Ranjit Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 7657 of 2012
With
Rehti Devi (D) Thr. LRs. Etc. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7680-7681 of 2012
Prithi Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7691 of 2012
Sat Pal Chopra & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 8924 of 2012
Dalel Ram v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7661 of 2012
Brij Mohan & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7660 of 2012
Devinder Singh Bali v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7675 of 2012
Surinder Kumar Bali v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7676 of 2012
Aruna v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7678 of 2012
Jai Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 7679 of 2012
Gurdip Singh (D) through LRs. v. Haryana State through Collector & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7658-7659 of 2012
Siri Ram & Anr. v. Haryana State through Collector & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7684-7688 of 2012
Harjit Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7662 of 2012
Ujjal Singh (D) through LRs. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7683 of 2012
Jai Singh (dead) through LRs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7689 of 2012
Ram Gopal (D) through LRs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 7690 of 2012
Sumer Chand (D) By LRs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7692 of 2012
Risala (D) By LRs. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7663 of 2012
Raghbir Singh & Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana & Anr. Etc.
Civil Appeal Nos. 250-256 of 2013
Raj Kumar @ Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7385 of 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22324 of 2013]
Ved Prakash (D) through LRs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7386 of 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21298/2014 @ CC No. 12129/2013]
Balwan Singh (D) through LRs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7387 of 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5405 of 2014]
Ranjit Singh (D) through LRs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7388 of 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16788 of 2014]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 05.10.2007 in RFA No. 1255 of 1988 passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh]
With
Rehti Devi (D) Thr. LRs. Etc. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7680-7681 of 2012
Prithi Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7691 of 2012
Sat Pal Chopra & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 8924 of 2012
Dalel Ram v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7661 of 2012
Brij Mohan & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7660 of 2012
Devinder Singh Bali v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7675 of 2012
Surinder Kumar Bali v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7676 of 2012
Aruna v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7678 of 2012
Jai Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 7679 of 2012
Gurdip Singh (D) through LRs. v. Haryana State through Collector & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7658-7659 of 2012
Siri Ram & Anr. v. Haryana State through Collector & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 7684-7688 of 2012
Harjit Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7662 of 2012
Ujjal Singh (D) through LRs. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7683 of 2012
Jai Singh (dead) through LRs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7689 of 2012
Ram Gopal (D) through LRs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 7690 of 2012
Sumer Chand (D) By LRs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7692 of 2012
Risala (D) By LRs. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7663 of 2012
Raghbir Singh & Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana & Anr. Etc.
Civil Appeal Nos. 250-256 of 2013
Raj Kumar @ Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7385 of 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22324 of 2013]
Ved Prakash (D) through LRs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7386 of 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21298/2014 @ CC No. 12129/2013]
Balwan Singh (D) through LRs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7387 of 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5405 of 2014]
Ranjit Singh (D) through LRs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 7388 of 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16788 of 2014]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 05.10.2007 in RFA No. 1255 of 1988 passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh]
Petitioner: Ranjit Singh & Anr.
Respondent: State of Haryana & Ors.
Judges: R.M. Lodha, CJI., J. Chelameswar & A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 31, 2014
Appearances:
Mr. V.K. Jhanji, Mr. D.S. Bali, Senior Advocates, Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Mr. Dinesh Verma, Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari (for Dr. Kailash Chand), Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Mr. M.K. Dua, Mr. Punit Dutt Tyagi, Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Mr. Naveen Kumar Chauhan, Mr. Avneesh Garg, Mr. Abhik Kumar, Mr. Rahul Singh Chauhan, (for Mr. Praveen Swarup), Mr. Mohan Pandey, Mr. Shree Pal Singh, Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Mr. Ajay Singh, Mr. Aribam Guneshwar Sharma, Ms. Arna Das, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik and Mr. S.K. Sabharwal, Advocates with them for the appellants.
