http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5355 of 2006

PETITIONER: GAFAR  & ORS

RESPONDENT: MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/08/2007

BENCH: P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  WITH

[Civil Appeal Nos. 5356-81, 5383, 5390, 5392, 5393, 5396,  5398, 5399, 5400-11, 5413-16, 5418, 5420, 5422-25, 5427,  5430, 5431, 5433-35, 5437-43, 5447, 5449-51, 5453, 5454,  5456, 5458-91, 5497, 5498, 5503, 5505, 5509, 5510, 5512- 22, 5524, 5527, 5531, 5532, 5534-68, 5630, 5575, 5577-83,  5585-90 of 2006]

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

1.              These appeals involve the correctness of the  determination of the compensation payable to the land  owners in acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act at the  instance of the Moradabad Development Authority in respect  of the lands comprised in three villages, Harthala,  Mukkarrabpur and Sonakpur.  The Notification under  Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of most of the lands in  Harthala village was issued in the month of March, 1990 and  in respect of one block of lands on 13.9.1991.  The Land  Acquisition Officer while passing the award determined the  compensation at Rs. 80 per square meter.  This was  enhanced to Rs. 270 per square meter on references made  under Section 18 of the Act.  On appeals, the High Court set  aside the enhancement given by the Reference Court and  restored the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer.   Feeling aggrieved thereby, the land owners have come up  with most of these appeals.   

2.              In respect of village Mukkarrabpur, the  Notifications were dated 18.9.1982, 18.7.1984 and  16.8.1991. Under Awards, Rs.17.05, Rs.117/-, Rs.170/- and  Rs.92.59 per square meter were awarded, which were  enhanced to Rs.192/-, Rs.350/- and Rs. 350 per square  meter by the Reference Court.  The High Court set aside the  awards of the Reference Court and restored the awards of the  Collector.  Hence, the appeals relating to the acquisition of  land in village Mukkarrabpur by some of the land owners.  

3.              In respect of village Sonakpur, the Notifications  were dated 4.5.1982 and 13.3.1990.  In the Award, lands  valued at Rs.11.59 and Rs.22 per square meter were  respectively awarded.  These were enhanced to Rs.290 and to  between Rs.350 to Rs.390 per square meter by the Reference  Court.  On appeal, the decision of the Reference Court was  set aside and the awards of the Collector were restored.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

Hence, those appeals by land owners relating to the lands in  village Sonakpur.  

4.              We shall first deal with the appeals relating to  acquisitions of lands in village Harthala.  In respect of these  lands, as noticed, the award was at the rate of Rs.80 per  square meter and the same was enhanced to Rs. 270 per  square meter by the Reference Court.  Taking the view that  the claimants have not established a case for enhancement  of compensation from that awarded by the Land Acquisition  Officer, and that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer  was itself at a higher rate than justified, the High Court set  aside the decision of the Reference Court and restored the  award made by the Land Acquisition Officer observing that in  view of Section 25 of the Act, the State could not seek a  reduction of the compensation below that awarded by the  Awarding Officer.  While passing the award, the Awarding  Officer scrutinised the various sale deeds from the concerned  Sub-Registry covering a period of three years upto the date of  the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act.  It was found  that 19 sale deeds have been registered in respect of lands in  that area.  Of these, the sales were mostly in acres and not  in square yards or square meters.  In other words, the prices  were reckoned on the basis of acres and not on the basis of  square meters.  The Awarding Officer found that the per  square meter rate in 12 sale deeds were very less.  Giving the  reason that they relate to lands located at a distance, but  without specifying how distant, the Land Acquisition Officer  brushed aside these sale deeds on the ground that the lands  were situated at quite a far distance from the acquired lands.    Regarding certain other sale deeds which were proximate to  the date of notification, the Awarding Officer found that the  rates ranged between Rs. 1.83 per square meter to Rs. 28.39  per square meter and that in one sale deed, the value was  shown at Rs. 17 per square meter.  It was conceded that  these lands were not at a far distance from the acquired  lands.  But it was stated by the Awarding Officer that it did  not appear justifiable for him to adopt these rates.  For what  reason, it was not disclosed.  We must say that the approach  of the Awarding Officer in rejecting these sale instances is  open to very serious criticism.  The least that was expected of  him, was for him to give cogent and sustainable reasons for  discarding these sale instances.  He thereafter proceeded to  rely upon a sale deed dated 25.10.1989 under which one  Ramshankar Tandon sold 100 square meters to one Usha  Thama for Rs. 8,000/-   From this, he found that the land  value came to Rs. 80 per square meter.  He only noticed that  the sale was in respect of a piece of land which was near the  lands acquired.  He did not otherwise undertake a  comparison of the lands.  He thus based his award on this  sale deed and adopted the rate therein even without making  any deduction in view of the fact that the sale related only to  a small extent of 100 square meters of land.  

