Holding

Compensation for the acquired lands must be fixed at Rs 76.55 per square yard, with a 10% deduction for the 1979 notification and a 10% per‑year increase for the 1987 notification, thereby setting aside the High Court's award of Rs 345 per square yard.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined compensation for agricultural lands acquired for Delhi development under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the High Court had awarded Rs 3,45,000 per bigha (Rs 345 per sq yard) for Chilla Saroda Bangar. Relying on its earlier judgments in Karan Singh (1997) and Bali Ram Sharma (2004), the Court held that the appropriate market value is Rs 76.55 per square yard (Rs 76,550 per bigha). It ordered a 10% deduction for lands acquired under the 9 April 1979 notification and a 10% per‑year increase for lands under the 21 July 1987 notification, while confirming the Rs 76.55 rate for the 17 Nov 1980 notification. The Court also noted that the appeals were largely barred by limitation, which influenced the award. All appeals except CA 4204 were allowed in part, modifying the compensation, and CA 4204 was dismissed as abated.

Issues considered

The correct market value/compensation for lands acquired under the 1979, 1980 and 1987 notifications.
Whether the High Court's award of Rs 345 per square yard is consistent with prior Supreme Court precedents.
The effect of limitation periods on the appeals.
The applicability of deductions or increments based on the date of notification.
The binding nature of the Ratan Lal decision on the present case.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 10, s. 18, s. 23, s. 4, s. 9

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationMarket valueSection 4Section 23LimitationDelhi developmentKaran SinghBali Ram SharmaRatan Lal

Judgment

(2009] 9 S.C.R. 705

UNION OF INDIA A
,V.
HARPAT SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2367 of 2006)

MAY 12, 2009 B
[S.8. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

ss. 4 and 23 - Acquisition of agricultural land for C
development of Delhi - Notifications uls 4 issued on
9.4.1979, 17.11.1980 and 21.7.1987 - HELD: Compensation
having been determined by Supreme Court in respect of
lands acquired under Notifications dated 17. 11. 1980 in
respect of three of the villages at Rs. 76. 55 per sq. yard, · D
\ compensation for lands of village in question acquired under
Notification dated 17.11.1980 is also determined at Rs. 76.55
per sq. yard - For lands acquired under Notification dated
9.4.1979, 10% to be deducted from the said amount and that
for lands acquired under Notification dated 21. 7. 1987 E
compensation to be increased by 10% per year.1

A large tract of agricultural lands situate in villages
Chilla Saroda, Gharoli, Kondly and Dallupura was
acquired for development of Delhi, as per Notifications ul
s 4 of the Land Acquistion Act, 1894 issued on 17.11.1980. F
In respect of a few cases Notifications uls 4 were issued
.on 9.4.1979 and 21.7.1987. The Land Acquisition
Collector awarded compensation at the rates of Rs. 8000/
- per bigha to Rs. 90001- per bigha. The reference court
enhanced the compensation to Rs. 23,0001- per bigha for G
the lands of Gharoli village and Rs. 76,550/- per bigha for
the lands of Kondli and Dallupure villages. It, however,
maintained the compensation of Rs. 8000/- per bigha for

705 H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

+
A the lands of village Chilla Saroda Bangar. The High Court
further enhanced the comp.ensation to Rs. 76,550/- per
bigha for the lands of Gharoli village and Rs.3,45,000/- for
the lands of Kondli, Dallupura and Chilla Saroda villages.
The Supreme Court by its judgment in Karam Singh's
s case 1 maintained the compensation ,of Rs. 76,550/- per
bigha as awarded by the High Court for village Gharoli
but reduced the compensation from Rs. 3,45,000/- per
bigha as awarded by the High Corut for landsin villages
Kondli and Dallupura to Rs. 76,550/- per bigha by its
c judgment in Bali Ram Sharma's case 2• The instant appeals
filed by the Union of India are against the judgment of the
High Court awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.
3,45,000/- per bigha for the lands of Village Chilla Saroda
Bangar.
D Disposing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. By reason of the notification a large
number of persons were affected. Most of them,
however, were satisfied with the amount of compensation
E received by them. Only 103 persons filed claim petition
pursuant to the notices issued to them u/ss 9 and 10 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Only five of the said 103
claimants, had filed deeds of sale. The rate at which lands
were sold in terms of the deeds of sale relied upon by
F some of the claimants in support of their claims ranged
from Rs.3376/- to Rs.9970/- per bigha. The transactions
in respect of all those lands indisputably were entered
into after the notification. However, keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of the case and the materials
G brought on record, the Land Acquisition Collector opined
that amount of compensation for the lands in the village