Mr. Narender Hooda, Senior AAG, Mr. Vikas Sharan, AAG, Mr. Ankit Swarup, Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advocates with them for the respondents.
Mr. Narender Hooda, Senior AAG, Mr. Vikas Sharan, AAG, Mr. Ankit Swarup, Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advocates with them for the respondents.
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sections 23, 23(IA), 28, 18 – Enhancement of compensation – Scope for – Lands in various Sectors of Karnal – Covered by five different notifications of 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 – Decision in Subhash Chander’s case pertaining to other lands in same sectors under same notifications – Land in Sector 12 Part 1 claimed to be in municipal limits and having better potential – As per Subhash Chander’s case, market value in different years determined – Exemplar of Sale deed of April 1980 relied upon. Held that market value as determined in Subhash Chander’s case be also applied to these lands under respective notifications except that under notification dated 10.02.1983. Further held that annual increase for fraction of a year, as regards land acquired under notification of 1983, would not be just for determination of market value. Value of land acquired in 1983 must have parity with value of land covered by 1982 notification. Market value accordingly fixed.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sections 23, 23(IA), 28, 18 – Enhancement of compensation – Scope for – Lands in various Sectors of Karnal – Covered by five different notifications of 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 – Decision in Subhash Chander’s case pertaining to other lands in same sectors under same notifications – Land in Sector 12 Part 1 claimed to be in municipal limits and having better potential – As per Subhash Chander’s case, market value in different years determined – Exemplar of Sale deed of April 1980 relied upon. Held that market value as determined in Subhash Chander’s case be also applied to these lands under respective notifications except that under notification dated 10.02.1983. Further held that annual increase for fraction of a year, as regards land acquired under notification of 1983, would not be just for determination of market value. Value of land acquired in 1983 must have parity with value of land covered by 1982 notification. Market value accordingly fixed.
Held:
Sale deed (Exhibit P-6) dated 09.04.1980 is for sale of 15 bighas for Gurudwara on G.T. Karnal Road Bypass, at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per bigha, i.e., at the rate of Rs.46.54 per square yard. The acquisition of land pursuant to the notification dated 04.06.1980 is in very close proximity with the sale deed dated 09.04.1980. If that is taken as a comparable exemplar for determination of market value for the land acquired under notification dated 04.06.1980, the market value of the land comes to Rs.46.54 per square yard. However, as per the judgment of this Court in Subhash Chander’s case (supra), the market value in the year 1980 is determined at Rs.58.45. We are satisfied that the market value determined by this Court in Subhash Chander’s case (supra) may be applied to the land acquired under the notifications dated 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982 and 05.07.1982. (Para 12)
As regards, the acquisition of subject lands acquired under the notification dated 10.02.1983. Annual increase for a fraction of a year would not be ordinarily just for determination of the market value. Land under acquisition is a large tract of land and except that the subject land happens to fall in the municipal area, there is not much difference in the potentiality of the land acquired under the notification of 05.07.1982 and the subject lands. Having regard to all these aspects, we are satisfied that market value of the land acquired under the notification dated 10.02.1983 must have parity with the market value of the land acquired under the notification of 05.07.1982. (Para 13)
The market value of the land under the notification dated 04.06.1980 is fixed at Rs.58.45 per square yard, Rs.66.21 per square yard for the land under notification dated 13.03.1981, Rs.76.21 for the land acquired under the notifications dated 22.06.1982, 05.07.1982 and 10.02.1983. We, accordingly, enhance the compensation awarded by the High Court to the above extent. (Para 14)
Cases Reffered:
1.Subhash Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 2187 of 2013] (Para 8)
2.Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin Kumar and Another [JT 2004 (1) SC 344] (Para 12)
JUDGEMENT:
R.M. LODHA, CJI.
1. Delay in filing applications for substitution is condoned.
2. Applications for substitution are allowed.
3. Permission to file special leave petitions is granted.
4. Delay in filing the special leave petitions is condoned.
5. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 22324 of 2013, 5405 of 2014, 16788 of 2014 and S.L.P. (C) @ CC No. 12129 of 2013.
