UDHO DASSversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                         (2010] 8 S.C.R. 900


A                           UDHO DASS
                                   v.
                   STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 3677 of 2010)

                           APRIL 21, 2010
B
        [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]

        Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

C         Acquisition of land for setting up a housing project -
    Compensation - HELD: Once a conclusion is reached that
    there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for
    putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such
    conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land
    had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its
D   market value taking into account the increase in price
    attributable to such building potentiality - If the compensation
    proceedings continued over a period of almost 20 years, as
    in the instant case, the landowner is entitled to say that the
    potential of the land acquired from him must a/so be
E   adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread
    over the period of 20 years, if the evidence so permits, and
    cannot be limited to the near future alone - In the instant
    case, admittedly the land acquired in the year 1990 had great
    potential, and has been completely urbanized as huge
F   residential and commercial complexes had come up in the
    area during the last ten or fifteen years - Thus, the landowners
    are fully entitled to say that the potential of the land acquired
    was not fully recognized by the High Court and the authorities
    below - In the circumstances, compensation@ Rs.2251- per
G   sq. yard, which would come to Rs. 10, 89, 0001- per acre, on the
    basis of the compensation awarded in respect of the
    neighbouring land pertaining to the year 1992, would be
    adequate.

H                                 900
    UDHO DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                 901


     Acquisition of lands for urban/commercial purposes -        A
Compensation - HELD: Though the Act provides for payment
of solatium, interest and the additional amount, but the 12%
per annum increase hardly does justice to such land-owners,
andjudicial notice can be taken that increase in price in such
cases is upto 100% a year - Judicial notice.                     B

    Land of the appellants was acquired for a housing
project, pursuant to the Notification u/s 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in May 1990. The Collector
awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per
acre. The reference court applied the belting method and C
enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,05,000/- and
7,26,000/- per acre (@ Rs.125/- per sq. yard and Rs.1501-
per sq. yard, respectively). The High Court further
enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,53,000/- and
Rs.7,74,400/~ per acre (@ Rs.135/- and Rs.160/- per sq. D
yard).
     In the instant appeals filed by the land-owners, it was
contended for the appellants that the compensation
awarded in the case of the adjoining land pertaining to          E
the acquisition of the year 1992 at the rate of Rs.250/- per
sq. yard should have been made the basis in the instant
case also; and that the High Court as also the authorities
below did not appreciate the full potential of the land,
particularly, in view of the fact that though the
compensation proceedings started in the year 1990, the           F
same were still continuing.
    Allowing the appeals, the Court
     HELD: 1.1. Once a conclusion is reached that there
was the possibility of the acquired land being used for G
putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such
conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired
land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine
its market value taking into account the increase in price
                                                                 H
                 {   ,,
    902      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A   attributable to such building potentiality. [para 15] [911-
    C-D]
        1.2. Admittedly, in the instant case, the land is
    situated within the municipal limits of the district
    headquarters adjoining Delhi and within the National
8   Capital Region. The acquired land is situated on both
    sides of the road. It must also be noticed that enormous
    developments have taken place in the area, as huge
    residential and commercial complexes have came up,
    resulting in enormous increase in the price of the
C   acquired land in the last 15-20 years. [para 14] (909-F-H;
    910-A-D]
        P. Rama Reddi and Others vs. Land Acquisition Officer,
    Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and
0   others 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 584 = (1995) 2 sec 305, relied on.
          Executive Director Vs. Saraf Chandra Bisoi and Another
    (2000) 6 sec 326, held inapplicable.
         1.3. Although, in the present matter, sale instances
E   around or near about the date of Notification of the
    present acquisition are available, yet these cannot justify
    or explain the potential of a particular piece of land on the
    date of acquisition as the potential can be recognized
    only some time in the future and it is open to a landowner
    claimant to contend that the potential can be examined
F
    first at the time of the s.18 reference, the first appeal in
    the High Court or in the Supreme Court in appeal as well.
    The Collectors, as agents of the State Government, are
    extraordinarily chary in awarding compensation and, as
    in the present case, the land owners have had to fight for
G   decades to get their due. The land was notified for
    acquisition in May 1990. The collector rendered his award
    in May 1993 awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The
    reference court by its award dated January 2001
    increased the compensation to Rs.125/- per square yard
H   for the land of the road behind the ECE factory and
   UDHO DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                 903