1. Karan Singh & Ors. Union of India (1997) 8 SCC 186.
2. Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Shanna & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC
533.
H
/.
UNION OF INDIA v. HARPAT SINGH & ORS. 707

4 A
in question should be determined at the rate of Rs. 8,0001
- per bigha apart from the other amount payable to the
claimants under the statute. The referenc court did not
interfere with the said award. It was only the High Court
which relying upon Ratan Lal's case interfered therewith
and determined the fair market value at Rs. 345 per square B
yard. Contention that Ratan Lal has attained finality and
no appeal was preferred thereagainst does not appear to
t. be correct. Ratan Lal also came up for consideration
before this Court and disposed of along with Bali Ram
Sharma. [Para 20 and 21] [720-G-H; 721-A-D, F-G] c
1.2. In view of Karan Singh and Bali Ram Sharma, the
minimum amount of compensation which must be paid
should be determined at Rs. 76.55 per square yard. The
High Court proceeded to determine the amount of
compensation not on the basis of the development work 0
carried out in Delhi but in NOIDA as those three villages
are closer to NOIDA. [Para 22 and 23] [722-A-C]

Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India (1997) 8 SCC 186
, and Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma & Ors. E
(2004) 6 sec 533, relied on.

Basant Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1996) 11
sec 542, cited.
1.3. However, it cannot be ignored that some F
construction activities had already started in the village
in question by the ODA itself. Some amenities, ·although
the village might not have been fully developed, like road,
electricity, water, sewerage were there, whereas the lands
situated in Kondli and those others were agricultural G
lands. Therefore, keeping in view its proximity to Delhi,
and as the appellant itself had conceded that the
minimum compensation be calculated at the rate of Rs.
76.55 per sq. yard, interest of justice shall be subserved
~

H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

-J-
A if the market value is raised to 10% thereover.
Correspondingly, the other statutory benefits including
interest must be awarded. [Para 25] [723-F-H]

1.4. It is also considered that the appeals were
8 otherwise barred by limitation and that is one of the
f;actors, which must be placed on record and has
weighed with the Court for determining the
compensation. [Para 26] [724-A]

1.5. In Civil Appeal No. 2371 and 2374 of 2006 where
C notification was issued on 9.4.1979, 10% of the rate of
76.55 per sq. yard shall be deducted whereas in respect
of CA No. 2373 of 2006 where notification has been
iss_ued on 21.7.1987, increase@ 10% per year shall be
granted in preparing the final award. [Para 27] [724-8-C]
D
t 1.6. So far as CA No. 4204 of 2004 is concerned, as
order 24.4.2006 had not been complied with, the legal I
heirs of the original respondent having not been brought
on record, the said appeal must be held to have abated
E and is dismissed accordingly. [Para 28] [724-C-D]

Case Law Reference:

(1997) a sec 186 relied on Para 2
F (2204) 6 sec 533 relied on Para 2

(1996) 11 sec 542 cited Para 13

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
G 2367 of 2006.

·,_From the Judgment & Order dated 12.07.2002 of the Hig'h
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C.M. No. 486 of 2002 in R.F.A.
No. 84 of 1999.

H
UNION OF INDIA v. HARPAT SINGH & ORS. 709
,,
~
WITH A

- C.A. No. 2368, 2369, 2370, 2371, 2373, 2374, 2375of2006
and 4204 of 2004.

S.P. Singh, Mahendra Anand, Krishan Kumar, Rekha
Pandey, Asha Nair, Gargi Khanna, Anil Katiyar, Mohit B
Chaudhary, Om Prakash (for K.L. Mehta & Co.) Vinay Garg,
Oeepam Garg, Jyoti Sharma, Vishnu B. Saharya, Saharya &
j
Co., Suruchii Aggarwal, P.V. Yogeswaran, Rajesh Srivastava,
Raghvendra Pratap and Suresh Kumari for the appearing
parties. c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.8. SINHA, J. 1. Chilla Saroda Bangar is now a pa1rt of
East Delhi. There is another small village in the said area
0
known as Chilla Saroda Khade~. For development of the said
area, several notifications ·1ere issued not only in respect of
the aforementioned two villages but also villages known as
Gharoli, Kondli and Dallupura. Indisputably, lands of all these
villages were subjected to acquisitiop under the Land Acquisition
Act wherefor diverse notifications were issued from 1979 to E
1987. Land Acquisition proceedings were, however, initiated
in respect of different villages separately.