6. In this group of appeals, the question for consideration is whether there is any scope for enhancement of compensation with regard to the subject lands.
7. The subject lands pertain to five different notifications published on 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982, 05.07,1982 and 10.02.1983 and are located in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 Part-I near Karnal bye-pass and so also Karnal Kunjpura Road.
8. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel appearing for many of the appellants heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the group of matters, lead matter being Civil Appeal No.2187 of 2013 arising from Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.17615 of 2008, ‘Subhash Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.’ given on 19.02.2013. They submitted that matter in Subhash Chander’s case (supra) pertains to four notifications dated 04.06.1980 (Sector-6), 13.03.1981 (Sector-3), 22.06.1982 (Sector 9) and 05.07.1982 (Sectors-7 and 8). Most of the subject lands were acquired under the notifications which were under consideration in the matter of Subhash Chander (supra).
9. As regard notification dated 10.02.1983 (Sector 12, Part-I), learned counsel submits that the subject land therein is within the municipal area and has a better potential than the land in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
10. In Subhash Chander’s case (supra), this Court noted the judgment of the High Court to the following extent:
‘In absence of sufficient material of comparable rates, the market price can be determined by periodical increase formula approved by the Apex Court in the case of Sahaswan, District Baduan (supra). If the formula approved by the Apex Court in Shaswan, District Baduan (supra) is to be applied with 1973 year as the base, the market value of the land in the year 1980 comes to Rs.58.45/-, in the year 1981 comes to Rs.66.21/- and in the year 1982 comes to Rs.76.21/-. The land being big chunk, 1/3rd of the development purposes, for roads, parks and public utilities. Therefore, the rate per square yard comes to Rs.39.17/- as on the date of notification dated 4.6.1980 and Rs.44.37/- per square as on the date of notification dated 13.3.1981 and at Rs.51.07/- per square yard as on the dates of notifications dated 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982. Accordingly, the market price of the land under different acquisition notifications is assessed at Rs.39/- per square yard in respect to land acquired for Sector 6 (represented by notification dated 4.6.1980) and Rs.44/- for Sector 3 (represented by the notification dated 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982). These appeals are accordingly allowed with costs and respondents are directed to calculate the compensation for the acquired land at the above rates. The appellants are also entitled to solatium and interest as determined by the Reference Court on the amount determined herein.’
11. As per Subhash Chander’s decision, the market value of the land in the year 1980 was determined at Rs.58.45 per square yard, year 1981 at Rs.66.21 per square yard, and year 1982 at Rs.76.21 per square yard.
12. In the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22324 of 2013, learned counsel for the appellant placed before us a list of dates, which refers to a sale deed (Exhibit P-6) dated 09.04.1980 for sale of 15 bighas for Gurudwara on G.T. Karnal Road Bypass, at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per bigha, i.e, at the rate of Rs.46.54 per square yard. The acquisition of land pursuant to the notification dated 04.06.1980 is in very close proximity with the sale deed dated 09.04.1980. If that is taken as a comparable exemplar for determination of market value for the land acquired under notification dated 04.06.1980, the market value of the land comes to Rs.46.54 per square yard. However, as per the judgment of this Court in Subhash Chander’s case (supra), the market value in the year 1980 is determined at Rs.58.45. It is pertinent to note here that the Single Judge determined the market value of the subject lands by applying the principles laid down by this Court in the case of ‘Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin Kumar and Another [JT 2004 (1) SC 344 : 2004 (2) SCC 283]. He took the exemplar of 1973 as the base and then gave increase of 15% per year and then applied cut of 1/3 rd price for development purposes, roads, parks and public utilities. This Court although maintained the order of the Single Judge insofar as he took the exemplar of 1973 as the base and yearly increase but found no justification for cut for development purposes and such other considerations. Be that as it may, since the State has not chosen to challenge the impugned judgment, we are satisfied that the market value determined by this Court in Subhash Chander’s case (supra) may be applied to the land acquired under the notifications dated 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982 and 05.07.1982. We order accordingly.