Rs.150/- per square yard for the land abutting the road        A
which would come to Rs.6,05,000/- and Rs.7,26,000/-,
respectively, for the two pieces of land. This, itself is a
huge increase vis-a-vis the Collector's avyard. The High
Court by its judgment dated 24.9.2007 enhanced the
compensation for the two categories to Rs.135 and 160          B
respectively, making it Rs.6,53,400/- and Rs.7,74,400/-.
This is the compensation which ought to have been
awarded by the Collector at the time of his award on 12th
May 1993. This has, however, come to the land-owners
for the first time as a result of the judgment of the High     c
Court after a full 17 years from the date of Notification u/
s 4 and 14 years from the date of the award of the
Collector on which date the possession of the land must
have been taken from the landowner. [para 17] [911-F-H;
912-A-E]
                                                               D
     1.4. The landowners were entitled to the
compensation fixed by the High Court on the date of the
award of the Collector and had this amount been made
available to them on that date, it would have been
possible for them to rehabilitate their holdings in some       E
other place. This exercise has been defeated for the
simple reason that the payment of compensation has
been spread over almost two decades. In this view of the
matter, a landowner is entitled to say that if the
compensation proceedings continued over a period of            F
almost 20 years, as in the instant case, the potential of
the land acquired from him must also be adjudged
keeping in view the development in the area spread over
the period of 20 years, if the evidence so permits, and
cannot be limited to the near future alone. Therefore, in      G
the circumstances, the appellants were entitled to say that
the potential of the acquired land had not been fully
recognized by the High Court or by the reference court.
However, caution should be taken that this broad
principle would be applicable where the possession of          H
    904    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A the land has been taken pursuant to the proceedings
  under an acquiring Act and not to those cases where land
  is already in possession of the Government and is
  subs.e,quently acquired. [para 17) [912-G-H; 913-A-D]
         1.5. Insofar the land which is to be used for
8
    residential purposes is concerned, a plot away from the
    main road is often of more value, as the noise and the air
    pollution alongside the arterial roads is almost
    unbearable. The belting system in the facts of the present
    case would thus not be permissible. [para 20) [914-D-E]
c
       2. Though the Act also provides for the payment of
  the solatium, interest and an additional amount but it is
  common knowledge that even these payments do not
  keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices and cannot
0 fully compensate for the acquisition of the land and the
  payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12% per
  annum increase which courts have often found to be
  adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to
  those land-owners whose lands have been acquired, as
E judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the increase
  is not 10 or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a
  year for the land which has the potential of being
  urbanized and commercialized such, as in the present
  case. [para 17) [912-D-G]
F      3. Compensation based exclusively on sale
  instances is a factor which creates an extremely grim
  situation. There is wide spread tendency to under value
  sale prices. The provision of Collector's rates has only
  marginally corrected the anomaly, as these rates are also
G abnormally low and do not reflect the true value. The sale
  instances relied upon by the parties do not accurately
  reflect the potential of the acquired land. For the purpose
  of the present case, the award of the High Court in the
  case of the 1992 acquisition of the lands in the
H neighbouring village, granting a sum of Rs.250/- per
    UDHO DASS v: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                905


square yard\as compensation is the minimal proper base. A
Therefore,  a sum of Rs.225/- per square yard, which
would come Rs.10,89,000/- per acre, is awarded, which
would be the adequate compensation in the present
case. For arriving at this figure not only the value of the
land has been computed on the date of the Notification B
u/s 4 but its potential has also been recognized on the
basis of evidence of development in the area around the
acquired lands. It is directed that the landowners will
have all statutory benefits thi'\t they would be entitled to
as a consequence of this order. [para 18, 19, 21 and 23] c
[913-F-H; 914-G-H; 915-C]
                     Case Law Reference:
    1995 (1) SCR 584            relied on           para 10
           .'         .

    (2000) d SCC 326            held inapplicable para 13       D
     CIVIL Af PELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Civil) No. 4571
of 2008.    ·

    From the Judgment and order dated 24.9.2007 of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular First   E
Appeal No. 1991 of 2001 in LAC No. 228 of 1997.