- i'
1 2. Amount of compensation awarded in respect of villages
Kondli, Gharoli and Dallupura were subject matters of some F
decisions before this Court, namely, Karan Singh & Ors. v.
Union of India [(1997) 8 SCC 186] and Delhi Development
Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 533].

Before, however, we advert to the aforementioned
G
decisions and some others, we would like to notice the basic
.-...
,.. details of these cases :

H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A SR. CASE NOS. CAUSE TITLE DATE OF VILLAGE
No.
1. Civil Appeal
No. 2367/06
Union of India
Vs. Harpat Singh
NOTIFICATION
17.11.1980 Chilla
Sa rod a
-
Bangar
B 2. Civil Appeal Union of India 17.11.1980 Chilla
No. 2368/06 Vs. Jatinder Sa rod a
Nath Soni Bangar
3. Civil Appeal Land Acquisition 17.11.1980 Chilla
No. 2369/06 Collector vs. Saroda
c Fehimida Zia & Bangar
Anr.
4. Civil Appeal Union of India & 17.11.1980 Chilla
No. 2370/06 Anr. Vs. Mustaq Saroda
Ahmad Ansari Bangar
D 5. Civil Appeal Sheo Raj (D) by 09.04.1-979 Chill a
No.2371/06 Lrs. Vs. Unior. of Sarod a
India Bangar

6. Civil Appeal Jai Narain Mishra 17.11.1980 Chilla
E No. 2372/06 Vs. State of U.P. Saroda
&Anr. , Bangar
7. Civil Appeal Sheo Raj (D) by 21.7.1987 Chill a
No. 2373/06 Lrs. Vs. Union of Sa rod a
India &Anr. Khader
F
8. Civil Appeal Kartar Singh (D) 09:04;1979 Chill a
No. 2374/06 by Lrs. & Ors. Vs, Sa rod a
Union of India Bangar
9. Civil Appeal Jai Chand Vs. 17.11.1980 Chill a
G No. 2375/06 Union of India . Saroda
Bangar
10. Civil Appeal Union of India Vs. 17.11.1980 Chill a
No. 4204/04 Babu Ram Saroda
Sharma Bangar
H
UNION OF INDIA v. HARPAT SINGH & ORS. 711
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

3.We may furtherm·ore notice that in respect of lands A
situated in village Gharoli, the learned Land Acquisition
Collector awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- per Bigha.

We may also notice the respective dates of the awards
' made by the Land Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court, B
the High Court as also this Court in respect of the
aforementioned four villages in the following comparative chart:
Gharoli Kondli Dallupura Chill a
(Approx Bangar
2600 (Approx.892
Big has Bighas)
c
Section 4 17.11.80 17.11.80 17.11.80 17.11.80
Notification
,
Award Rs.9,000 Rs.8500 Rs.8,500 Rs.8,000
per bigha per bigha per bigha per bigha D

Reference Rs.23,000 Rs.76,550 Rs.76,550 Rs.8,000
Court per bigha per bigha per bigha per bigha

High Court Rs.76,550 Rs.3,45,000 Rs.3,45,000 Rs.3,45,000
per bigha per bigha per bigha per bigha E

Supreme No Reduced to Reduced to
Court increase Rs.76,550/- Rs.76,550/-
[Karan {Delhi {Delhi \

Singh & Developm- Developm-
Ors. Vs. ent Authority ent Author- F
Union of Vs. Bali ity Vs. Bali
India Ram Ram
(1997) Sharma & Sharma &
a sec Ors. - Ors. -
186] (2004) (2004)
G
6 sec 533 6 sec 533
-in view of -in view of
Karan Singh Karan
Vs. Union Singh
bf India Vs. Union
India H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.
--
)_

A 4. In Karan Singh (supra), this Court laid down the legal
+
principles required to be applied in arriving at the market value .;
of acquired land in awarding compensation to the claimants,
stating :