13. As regards, the acquisition of subject lands acquired under the notification dated 10.02.1983, Mr. M.K. Dua, learned counsel for the appellants raises two points for appropriate determination of market value, (one) the land acquired has better potential being located in the urban area and (two) the annual increase of 1983 must be given. We are not persuaded by Mr. Dua’s arguments. Coming to the second point first, it may be immediately stated that annual increase for a fraction of a year would not be ordinarily just for determination of the market value. As regards the first point raised by Mr. Dua, suffice it to say that land under acquisition is a large tract of land and except that the subject land happens to fall in the municipal area, there is not much difference in the potentiality of the land acquired under the notification of 05.07.1982 and the subject lands. Having regard to all these aspects, we are satisfied that market value of the land acquired under the notification dated 10.02.1983 must have parity with the market value of the land acquired under the notification of 05.07.1982.
14. Consequently, the market value of the land under the notification dated 04.06.1980 is fixed at Rs.58.45 per square yard, Rs.66.21 per square yard for the land under notification dated 13.03.1981, Rs.76.21 for the land acquired under the notifications dated 22.06.1982, 05.07.1982 and 10.02.1983. We, accordingly, enhance the compensation awarded by the High Court to the above extent.
15. The appellants who have approached this Court beyond one year of the impugned judgment shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay. The appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. The differential amount shall be paid by the respondents to the appellants within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment of this Court.
16. The appeals are allowed as above with no order as to costs.
17. Civil Appeal Nos.7660 of 2012 and 7662 of 2012 are detagged from this group of matters.
********
1. Delay in filing applications for substitution is condoned.
2. Applications for substitution are allowed.
3. Permission to file special leave petitions is granted.
4. Delay in filing the special leave petitions is condoned.
5. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 22324 of 2013, 5405 of 2014, 16788 of 2014 and S.L.P. (C) @ CC No. 12129 of 2013.
6. In this group of appeals, the question for consideration is whether there is any scope for enhancement of compensation with regard to the subject lands.
7. The subject lands pertain to five different notifications published on 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982, 05.07,1982 and 10.02.1983 and are located in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 Part-I near Karnal bye-pass and so also Karnal Kunjpura Road.
8. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel appearing for many of the appellants heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the group of matters, lead matter being Civil Appeal No.2187 of 2013 arising from Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.17615 of 2008, ‘Subhash Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.’ given on 19.02.2013. They submitted that matter in Subhash Chander’s case (supra) pertains to four notifications dated 04.06.1980 (Sector-6), 13.03.1981 (Sector-3), 22.06.1982 (Sector 9) and 05.07.1982 (Sectors-7 and 8). Most of the subject lands were acquired under the notifications which were under consideration in the matter of Subhash Chander (supra).
9. As regard notification dated 10.02.1983 (Sector 12, Part-I), learned counsel submits that the subject land therein is within the municipal area and has a better potential than the land in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
10. In Subhash Chander’s case (supra), this Court noted the judgment of the High Court to the following extent:
‘In absence of sufficient material of comparable rates, the market price can be determined by periodical increase formula approved by the Apex Court in the case of Sahaswan, District Baduan (supra). If the formula approved by the Apex Court in Shaswan, District Baduan (supra) is to be applied with 1973 year as the base, the market value of the land in the year 1980 comes to Rs.58.45/-, in the year 1981 comes to Rs.66.21/- and in the year 1982 comes to Rs.76.21/-. The land being big chunk, 1/3rd of the development purposes, for roads, parks and public utilities. Therefore, the rate per square yard comes to Rs.39.17/- as on the date of notification dated 4.6.1980 and Rs.44.37/- per square as on the date of notification dated 13.3.1981 and at Rs.51.07/- per square yard as on the dates of notifications dated 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982. Accordingly, the market price of the land under different acquisition notifications is assessed at Rs.39/- per square yard in respect to land acquired for Sector 6 (represented by notification dated 4.6.1980) and Rs.44/- for Sector 3 (represented by the notification dated 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982). These appeals are accordingly allowed with costs and respondents are directed to calculate the compensation for the acquired land at the above rates. The appellants are also entitled to solatium and interest as determined by the Reference Court on the amount determined herein.’
