Case Note & Summary
The case involves appeals against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding compensation for land acquired in Villages Ajronda, Taloribanger, and Daulatabad, Faridabad, Haryana, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notifications under Section 4 were issued on 7th April 1986, 5th June 1992, and 3rd July 1995 for various public purposes including green belt, educational, medical, and residential development. The Collector's awards determined market values at Rs.3,38,800 per acre (1986), Rs.4,50,000 per acre (1992), and Rs.5,85,000 per acre (1995). The Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs.435 per square yard (1986), Rs.392.50 per square yard (1992), and Rs.400-480 per square yard (1995). The High Court, in its initial judgment dated 6th October 2010, fixed compensation at Rs.435 per square yard (1986), Rs.566 per square yard (1992), and Rs.795 per square yard (1995), relying on its earlier decision in State of Haryana v. Escort Dealers Development Association Limited and applying a 50% increase for locational advantage and cumulative annual increases. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the High Court to consider sale instances and other evidence. On remand, the High Court reaffirmed its earlier compensation, considering sale transactions (Exhibits P6-P9, P12-P14) and the judgment in Ashrafi v. State of Haryana, but found them unreliable due to small plot sizes or time gaps. The High Court maintained the cumulative increase method. Both claimants and the State appealed. The Supreme Court, after hearing submissions, found no error in the High Court's approach and dismissed the appeals, upholding the compensation as just and fair.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Market Value - Determination based on comparable sales and potentiality - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's determination of market value for land acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, considering locational advantage and future potential, and applying cumulative increase method for time gap between notifications (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court correctly determined the market value of acquired land based on comparable sales and potentiality, and whether the compensation awarded was just and fair.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment determining compensation at Rs.435 per square yard for the 1986 notification, Rs.566 per square yard for the 1992 notification, and Rs.795 per square yard for the 1995 notification.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation
- Market Value
- Comparable Sales
- Potentiality
- Cumulative Increase
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 2736 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 15098 of 2016) and connected appeals
Balwant Singh (D) through LRs. Gurbinder Singh
The State of Haryana & Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeals against High Court judgment determining compensation for land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Remedy Sought
Claimants sought higher compensation; State sought reduction of compensation.
Filing Reason
Dissatisfaction with the compensation awarded by the High Court for land acquired under three notifications.
Previous Decisions
Collector's awards: Rs.3,38,800 per acre (1986), Rs.4,50,000 per acre (1992), Rs.5,85,000 per acre (1995). Reference Court: Rs.435 per sq yd (1986), Rs.392.50 per sq yd (1992), Rs.400-480 per sq yd (1995). High Court (first judgment): Rs.435 per sq yd (1986), Rs.566 per sq yd (1992), Rs.795 per sq yd (1995). Supreme Court remanded for fresh consideration. High Court (second judgment) reaffirmed same compensation.
Issues
Whether the High Court correctly determined the market value of the acquired land based on comparable sales and potentiality.
Whether the cumulative increase method applied by the High Court was appropriate for determining compensation for land acquired under different notifications.
Submissions/Arguments
Claimants argued that the High Court failed to give proper weight to the potentiality of the land and did not consider comparable sale transactions, and that the cumulative increase method was not properly applied.
State argued that the High Court failed to consider documents produced by the State showing comparable sales at lesser prices, and that the market value arrived at was on the higher side.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court's determination of market value based on locational advantage, potentiality, and cumulative increase method was reasonable and did not warrant interference. The comparable sales relied upon by the claimants were not reliable due to small plot sizes or time gaps, and the State failed to produce additional evidence to justify a lower valuation.
Judgment Excerpts
A Notification was issued on 7th April, 1986 under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of 6.97 acres of land situated in Village Ajronda for the purpose of development and utilization as green belt.
The High Court referred to Exhibit-P6 dated 31st January, 1984 pertaining to the sale of 194.14 square meters (232 square yards) which was sold at a total price of Rs.10,00,000/- i.e. Rs.4306/- per square yard.
In the absence of any other material on record, the High Court was of the opinion that granting increase on an yearly basis for the time gap from 1986 to 1992 was the only way in arriving at a fair and just compensation to be paid for acquisition of the land under the Notification dated 5th June, 1992.
Procedural History
Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 7th April 1986, 5th June 1992, and 3rd July 1995. Collector's awards were passed on 30th March 1989, 2nd June 1995, and 29th June 1998 respectively. Reference Court determined compensation. High Court initially decided on 6th October 2010. Supreme Court remanded for fresh consideration. High Court passed impugned judgment on reconsideration. Appeals filed in Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 18