"When a land is compulsorily acquired, what is basically·
B
required to be done for awarding compensation is to arrive
at the market value of the land on the date of the notification
under Section 4 of the Act. The market value of a piece of ~

land for determining compensation under Section 23 of the
Act would be the price at which the vendor and the vendee
c (buyer and seller) are willing to sell or purchase the land.
The consideration in terms of price received for land under
bona fide transaction on the date of notification issued
under Section 4 of the Act or a few days before or after
the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act generally
D shows the market value of the acquired land and the
market value of the acqLired land has to be assessed in F
terms of those transactions. The sale of land on or about
the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act is stated
to be the best piece of evidence for determining the
E market value of the acquired land. Often evidence on
transaction of sale of land on or a few days before the
.....
notification under Section 4 is not available. In the absence
....
F
of such evidence contemporaneous transactions in
respect of lands which had similar advantages and
disadvantages would be a good piece of evidence for
-
determining the market value of the acquired land. In case
the same is not also available, the other transaction of larid
having similar advantages nearer to the date of notification
under Section 4 of the Act would guide in determination
G of the market value of ~cquired land. In the present case, ..,..
in the· absence of evidence of any transaction or sale of ......
land on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of
the Act, the Court would be justified in relying upon the
transaction of sale of land having similar advantages
H nearer to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act
UNION OF INDIA v. HARPAT SINGH & ORS. 713

-•
lllli'
[S.8. SINHA, J.]

which can be taken as a guide for determining the market
value of the acquired land and compensation to be
A

awarded to the claimants. Thus the transaction of sale of
land after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the
.....( Act can guide the court in fixing the market value of the
acquired lands under certain conditions." 8

.._ Opining that a judgment rendered in respect of the lands
similarly situated may be required to be taken into
: consideration as an instance or as one from which the market
value of acquired land could be inferred or deduced, it was held
that:
c
"
.....,r. "It is only the previous judgment of a court or an award
which can be made the basis for assessment of the
market value of the acquired land subject to party relying
on such judgment to adduce evidence for showing that ~o
due regard being given to all attendant facts it ceuld form
the basis for fixing the market value of acquired land."

.. However, it was held that the judgment relied on therein
was not relevant.

In Karan Singh (supra), we have noticed hereinbefore, the
E

High Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 76,500/- per
....... 1 '
bigha which was upheld by this Court .

5. In Bali Ram Sharma (supra), Karan Singh was followed F
noticing that the same set of evidence had been adduced in
both the matters. It was stated:

"5. Having regard to the undisputed facts and the material

.. .,. placed on record and in the light of judgment of this Court
in Karan Singh case it is not possible for us to take a
different view as regards market value of the lands
covered by the same notification issued under Section 4(1)
of the Act. Under these circumstances these appeals are
G

entitled to succeed. They are accordingly allowed and the
H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 9 S.C.R.

A impugned judgments are modified by reducing the amount
of compensation from Rs.345 per sq yard (amounting to
Rs.3,45,000 per big ha) to Rs. 76;550 per big ha. The
impugned judgments stand modified accordingly so far
they concern fixation of market value making it clear th::it
B the respondents are entitled tJ statutory benefits available
under the Act based on the amount of compensation as
modified above."

6. We may also notice that a Division Bench of this Court
in Union of India v. Bedi Ram & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.4404
C and 4403 of 2005 decided on 20.7.2005] disposed of appeals
with respect to villages Dallupura and Kondli following of the
judgment in Bali Ram Shanna (supra).

7:1n Gian Chand & Ors. v. Union of India [CA No.9147 of
D # 1995 disposed of by a judgment and order dated 12.11.2002)
for the lands situated in village Gharoli, a Division Bench of this
Court opined· that the notifications were issued in respect of
clusters of villages .including the village under consideration as
well as village Kondii and allowed compensation at the rate of
E Rs.30,000/- per Bigha. However, in that case, the notification
was issued on 19.8.1976.

8. Mr. S.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
appellant, would contend that the principles governing
computation of compensation for acquisition of land would
F depend upon various factors, namely, the date of notification,
the periodical increases of market value, compensation granted
for acquisition in and around for similar de'(elopment purposes,
similar minimum standard for computing the amount of
compensation required to be applied and nature of the land and
G the year of acquisition. It was on the aforementioned premise,
Mr. Singh would submit that compensation may be determined
following Gicm Chand and Bali Ram Sharma at the rate of
Rs.76.50 per square yard, namely, Rs.76,500/- per Bigha.