                           WITH

S.L.P.(C) ... CC No. 10008 & 10015 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 10191
of 2008, IA Nos. 1-2 In S.L.P.(C) ... CC No. 10193 of 2009, F
S.L.P.(C) ... CC No. 10239 of 2009, S.L.P.(C) ... CC No. 10350
of 2009, S.L.P.(C) ... CC No. 10429 of 2009, S.L.P.(C) ... CC No.
10431 of 2009, S.L.P.(C) ... CC No. 10521 of 2009, SLP(C) No.
11303-11312 of 2008, SLP(C) No. 12240 of 2010, SLP(C) No ..
1318 of 2010, SLP(C) No. 14151 of 2008, SLP(C) No. 14363 G
of 2009, SLP(C) No. 14514 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 14515 of
2009, SLP(C) No. 14523 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 14946 of 2009,
SLP(C) No. 15007 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 15041 of 2009,
SLP(C) No. 15099 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 15100 of 2009,
SLP(C) No. 15356 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 15593 of 2009, H
    906      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 8 S.C.R.


A   SLP(C) No. 16088 of 2008, SLP(C) No. 16359 of 2008,
    SLP(C) No. 16676 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 16694 of 2009,
    SLP(C) No. 16861 of 2008, SLP(C) No. 17005 of 2009,
    SLP(C) No. 17068 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 17111 of 2008,
    SLP(C) No. 17175 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 17736 of 2008,
B   SLP(C) No. 18107 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 18168 of 2008,
    SLP(C) No. 18314 of 2008, SLP(C) No. 19934 of 2008,
    SLP(C) No. 19938 of 2008, SLP(C) No. 20147 of 2009,
    SLP(C) No. 22751 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 23350 of 2009,
    SLP(C) No. 23357 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 23926 of 2008,
c   SLP(C) No. 31649 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 31689-31701 of 2009,
    SLP(C) No. 31838 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 33116 of 2009,
    SLP(C) No. 35055-35058 of 2009, SLP(C) No. 4663 of 2010,
    SLP(C) No. 5537 of 2008, S.L.P.(C) ... CC No. 6825-6831 of
    2008, S.L.P.(C) ... CC No. 9252 of 2009, S.L.P.(C) ... CC No.
D   9310 of 2009, IA Nos. 1-5 In SLP(C) No, 9743 of 2010, SLP(C)
    No. 9751 of 2008, SLP(C) No. 9977 of 2008.

         P.S. Patwalia, Nirmal Chopra. Shakeel Ahmed, Vivek
    Sharma. Yash Pal Dhingra. Debasis Misra, Chander Shekhar
    Ashri, Dr. Kailash Chand, Nirmal Chopra, Govind Goel, Ambuj
E   Aggarwal, Nitin Singh, C.D. Singh. Naresh Bakshi, M.L.
    Sharma, Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
    Aman Preet Singh Rahi, Ajay Singh, Saswt K. Acharya, Tushar
    Bakshi for the appearing parties.

          The Order of the Court was delivered
F
                                 ORDER

          1. Permission to file SLPs is granted.

          2. Delay condoned in filing substitution applications.
G
          3. Applications for substitution are allowed.

          4. Delay condoned in filing the special leave petitions.

          5. Leave granted.
H
    UDHO DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                   907


      6. Vide Notification dated 17th May, 1990 under Section      A
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called 'The
Act') 162.5 acres of land situated in village Patti Musalmanan
was notified for setting up of a housing project in Sector 12,
Sonepat. This Notification was followed by a declaration under
Section 6 of the Act on 16th May 1991. The Collector rendered      B
his Award on 12th May 1993 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/
- (Rupees two lakhs) per acre as compensation for the entire
land.

     7. Ori a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act to the
Additional District Judge, Sonepat, the compensation was C
enhanced to Rs.125/- per sq. yard for the land behind the E.C.E.
factory situated away and on the left side of the Sonepat
Bahalgarh road and Rs.150/- per square yard on the right side
abutting the aforesaid road. In arriving at these different figures
the Reference Court held that the land on the left side did not D
abut the road and it had therefore less potential value vis-a-vis.
the land on the right side which touched the road.

     8. The High Court in first appeal further enhanced the
compensation from Rs.125/- to Rs.135/- for land on the left side   E
and to Rs.160/- from Rs.150/- on the right side on the principle
applied by the Reference Court. The present set of appeals at
the instance of the landowners have been filed impugning the
judgments of the courts below.

