Union of India v. Raj Kumar Baghal Singh (SC) BS610177
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- V. Gopala Gowda and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 7314-7365 of 2005 with Civil Appeal No. 77-273 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 613-627 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 5058 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 4683 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 4599 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 5059 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 5237 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 5238 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 4744 of 2006,Civil Appeal No. 8599 of 2014 @ SLP (C) No. 21015 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 8600 of 2014 @ SLP (C) No. 21734 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2007, Civil Appeal No. 3181 of 2007 and Civil Appeal No. 870 of 2007. D/d. 9.9.2014.

Union of India - Appellant

Versus

Raj Kumar Baghal Singh (Dead) through LRs. and others - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Mrs. Anil Katiyar and Mr. D.s. Mahra, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- Dr. Kailash Chand, Mr. Praveen Jain, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Mr. Ajit Kumar Pande, Mr. R.C. Kaushik, Mr. S.K. Sabharwal, Mr. Gagan Gupta and Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocates.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 23 Acquisition of land - Determining of compensation for acquired land on basis of sale transaction - Such transaction be adjacent to acquired land, proximate to the date of acquisition and possessing similar advantage - Comparable sales method is a preferred method over the other methods for determining the compensation.

[Paras 10 and 11]

Cases Referred :-

Basant Kumar v. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 542.

Basavva v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 1996(2) R.R.R 653 : (1996) 6 SCC 640.

Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, 1988(2) R.R.R 136 : (1988) 3 SCC 751.

H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi, 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 186 : (2004) 2 SCC 184.

Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons v. State of Gujarat 1995(3) R.R.R. 283 : (1995) 5 SCC 422.

K.S. Shivadevamma v. Asstt. Commr. and Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 2 SCC 62.

Kasturi v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 278 : (2003) 1 SCC 354.

Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority, 2004(3) RCR (Civil) 3 : (2004) 10 SCC 745.

Land Acquisition Officer v. Nookala Rajamallu, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 293 : (2003) 12 SCC 334 : (2003) 10 Scale 307.

Smt. Indumati Chitaley v. Union of India, (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 219.

Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda, (2010) 5 SCC 708.

Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P., 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 551 : (2003) 10 SCC 525.

V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 496 : (2003) 12 SCC 642.

Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 492 : (2005) 4 SCC 789.

Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, 1988(1) R.R.R 480 : (1988) 2 SCC 150.

JUDGMENT

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - Leave granted in SLPs.

2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a group of matters involving the issue of determination of compensation for the land acquired by the appellant-Union of India in two sets of acquisition.

2A. One of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), in question, was issued on 14th March, 1989 to acquire 72.9375 acres of land in villages Bir Kheri Gujran, District Patiala, for development of military cantonment at Patiala in Punjab. The Collector vide award dated 13th August, 1991, assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of L 2 lakh per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to L 9,05000/- per acre. A learned Single Judge of the High Court reduced the same to L 105.80 per square yard vide order dated 1st April, 1999, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench.

3. In the other set of acquisition, covered by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 16th September, 1988, for the land measuring 498.03, the Collector vide award dated 27th March, 1991, awarded compensation at the rate of L 2 lakh per acre for the land in villages Kheri Gujran and Bir Kheri Gujran and for the land in villages Sher Majra, Haji Majra and Pasiana at the rate of L 1,50,000/- per acre. The Reference Court vide award dated 6th April, 1998 enhanced the compensation to L 2,75,000/- per acre for the land in villages Kheri Gujran and Bir Kheri Gujran. In respect of land in the revenue estate of village Haji Majra, for the land upto 500 meters on Patiala Sangrur Road, compensation was awarded at the same rate but for the rest of the land compensation was awarded at L 2,33,750/- per acre. For villages Pasiana and Sher Majra, the rate awarded was the same as for village Haji Majra. On further appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to L 4,48,159/- per acre which has been affirmed by the Division Bench with slight modification by way of enhancement.