H 9. It was furthermore contended that the High Court
UNION OF INDIA v. HARPAT SINGH & ORS. 715
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
l
committed a serious error in so far as it failed to take into A
consideration that out of 103 persons who had filed
applications for reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act only
five persons adduced evidence by exhibiting certain deeds of
sale which were executed after the date of execution and, thus,
were. not relevant. It was, furthermore urged that the deeds of B
lease executed by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
(NOIDA) also could not have been taken into consideration as
the same had been executed in the year 1983 when it was a
developed area.

10. Mr. Mahendra Anand, learned. senior counsel
c
appearing on behalf of respondent, on the other hand, would
urge:

(1) No case has been made out for condonation of
delay. Thus, all the appeals should be dismissed. D

(2) The decisions rendered by this Court in Karan
Singh; Bali Ram Sharma and Gian Chand etc.
cannot be said to have any application as the
village Chilla Saroda Bangar is ne~rer to Delhi
E
whereas those villages adjoin the border of Uttar
Pradesh.
i 11. Drawing our attention to the fact that the High Court
~
for cogent and sufficient reasons, rightly chose not to follow the
decisions in Karan Singh and Bali Ram Sharma and in view F
of the location of the village, vis-a-vis, Gharoli, Kondli and
Dallupura, stating :

"11. In so far as village Gharauli is concerned, as per the
?....
evidence on record and as per the topography and location vis- G
a-vis the revenue estate of Chilla-Saroda-Bangar, it is the last
village on North Eastern side. In between Gharauli and Chilla
Saroda-Bangar are located Dallupura and Kondli. Therefore,
even from distance it is the farthest and in the absence of any
material on record about its comparison to the la_nd of village
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A Chilla Saroda Banger, it may not be appropriate for us to place
reliance upon the decis~on in Karan Singh's case (supra)."
I

12. Only on that ba~is, it was urged that the High Court had
rightly chosen to follow Ratan Lal in preference to Karan Singh
B and Bali Ram Sharma, stating :

"18. The very fact that fact of village Chilla Saroda Bangar,
which was acquired by the same notification in which land
was acquired in Dallupura being adjacent to the said
revenue estate, there being no difference in the location,
C situation, po\lentiality, advantage attached and other allied
relevant factors: there is no reason that why there should
be a departure since we fully agree with the ratio of the
decision in Rattan Lal's case (supra) and for that reason
in Anil Kumar's case (supra). We need not rely upon and
D fall back on the determination of the amount of
compensation of village Gharauli, which is farthest and for
which there is no evidence or material brought on record
by the respondents or material brought on record by the
respondents that lands of village Gharauli were similatly
E situate having similar potentiality. There is positive
evidence on record of the acquired land being similar to
that acquired in villages Dallupura and Kondli.

19. On the basis of the ratio of the decisions
aforementioned, it will not be inappropriate for us to uphold
F favourably consider the appellants claim that since land of
village Dallupura Was just touching the boundaries of
village Chilla-Sar6da-Bangar and the location, situation
and potentiality '6,e'ing same, there is no reason to deprive
the appellants ,0f similar treatment since there was hardly
1

G any differencias regards advantages attached to the land
situate within two revenue estates. There is no material or
evidence brought on record even to contradict the stand
of: the appellants as regards the benefits, which were
available tp the land situate in village Chilla-Saroda-
H 6angar and to the lands of village Dallupura."
UNION OF INDIA v. HARPAT SINGH & ORS. 717
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
13. Drawing our attention to Eicher Plan, it was urged that A
whereas Chilla Saroda Bangar village is adjoining to roads
being nearer to Delhi, Dallupura, Kondli and Gharoli are
situated at a far distant place. It was furthermore submitted that
deeds bf lease executed by NOIDA in the year 1983 in terms
whereof the premium was fixed at Rs.83,640/- for 150 sq. B
meter of land which would roughly be Rs.154.07 per square
meter although were executed in the year 1983 but the
application therefor were, in fact, filed in 1980. Reliance was
also placed upon the deposition of one Vikram Singh. Patwari
of Tehsil Dadri, Uttar Pradesh who had examined himself as c
PW1 wherein he stated that the village is contiguous to revenue
estate of village Nayabans which is in NOIDA and Sector 14,
15 and 15A fell within the limits of Nayabans. Our attention has
further been drawn to the evidence of B.K. Sharma, Assistant
Development Manager, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh who had D
examined himself as PW2 which is in the following terms :
"Plot No.34 in sector No.15-A NOi DA has been allotted to
Smt. Rajinder Kaur as per our record which I have brought.
The said plot was allotted on 10.4.1981. Total cost of the
said plot was Rs.83,270/-. Earnest money of Rs.15,570/- E
was paid by allottee at the time of making the application
on 3.12.80."
.,,
Strong reliance was also placed by Mr. Anand on a
' decisicn of this Court in Basant Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India F
& Ors. [(1996) 11 SCC 542], wherein it was held :