     9. We have gone through the record and have heard the         F
learned counsel for the parties at length.

      10. It has been submitted bv Mr. A.K. Srivastava, the
learned senior counsel in mc.3t of the appeals, that the
appellants were entitled to take the Award for the acquisition G
in village Jamalpur Kalan which pertained to an acquisition of
the year 1992, and which had led to a compensation of Rs.250/
- per square yard, as the basis for the determination of the
compensation in the present case as well as the land of
Jamalpur Kalan had a common boundary with the land acquired H
    908      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A   behind the E.C.E. factory with a small deduction in the price
    as the present acquisition was of the year 1990. In the
    alternative he has submitted that the compensation ought to
    have been settled on the basis of the sale instances exhibits
    P.2 to P.14 which showed a substantial increase yearwise from
B   Rs.300/- per sq. yd in 1984 (Ext. P.2) to Rs. 600/- in 1989 (Ext.
    P.14). He has also submitted that as the land had been notified
    for the purpose of a housing project no distinction could be
    made between the land abutting the main road and that which
    was slightly away and the belting principle applied by the District
c   Judge as well as the High Court was not called for. For this
    argument the learned counsel has placed reliance on P. Rama
    Reddi and Others vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad
    Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and others (1995)
    2 SCC 305. It has also been submitted that though the
D   potentiality of the land had admittedly been noted by the District
    Judge and the High Court but the full potential of land had not
    been appreciated or recognized and as such it was open to
    this Court to reappraise the evidence and to arrive at a fair
    assessment on this aspect, as the compensation proceedings
E   started in the year 1990, were still continuing.

         11. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel for some
    of the other claimants has supplemented the arguments made
    by Mr. Srivastava and has also placed reliance on the award
    in the case of village Jamalpur Kalan. Some of the other
F   counsel have also raised certain issues but as they are
    substantially covered by the submissions noted above we need
    not refer to them.

        12. Mr. Shakil Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing in
G   SLP(C) No. 18312/2008 has further pointed out that the proper
    compensation for the building and trees had not been correctly
    awarded and the compensation under these heads needed to
    be substantially enhanced.

         13. The arguments rais:::d by the learned counsel for the
H   claimants have been controverted by Mr. Govind Goel, the
    UDHO DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                    909


learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary-respondents. He A
has submitted that the Award in the case of Jamalpur Kalan
could not be taken into account for the primary reason that it
pertained to an acquisition of 1992 whereas the present one
was of 1990 and the District Judge as well as the High Court
had fully recognized the potential of the land and had accorded B
compensation on that basis. He has also submitted that the
reliance by the claimants on the sale instances Ext. P.2 to P.14
was misplaced as they pertained to very small areas of one
Biswa (50 sq. yd) and the other sale instances put on record
by the claimants themselves (Ext.p.15 and P.16) pertaining to       c
two sales made on 28th April, 1989 for 4400 square yards at
Rs.120/- per square yard and P .16 for 1600 square yards at
 Rs.122/- per square yard had in fact been accepted by the
 Courts below with a marginal increase towards the potential of
 the acquired land. It has also been submitted that in the light of D
 the fact that these were sale instances pertaining to this very
 village that is Patti Musalmanan there was absolutely no
justification in going to the Award pertaining to Jamalpur Kalan
 for determining the compensation. He has finally submitted that
 belting in the facts of the case was fully justified and in this E
 connection has placed reliance on Executive Director Vs. Sarat
 Chandra Bisoi and Another (2000) 6 SCC 326)

      14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the record. The location of the land in order to
appreciate its potential for the purpose of compensation has        F
first to be understood .. Admittedly, the land is situated within
the municipal limits of Sonepat which is a district headquarter
adjoining Delhi and within the National Capital Region. The
distance between Bahalgarh, a small township on the Grand
Trunk Road, National Highway No.1, built five centuries ago by      G
Sher Shah Suri (and arguably India's most important and
strategic highway and the lifeline between the rest of India and
the north and northwest), and Sonepat is 7 km., as per the
indication on the National Highway itself. The acquired land is
situated on both sides of the road leading from Bahalgarh to        H
    910       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [20101 s s,.c.R.