5.              It appears that the acquisition was by invocation  of the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Act and  possession was taken.  There was some delay in distributing  the compensation.  Some of the land owners whose lands  had been acquired had agreed to receive Rs. 100 per square  meter as compensation for their lands acquired under these  notifications.  The Awarding Officer took note of that fact also  while making the award.  He thus awarded for lands in  class-I category, compensation at Rs. 80 per square meter  and for class-III category at the rate of Rs.8 per square  meter.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

6.              Before the Reference Court, certain sale deeds  were produced at the instance of the claimants and one  witness P.W. 1 was examined.  On behalf of the State, D.W. 1  was examined and a group sketch was produced.  From the  evidence of P.W. 1, it became clear that the lands acquired  were agricultural lands and that agricultural operations were  being carried on in them.  There was no electricity  connection or pucca road in the land.  Though certain sale  deeds were produced, the Reference Court did not advert to  the nature of the lands involved in them and examine  whether they were bona fide transactions, whether they  related to comparable lands and whether the prices indicated  therein could form the basis for award of compensation in  respect of the acquired lands.  Though, he noticed that the  burden was on the claimants to establish that they were  entitled to enhancement of compensation and the quantum  of such enhancement, the Reference Court did not indicate  how in its view, the claimants had discharged that burden  and how the sale deeds relied on provided a proper guide for  enhancing the compensation.  The Reference Court noticed  that the sale instances produced before the Court related to  developed lands with various facilities which the acquired  lands lacked and it was stated that the values therein could  not be adopted, and that a reduction of 35 to 60% from the  values shown was justified.  We would have expected the  Reference Court to be more specific in dealing with such an  aspect.  It was expected to discuss each of those sale  instances, compare the lands contained therein with those  that were involved in the acquisition,  with reference to the  advantages and disadvantages, the extents, the nature of the  land, the facilities available and other relevant matters before  determining what would be the just compensation payable to  the land owners in the present acquisition.    We must say  that no such attempt had been made by the Reference Court  and its reasoning smacks of special pleading.  The Reference  Court concluded that Rs. 270 per square meter would be the  compensation payable and enhanced the compensation to  that extent.   

7.              The High Court referred to the decision of this  Court which indicated that the burden was on the claimants  to establish that the compensation awarded to them by the  Award was not adequate and held that viewed from that  angle, the claimants have failed to establish any claim for  enhancement.  In fact, the High Court was inclined to find  that even the sum of Rs. 80 per square meter awarded by the  Awarding Officer was on the high side or excessive, but since  Section 25 of the Act precluded the State from questioning it,  it was held that the argument of learned counsel on behalf of  the State in that behalf could not be accepted.   It was thus  that the High Court set aside the decision of the Reference  Court and restored the award made by the Awarding Officer.   The question is whether this decision of the High Court calls  for any interference.  