"The learned Judges have adopted the principle that the
entire lands in the village shall be treated as one unit and
the--corripensation shall uniformly be determined on that
.....,.._ basis. The principle is wholly unsustainable in law and G
cannot be a valid ground for determination of
compensation. It is common knowledge that even in the
same village, no two lands command same market value.
The lands abutting the main road or national highway
H
)-

>

718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S,C.R.

A command higher market value and as the location goes
backward, market value of interior land would be less even
for the same kind of land. It is a settled legal position that
the lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value
with similar advantages offer comparable parity of the
'9 value. It is common knowledge that the· lands in the village
spread over the vast extent. In this case, it is seen that land
is ·as vast as admeasuring 1669 bighas, 18 biswas of land .+
in the village. So, all lands cannot and should not be
classified as possess~d of same market value. Burden is
c always on the claimant tctprove the market value and the
court should adopt realistic standards and pragmatic
approach in evaluation of the evidence. No doubt, each
individual had different parcels of the land out of that vast
land. If that principle is accepted~ as propounded by the
High Court, irrespective of the quality of the land, all will
D
be entitled to the same compensation. That principle is not )
the correct approach in law. The doctrine of equality in
I
determination and payment of same compensation for all ,
~

claimants involved in the same notification is not a good
principle acceptable for the aforestated reasons. When ~
E both the lands are proved to be possessed of same
advantages, features etc., then only equal compensation
is permissible."
'!-

14. Mr. Vinay Garg, learned counsel appearing for
I
F respondent in Civil Appeal No.2368 of 2006, would urge tbat
even if Ratan Lal is not followed in these matters, no deduction
should be made as has been done in Bali Ram Sharma as
building activities of ODA had already started in village Chilla
l~

Saroda Bangar whereas the land of village Dallupura had ~
i
G obtained due importance upon coming up of NOIDA as would ,:}-
appear from the award of the Land Acquisition Collector in
respect of Dallupura.
r
15. In respect of land situated in village Kondly, our
attention has further been drawn to an award made in the case
H ·~

~
~
UNION OF INDIA v. HARPAT SINGH & ORS. 719
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
-+
of Bali Ram Sharma for the purpose of showing that therein the A
auction rates had been held to be not the basis for determining
the market value of certain land as the lands in question were
agricultural lands. In the said award also, it was accepted that
the villages are closed to NOIDA. In the said award, it was held:
B
"15. Now the question remains as to which sale instance
of Naida should be taken into consideration P-1 Sh. B.K.
-4 Sharma testified that the land rates in Noida varied
between Rs.120/- per sq. yards to Rs.175/- per sqmtr. This
witness gave land rates of various sectors. The petitioners
in this case have not been able to adduce evidence to
c
show as to which sector is close to their land even
otherwise the petitioners land is on the date of notification
was agricultural one, whereas the land rates of residential
plots are being applied to the land of the petitioners while
assessing the market value of the land of the petitioners. D
This is being so done because of looking at the potentiality
' of the land. Still it is considered expedient to take lqwest
rate as were prevalent of the residential plots in the year
1981 . Ex.A-11, suggests the land rates at the .rate of
Rs.135/- per sqmtr. Where the date of execution of the E
lease deed is 7.8.1981 whereas the lease deed Ex.A-12
indicates the land rates at Rs.175/- per sqmtr. The land
1'' rates of the petitioner's land are to be taken as Rs.135/-
~
per Sqmtr. Of course development charges needs to be
deducted as plots so given by the NOIDA authority to F
lessees were developed one. How much deduction should
be made towards development is answered in AIR 1992
I

SC page 666 and also in the case titled Chander Versus
Union of India in R.F.A. No.240/90 where in both the
judgments 1/3rd of the market price of the land were G
.\,:;_
directed to be deducted towards development of drains,
electricity and other amenities which are in fact to plan
layout for building colonies.