11. As per Subhash Chander’s decision, the market value of the land in the year 1980 was determined at Rs.58.45 per square yard, year 1981 at Rs.66.21 per square yard, and year 1982 at Rs.76.21 per square yard.
12. In the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22324 of 2013, learned counsel for the appellant placed before us a list of dates, which refers to a sale deed (Exhibit P-6) dated 09.04.1980 for sale of 15 bighas for Gurudwara on G.T. Karnal Road Bypass, at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per bigha, i.e, at the rate of Rs.46.54 per square yard. The acquisition of land pursuant to the notification dated 04.06.1980 is in very close proximity with the sale deed dated 09.04.1980. If that is taken as a comparable exemplar for determination of market value for the land acquired under notification dated 04.06.1980, the market value of the land comes to Rs.46.54 per square yard. However, as per the judgment of this Court in Subhash Chander’s case (supra), the market value in the year 1980 is determined at Rs.58.45. It is pertinent to note here that the Single Judge determined the market value of the subject lands by applying the principles laid down by this Court in the case of ‘Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin Kumar and Another [JT 2004 (1) SC 344 : 2004 (2) SCC 283]. He took the exemplar of 1973 as the base and then gave increase of 15% per year and then applied cut of 1/3 rd price for development purposes, roads, parks and public utilities. This Court although maintained the order of the Single Judge insofar as he took the exemplar of 1973 as the base and yearly increase but found no justification for cut for development purposes and such other considerations. Be that as it may, since the State has not chosen to challenge the impugned judgment, we are satisfied that the market value determined by this Court in Subhash Chander’s case (supra) may be applied to the land acquired under the notifications dated 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982 and 05.07.1982. We order accordingly.
13. As regards, the acquisition of subject lands acquired under the notification dated 10.02.1983, Mr. M.K. Dua, learned counsel for the appellants raises two points for appropriate determination of market value, (one) the land acquired has better potential being located in the urban area and (two) the annual increase of 1983 must be given. We are not persuaded by Mr. Dua’s arguments. Coming to the second point first, it may be immediately stated that annual increase for a fraction of a year would not be ordinarily just for determination of the market value. As regards the first point raised by Mr. Dua, suffice it to say that land under acquisition is a large tract of land and except that the subject land happens to fall in the municipal area, there is not much difference in the potentiality of the land acquired under the notification of 05.07.1982 and the subject lands. Having regard to all these aspects, we are satisfied that market value of the land acquired under the notification dated 10.02.1983 must have parity with the market value of the land acquired under the notification of 05.07.1982.
14. Consequently, the market value of the land under the notification dated 04.06.1980 is fixed at Rs.58.45 per square yard, Rs.66.21 per square yard for the land under notification dated 13.03.1981, Rs.76.21 for the land acquired under the notifications dated 22.06.1982, 05.07.1982 and 10.02.1983. We, accordingly, enhance the compensation awarded by the High Court to the above extent.
15. The appellants who have approached this Court beyond one year of the impugned judgment shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay. The appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. The differential amount shall be paid by the respondents to the appellants within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment of this Court.
16. The appeals are allowed as above with no order as to costs.
17. Civil Appeal Nos.7660 of 2012 and 7662 of 2012 are detagged from this group of matters.
********