4. Thus, the Division Bench has upheld the view of the learned Single Judge in reducing the compensation from L 9,05,000/- per acre, fixed by the Reference Court, to L 105.80 per square yard fixed by the learned Single Judge in respect of the land covered by notification dated 14th March, 1989 and for the land covered under notification dated 16th September, 1988, the compensation was marginally enhanced to L 4,54,662/- per acre.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the Union of India has preferred these appeals. However, the land owners have accepted the compensation awarded by the Division Bench.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Union of India submitted that enhancement of compensation beyond the award of the Collector by the Reference Court and the High Court was not justified as the sale transactions relied upon by the land owners could not be the basis for fixation of compensation. The said instances were of land nearer to the city which land, being better located, had higher value. It is for this reason that in respect of the land covered by notification dated 14th March, 1989, rate of compensation fixed by the Reference Court was reduced by the High Court. Plea that for taking into small instances cut of 60% should be applied was wrongly disregarded. Thus, methodology followed by the High Court was not appropriate. Reliance has been placed on law laid down in Basant Kumar and ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 542, Smt. Indumati Chitaley v. Union of India and Anr., (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 219 and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda and Ors., (2010) 5 SCC 708. It was further submitted that the sale transactions Exp. P-21 and P-22 have been wrongly relied upon ignoring the objection of the appellant and on that basis the Division Bench erred in enhancing the compensation to L 4,54,662/- per acre in respect of the acquisition covered by notification dated 16th September, 1988.

8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the land owners supported the view taken in the impugned judgment. It was pointed out that the land was located adjacent to the municipal limits near Golf Course and residential area. Its distance was 3 kms. from Phagwara Chowk. The land had potential value for development into residential and commercial area.

9. We have considered the rival submissions. Before considering the merits of the rival contentions, we consider it appropriate to refer to the discussion on the issue by the High Court which is as follows:-

10. It is well settled in determining compensation for acquired land, price paid in a bona fide transaction of sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer is adopted subject to such transaction being adjacent to acquired land, proximate to the date of acquisition and possessing similar advantages. Of course, there are other well known methods of valuation like opinion of experts and yield method. In absence of any evidence of a similar transaction, it is permissible to take into account transaction of nearest land around the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act by making a suitable allowance. There can be no fixed criteria as to what would be the suitable addition or subtraction from the value of the relied upon transaction. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and anr., 1988(2) R.R.R 136 : (1988) 3 SCC 751, this Court summed up the principle as follows:-

Plus factors

Minus factors

1. smallness of size

1. largeness of area

2. proximity to a road

2. situation in the interior at a distance from the road

3. frontage on a road

3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth

4. nearness to developed area

4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up

5. regular shape

5. remoteness from developed locality

6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition

6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser

7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage


Again in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by LRs. v. State of Gujarat, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 492 : (2005) 4 SCC 789, it was observed :-

11. As regards the judgments relied upon by the appellant, the same are distinguishable. In Indumati Chitaley case (supra), it was noticed that the land in question was agricultural land which could not be valued at par with the value of the non-agricultural land as was sought to be claimed on behalf of the appellant. In the said case, unlike the present case, there was no finding that the land had immediate potential for residential/commercial use. In Basant Kumar case (supra), it was observed that while considering an instance of developed land as the basis for determining the value of the agricultural land, one third of the value has to be deducted towards providing amenities like roads, parks, electricity, sewage etc. We have already noted the law laid down by this Court that extent of cut depends on individual fact situations. In Karigowda case (supra), it was observed that the existing potentiality alone has to be taken into consideration while determining the compensation. Remote beneficial factors cannot be made the basis for determining the compensation. It was further observed that comparable sales method is a preferred method over the other methods for determining the compensation. There is no dispute with these propositions but in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to hold that the view taken by the High Court is vitiated by any error of principle propounded in the relied upon judgment or otherwise.

12. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.

13. The appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.

.