16. On the strength of this judgment 1/3rd of the price of
- . H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

+
- A the land is accordingly deducted whereby market value of
the land of the petitioner would come to Rs.90/- per sqmtr.
Market value of the land of the petitioner is assessed at
Rs.76.55 per sq.yrds. i.e. Rs.76,550/- per bigha. The issue
is decided accordingly."
B
16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent in Civil
Appeal No.4204 of 2004 would furthermore draw our attention
to the proceeding sheet dated 24.4.2006 to contend that
despite orders passed by this Court, legal heirs of the
respondents having not been brought to the record, the appeal
c must be held to have abated.

17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
in Civil Appeal No.2373 of 2006 would contend that village
Chilla Saroda Khader being the subject matter of notification
D dated 21.7.1987, this Court may grant suitable enhancement.

18. Acluster of villages were sought to be acquired for the j

same purpose, namely, development of Delhi. The lands in
question were basically agricultural lands. However, having
regard to the fact that the Delhi Development Authority had
E
sought to acquire the lands in phases beginning from 1976, it .
is possible that in the villages in question, some building
activities had been going on.
y

19. On legal principle, there cannot be any doubt or dispute
F that when the nature of land sought to be acquired is different,
the amount of compensation would be different keeping in view
several factors, namely, the date of notification, the class of land
sought to be acquired whether fully irrigated, number of annual
crops or as to whether it was a land where no cultivation or
G vegetation is done.
.:;f-

20. By reason of the notification a large number of persons
were affected. Most of them, however, were satisfied with the
amount of compensation received by them. Only 103 persons
objected to the,;lmount of compensation granted in their favour
H
UNION OF INDIA v. HARPAT SINGH & ORS. 721
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
-t
and filed claim petition pursuant to the notices issued to them A
under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Only five of the
aforementioned 103 claimants, namely, Ram Lal Dua, Shyam
Parshad Mandal, Dharambir, Naresh Kumar Gupta and Smt.
Praful Chandra had filed deeds of sale. Compensation was
claimed ranging from Rs.25/- to Rs.1,000/- per square yard. B
The rate at which lands were sold in terms of the deeds of sale
relied upon by some of the claimants in support of their claims
• ranged from Rs.3376/- to Rs.9970/- per bigha. The transactions
in respect of ~II those lands indisputably were entered into after
the aforementioned notification. However, keeping in view the c
facts and circumstances of this case and the materials brought
on record, the Land Acquisition Collector opined that amount
of compensation should be determined at the rate of Rs.8,000/
- per bigha apart from the other amount payable to the
claimants under the statute. The learned reference court did not
D
interfere with the said award, stating :
"....
"All the six sale-deeds produced on record go to show that
these are of different dates and the land in the same village
was sold at Rs.8,000/- per bigha as is apparent from the
judgment given by Shri Sahni, para 36 (Ex.R-7) and this E
is an indisputable fact that the said sales pertain to the
almost same period."
~··
21. It is in the aforementioned backdrop of events, the
impugned judgments of the High Court may be considered. F
Indisputably, even in Ratan Lal whereupon reliance has been
placed by the High Court, compensation at the rate of Rs.76.55
paise had been awarded by the reference court. It is only the
High Court which had interfered therewith and determined the
fair market value at Rs.345 per square yard. Contention of the
G
-¥. learned counsel that Ratan Lal has attained finality and no
appeal had been preferred thereagainst does not appear to be
correct. Ratan Lal also came 1:.1p for consideration before this
Court and disposed of along with Bali Ram Sharma (supra).

22. Mr. Singh conce'cled that we may follow Karan Singh H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

+
A and Bali Ram Sharma. In view of Karan Singh and IBali Ram
Sharma, we must proceed on the basis that the minimum
amount of compensation which must be paid should be
determined at Rs. 76.55 p. per square yard. Lands situated in
village Chilla Saroda Bangar and village Chilla Saroda Khader,
B however, appeared to be situated nearer Delhi as compared
to Kondli, Gharoli and Dallupura.