A Sonepat with some portions touching the road side and some
  portion slightly away and situated behind the ECE factory. It is,
  however, the admitted position and (we have seen the location
  on the maps that have been produced before us) that the land
  behind the ECE factory adjoins the area of village Jamalpur
B Kalan which had been acquired in the year 1992 and which the
  appellants claim should be made the basis for determining
  compensation in the present matter as well. It must also be
  noticed that the enormous development from the Delhi border
  alongside the Grand Trunk Road and well beyond the Bahalgarh
c - Sonepat bifurcation is now a matter for all to see and we have
  seen this on the maps produced in Court as well, as huge
  residential and commercial areas have been developed with
  a mind boggling increase in the price of agricultural land in the
  last 15 or 20 years. While dealing with the question of the
  potential value of the land acquired this Court in P. Rama
0
  Reddy's case (supra) observed that several matters had to
  keep in mind; they being (and we quote),

          "(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or
          the town or village which had been growing in size because
E         of its commercial, industrial, educational. religious or any
          other kind of importance or because of its explosive
          population;

          (ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the
F         buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as
          the case may be;

          (iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for
          occupants of buildings to be put up on that land;

G         (iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using
          th acquired land for building purposes;

          (v) existence of highways, public roads. layouts. of building
          plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or
          close proximity of the acquired land;
H
    UDHO DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                   911


    (vi) benefits or advantages or educational institutions, A
    health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of
    the acquired land which may become available to the
    occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land;

    (vii) and lands around the acquired land or the acquired
                                                                   8
    land itself being in demand for building purposes, to
    specify a few.

     15. The material to be so placed on record or made
available in respect of the said matters and the like, cannot
have the needed evidentary value for concluding that the           C
acquired land being used for building purposes in the
immediate or near future unless the same is supported by
reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances
permit When once a conclusion is reached that there was the
possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up         D
buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would
be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building
potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking
into account the increase in price attributable to such building
potentiality."                                                     E

     16. As already indicated above, these are the broad
factors that we too have kept in mind.

     17. Although, in the present matter, sale instances around
or near abouts the date of Notification of the present acquisition F
are available yet these cannot justify or explain the potential of
a particular piece of land on the date of acquisition as the
potential can be recognized only some time in the future and it
is open to a landowner claimant to contend that the potential
can be examined first at the time of the Section 18 Reference, G
the first Appeal in the High Court or in the Supreme Court in
appeal as well. We must also highlight that Collectors, as agents
of the State Government, are extraordinarily chary in awarding
compensation and the land owners have to fight for decades
before they are able to get their due. We take the present case H
    912     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A   as an example. The land was notified for acquisition in May
    1990. The collector rendered his award in May 1993 awarding
    a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The Reference Court by its
    award dated January 2001 increased the compensation to
    Rs.125 per square yard for the land of the road behind the ECE
B   factory and Rs.150 per square yard for the land abutting the
    road which would come to Rs.6,05,000/- and Rs.7,26,000/-
    respectively for the two pieces of land. This itself is a huge
    increase vis-a-vis the Collector's award. The High Court in First
    Appeal by its judgment of 24th September 2007 enhanced the
c   compensation for the two categories to Rs.135 and 160
    respectively making it Rs.6,53,400/- and Rs.7,74,400/-. In other
    words, this is the compensation which ought to have been
    awarded by the Collector at the time of his award on 12th May
    1993. This has, however, come to the land owner for the first
    time as a result of the judgment of the High Court which is under
0
    challenge in this appeal; in other words, a full 17 years from
    the date of Notification under Section 4 and 14 years from the
    date of the award of the Collector on which date the possession
    of the land must have been taken from the landowner.
    Concededly, the Act also provides for the payment of the
E   solatium, interest and an additional amount but we are of the
    opinion, and it is common knowledge, that even these
    payments do not keep pace with the astronomical rise in prices
    in many parts of India, and most certainly in North India, in the
    land price and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of
F   the land and the payment of the compensation in driblets. The
    12% per annum increase which Courts have often found to be
    adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to those
    land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice
    can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12 or
G   15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land which has
    the potential of being urbanized and commercialized such as
    in the present case. Be that as it may, we must assume that
    the landowners were entitled to the compensation fixed by the
    High Court on the date of the award of the Collector and had
H   this amount been made available to the landowners on that
        UDHO DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                     913


