment
      suggests that higher compensation was awarded in the two
      orders, th,e copies of which were produced by way of additional
      evidence. It appears that the said application which was under
      the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 seems to have been allowed
    E since the Division Bench has specifically referred to those two
      documents in its judgment. It was seen from those jud~1ments
      that the land therein was acquired for establishment of an urban
      estate and was abutting the Pipli-Kurukshetra route. The
      Division Bench also noted that it was on this land that part of
    F town of Kurukshe.tra was established. The acquisition process
      with regard to this land was completed in 1973, much earlier
      than the present land acquisition proceedings So also the land
      which was the subject matter of Award being Annexure A-2 was
      acquired in the year 1981. This acquisition was for the
    G development of a City Centre.
            9. The Division· Bench has merely vaguely mentioned that
      the present lands are situated at some distance from the· lands     •
      covered in L e above judgments. It is only on this basis that the
    H Division Bench went on to hold that it would not be safe to say
  STATE OF HARYANA v. GURBAX SINGH (DEAD) BY                   1199
    . LRS & ANR. ETC. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.J

   that the compensation awarded by the court wou Id be the correct A
   measure for assessing the market value of the land in the present
   proceedings. Again a statement seems to have been made that ·
  despite the acquisition of lands vide notification dated 29th June,
   1973 and 11th March, 1981 and the .fact that the city of
   Kurukshetra was developing, the price ofland in the thi"ee B
  villages had not shown any upward trend. It is on these grounds
  that the claims made on behalf of the appellants were rejected
  holding that the said documents could not be made the basis
. for deciding the correct market value of the land in question. In
  our opinion this is notthe right approach. The Division Bench c
  having allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 and
  having considered the documents in question should not have
  written the vague finding regarding the distance of the land
  covered in the judgments and the land covered by the present
  proceedings. Further the Division Bench should not have . o
  casually observed that the prices of lands in the three villages
  had not showed any upward trend. We do not wish to comment
 on these aspects as, in our opinion, it would be better for the
  Division Bench to apply its mind to the facts and figures covered
  in the aforementioned judgments.                                    E
      10. It has been held by this Court in Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Kheda & Anr. v. Vasudev Chandrashankar
& Anr. [(1997) 11 sec 218] that the earlier Awards which were
passed prior to about 8 years would provide a reasonable base
for.arriving at the correct market value. In the reported decision F
in the earlier Award Rs.2100/- per acre was heh;l to be the proper
market value, while in the subsequent Award in question, the
market VC\lue was increased to Rs.2500/- per acre. This Court ·.
approved of the increase by observing that the lands in question
were situated in the ,same village, though on different survey G
numbers, Some   ·o of the claimants. are. . the claimants in the earlier
acquisition as well. The Court observed: ·
      " ... It is now well settled leg?I position that the· award oftlie
      reference court relating to the same villageofthe similar H
    1200       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 7 S.C.R


A          land possessed of same quality of land and potential offers
           a comparable base for determination of the compensation.
           The reference court also noted in paras 18 and 19 the
           similarities of the lands under acquisitioOn and that they
           were covered by Ex.43. No doubt, the lands under
B          acquisition are situated out the outskirts of the village. In
           the absence of any tangible material brought on riecord,
           as regards the distinctive features of differentiation
           between the quality of the land situated, the land, sCJbject
           matter of Ex.43 and the lands under acquisition Ex.48, it
c          is difficult to find out whether the reference court has
           applied any wrong principle of law in det3rmination of the
           compensation .... "

          11. In an another decision of this Court in Union of India
    v. Harinder Pal Singh & Others [(2005) 12 SCC 564] where
D   one of us (Altamas Kabir, J.) was a party. This Court while
    confirming :.he judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
    observed:
           " ... From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears
E          to us that while the lands in question are situated in five
           different villages, they can be consolidated into one single
           unit with little to choose between one stretch of land and
           another. The entire area is in a stage of development and
           the different villages are capable of being developed in
           the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu
F
           Pur where the market value of the acquired land was fixed
           at a uniform rate of Rs.40,000 per acre."
        This Court in para 13 of the above judgment took note of
  the contentions raised on behalf of the claimants that all the lands
G involved in the acquisition proceedings had similar potential for
  commercial exploitation and could be consolidated into a single
  unit where the process of development and improvement had
  already commenced. It was also noted that there were seve~ral
  mills and factories along with the residential accommodation
H which had come up in the area and there was little to differentiate
     STATE OF HARYANA v. GURBAX SINGH (DEAD) BY                 1201
          LRS & ANR ETC. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

    between the lands comprised in either village Kathania or A
    Village Hamidpur and those comprised in the adjacent village
    of Kala Ghanu Pur, they were equally well connected by
    arterial roads. The Court, therefore, declined to interfere with
    the Award.
                                                                      B
          12. In our opinion, practically the abovesaid consideration
    could be applied to the lands in question. The lands are abutting
    the Kurukshetra town and can easily be said to be a part and
    parcel of the Kurukshetra town, having a great potential. In our
    opinion, the Division Bench should have taken into consideration
    both the Annexures A-1 and A-2 and then should have decided         c
    the question of market price. Looking at the judgment of the
    Division Bench we get the impression that the matter has been
    approached rather casually.
          13. Learned counsel took us through the above two             D
t
    Annexures but we are deliberately not making any comments
    thereupon as, in our opinion, it would oe better for the Division
    Bench to reconsider the matter in the light of what has been
    stated above.
           14. In the above backdrop we allow Civil Appeal Nos.2466, E
    2467, 2468, 2469 and 2470 of 2000 filed by the private
    appellants and direct remand of the matters to the Division Bench
    to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made
    above. Needless to mention that since we have accepted the
    first part of the judgment of the Division Bench marginally F
    enhancing the market price to Rs.1,25,000/- per acre, that portion
    will remain untouched in the sense that if so considered
    appropriate in law, there may be only upward revision in the
    market price. We accordingly set aside the judgment to the
    extent that we have indicated above and remand the matter G
    for fresh consideration to the Division Bench. Since the matter
    has become very old, it would be desirable if the matter is
    decided as early as possible, preferably within nine months
    from the date the petitions are presented before the Division
    Bench.                                                             H
    1202     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 7 S.C.R.


A      15. In the result Civil Appeal Nos.2461-2465 of 2000 filed
  by the State of Haryana are dismissed and Civil Appeal
  Nos.2466, 2467, 2468, 2469 and 2470 of 2000 are allowed
  and remanded back to the Division Bench of the Punjab and
  Haryana High Court for fresh consideration. Under the
B circumstances we desist from ordering any costs.
    N.J.        Civil Appeal Nos. 2461-2465 of 2000 dismissed
                        and Civil Appeal Nos. 2466, 2467, 2468,
                                2469 and 2470 of 2000 allowed.