23. Although it may be true that the villages in question are -+-
nearer Delhi as compared to Kondli, Gharoli and Dallupura but,
as noticed hereinbefore, the High Court proceeded to
C determine the amount of compensation not on the basis of the
development work carried out in Delhi but in NOIDA as those_
three villages are closer to NOIDA. The High Court had taken
into consideration the development carried out in NOIDA,
stating:
D
"As pe~ the evidence on -record, village Chilla-Saroda•
Bangar, as on the date of notification under Section 4 of
the Act was contiguous to the revenue estate of village
Nayabans, which is in NOIDA and now comprises of
E Sector Nos. 14, 15 and 15A on one side and MayurVihar
Samachar Apartments, Galaxo Apartments, Parvana
Apartments; Indian Institute of Medical Sciences
Apartments towards Northern side. These colonies had
already come into existence prior to 1980. All
F development work had been completed including laying of
the roads. Village Dallupura was adjoining the revenue
. estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar towards North East.
Revenue estate of Jhilmil Tahirpur wherein were located
industrial and residential areas was in close proximity
towards North Western side with all civic amenities like
G
-electricity, road, transport, sewage, telephone and school -i--
available within revenue estate of Chilla Saroda Bangar
as on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4
of the Act. This topography of village Chilla Saroda Bangar
as is available on the file can also be co-related with the
H
UNION OF INDIA v. HARPAT SINGH & ORS. 723
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
-+ A
Eicher map wherein revenue estate of Chilla Saroda
Bangar is shown located just touching Yamuna Marginal
Band Road, namely, Najafgarh Road."

24. The fact that the lands acquired were capable of being
developed cannot be disputed. But, as indicated hereinbefore,
B
the Division Bench of the High Court proceeded on the basis
that the colonies at NOIDA were already developed, the
development having commenced prior to 1980. The High Court
did not stop there. It proceeded on the basis that the lands
situated in village Dallupura are similar to the lands in question
in respect whereof only in Ratan Lal the fair market value was
c
assessed at Rs.345/- per square yard in terms of a judgment
dated 24.8.2001 since reported in [(2001) 94 DLT 378]. The
High Court, in paragraph 18 of its judgment, found no difference
in the location, situation, potentiality, advantage attached and
other relevant factors between the lands in question and those D
acquired in village Dallupura and furthermore opined that there
t.
was no material or evidence brought on record even to
contradict the stand of the appellant as regards benefits of the
lands situated in village Chilla Saroda Bangar and the lands
of village Dallupura but proceeded to ignore its own judgment E
in Karan Singh and Bali Ram Sharma wherefor no reason was
assigned.

t 25. We, however, cannot ignore the fact that some
' construction activities l1ad already started in the village in F
question by the DOA itself. Some amenities, although the
village might not have been fully developed but road, electricity,
water, sewerage were there, whereas the lands situated in
Kondli and those others were agricultural lands. We, therefore,
are of the opinion that keeping in view its proximity to Delhi,
G
and as the appellant itself had conceded that the minimum
compensation be calculated at the rate of Rs.76.55 per sq. yard,
that the interest of justice shall be subserved if the market value
is raised to 10% thereover. Correspondingly, the other statutory
benefits including interest must be awarded.
H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

t-
A 26. For the aforementioned purpose, we have also taken
into consideration that appeals were otherwise barred by
limitation and that is one of the factors, we must place on
record, had weighed with us for determining the said amount.

27. In Civil Appeal No.2371 and 2374 of 2006 where
B
notification was issued on 9 .4 .1971, 10% of the aforementioned
. amount shall be deducted whereas in respect of CA No.2373
of 2006 where notification has been issued on 21.7.1987, --t--
increase @ 10% per year shall be granted in preparing the final
award.
c
28. So far as CA No.4204 of 2006 is concerned, as order
dated 24.4.2006 had not been complied with, the legal heirs
of the original respondent having not been brought on record,
the said appeal must be held to have abated and is dismissed
D accordingly.

29. All the appeals except C.A. No. 4204 of 2006 are )
allowed in part on the above terms, i.e., paragraph 26, 28 and
29. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, there
shall be no order as to costs.
E
R.P. Appeals disposed of.

--{
I