    date, it would have been possible for them to rehabilitate theiL A
    holdings in some other place. This exercise has been defeated
    for the simple reason that the payment of compensation has
    been spread over almost two decades. In this view of the
    matter, we are of the opinion that a landowner is entitled to say
    that if the compensation proceedings continued over a period B
    of almost 20 years as in the present case, the potential of the
    land acquired from him rhust also be adjudged keeping in view
    the development in the area spread over the period of 20 years
                             1




    if the evidence so permits and cannot be limited to the near
    future alone. We, therefore, feel that in the circumstances, the     c
    appellants herein were fully entitled to say that the potential of
    the acquired land had not been fully recognized by the Hign
    Court or by the Reference Court. We must add a word of
    caution here and emphasize that this broad principle would be
    applicable where the possession of the land has _been taken
                                                                       0
    pursuant to proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to
    those cases where land is already in possession of the
    Government and is subsequently acquired.

          1.8. There is another unfortunate aspect which is for all to
    see and to which the Courts turn a Nelson's eye and pretend          E
    as if the problem does not exist. This is a factor which creates
    an extremely grim situation in a case of compensation based
-   exclusively on sale instances. This is the wide spread tendency
    to under value sale prices. The provision of Collector's rates
    has only marginally corrected the anomaly, as these rates are        F
    also abnormally low and do not reflect the true value. Where
    does all this leave a landowner whose land is being
    compulsorily acquired as he has no control over the price on
    which some other landowner sells his property which is often
    the basis for compensation?                                          G

         19. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the above sale
    instances relied upon by the parties do not accurately reflect
    the potential of the acquired land and the award of the High
    Court in the case of Jamalpur Kalan granting a sum of Rs.250/        H
    914      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A   - per square yard as compensation is the minimal proper base.

          20. Mr. Goyal has, however, submitted that the belting
    system ordered by the reference and the High Court was the
    proper one in the circumstances, more particularly as it was well
    known that land alongside the road had more value vis.a.vis.
8
    the land away therefrom. He has, accordingly, submitted that
    the land behind the ECE factory which was not abutting the road
    needed to be given lower compensation. Mr. Goyal's reliance
    on Sarat Chandra's case for this argument is however to no
    avail. In this matter, agricultural land which had no potential for
C   urbanization and commercialization had been acquired and it
    was on that basis, this Court held that the belting system was
    permissible. In the case before us, admittedly the land was
    acquired in the year 1990, had great potential value, and has
    been completely urbanized as huge residential complexes,
D   industrial areas and estates and a huge education city have
    come up in the last ten or fifteen years. Moreover, insofar land
    which is to be used for residential purposes is concerned, a
    plot away from the main road is often of more value, as the
    noise and the air pollution alongside the arterial roads is almost
E   unbearable. It is also significant that the land of Jamalpur Kalan
    was touching the rear side of the ECE factory and the High
    Court had granted compensation of Rs.250/- per square yard
    for the acquisition of the year 1992. We have also seen the site
    plan to satisfy ourselves and find that the land acquired from
F   Jamalpur Kalan and the present land share a common boundary
    behind the ECE factory. The belting system in the facts of the
    present case would thus not be permissible.

          21. We are, therefore, of the opinion as the said award
G   pertained to the year 1992, a sum of Rs.225/- per square yard
    which would come Rs. 10,89000/- per acre would be the
    adequate compensation in the present case and for arriving at
    this figure not only have we computed the value of the land on
    the date of the Notification under Section 4 but have also
    recognized its potential on the basis of evidence of
H
    UDHO DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                  915


development in the area around the Bahalgarh-Sonepat road.       A

     22. Mr. Shakil Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing in
one of the cases has also prayed that compensation for the
building and trees awarded in his case was inadequate and
needed to be enhanced. We are unable to accept this
                                                                 8
submission as there is no evidence with regard to the value of
these buildings and trees.

      23. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these
appeals and award a sum of Rs.225/- per square_ yard as
compensation for the entire acquired land and further direct that C
the appellants will have all statutory benefits that they would be
entitled to as a consequences of this order. We also direct the
respondent State of Haryana or the beneficiaries, as the case
may be, to pay the compensation as enhanced by us by the
end of this year.

R.P.                                        Appeals allowed.