8.              Learned Senior Counsel and other learned counsel  appearing in the appeals relating to the lands in Harthala  argued that the High Court has misdirected itself into  thinking that sale instances of small plots had no evidentiary  value or are not relevant in determining the compensation  due for larger extents of lands.  It was also pointed out that  though the extent as a whole may be large, the ownership  was several and that fact also could not be forgotten  especially when the test is to see what a willing buyer was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

willing to give and willing purchaser was willing to receive.   Various decisions were brought to our notice and particular  emphasis was placed on the decision in Ravinder Narain &  Anr. Vs. Union of India [(2003) 4 S.C.C. 481], wherein it  was held that there was no absolute prohibition in taking  note of the rates fixed for sale of smaller plots and making it  the basis for fixation of compensation for larger extents.   There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that there  is no absolute prohibition. But the fact remains that  normally, when larger extents are involved in an acquisition,  it will be more prudent to rely on sale deeds of larger extents  and not to base the assessment of the compensation on  values fetched at sales of small extents.  In this case,  transactions involving sales of land in acres or of larger  extents were simply ignored by the Awarding Officer without  giving adequate reasons for such exclusion except vaguely  stating that they were distantly located.  Even those sale  instances would have provided a basis for assessing the  compensation due in respect of the acquired lands subject to  adjustments for the distance or other disadvantages or  advantages compared to the acquired lands.  The basic sale  deed relied on by the Awarding Officer was in respect of sale  of a portion of his property by a seller which had an extent of  only 100 square meters and even there, the price fetched was  only Rs. 80 per square meter.  The evidence of P.W.1 shows  that the lands involved were agricultural lands and did not  have any electricity or other facilities available.  In fact, some  of the sale instances indicate that the prices were only at the  range of Rs. 11 per square meter up to Rs.27 per square  meter.  On the facts of this case, we are of the view that the  contention that it is not as if sale instances of small extents  had to be completely ignored, does not lead the claimants  far.  In any event, it cannot be held that the High Court was  in error in not relying on sale instances of small extents in  assessing the compensation payable.  

9.              As held by this Court in various decisions, the  burden is on the claimants to establish that the amounts  awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer are  inadequate and that they are entitled to more.  That burden  had to be discharged by the claimants and only if the initial  burden in that behalf was discharged, the burden shifted to  the State to justify the award. The Reference Court, in our  view, could not give any adequate or tenable reasons for  adopting the value it did.   No evidence was clearly or  properly discussed to justify a finding that the claimants had  made out a case for enhancement of compensation.  As  observed by the High Court, it appears that on the materials  available, even the amount awarded by the Awarding Officer  was on the high side since he adopted the sale instance of a  small extent of land and applied it to the larger extents that  had been acquired under these notifications even without  any deduction.   

10.             The sale instances referred to by the Reference  Court are all instances of sale of developed lands and the  further discussion is about the use to which the authority  intended to put the land that was being acquired, which  obviously was an element which had to be discarded while  determining the compensation for the lands acquired.  It is  therefore clear on the facts of this case that the Reference  Court was not justified in granting the enhancement of land  value to the claimants.   

11.             Then the question is whether we should still

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

interfere with the decision of the High Court holding that the  amount awarded by the Awarding Officer itself is more than  adequate compensation.  Though not conclusive, the fact  remains that some of the similarly situated land owners were  content to receive Rs. 100 per square meter towards  compensation by filing affidavits in that behalf before the  concerned authority.  Considerable time was spent by  learned Senior Counsel on arguing whether that came under  Section 11(2) or Section 11(3) of the Act.  We find that it is  not necessary to undertake the exercise of deciding that  aspect in these appeals.  But what is relevant is to notice  that at least a set of claimants similarly situated whose lands  were covered by the same notification were content to receive  Rs. 100 per square meter towards compensation.  No  attempt was made to show by the claimants that they  received those amounts not under their free will but under  coercion or in view of any other circumstance, which  compelled them to receive compensation at that rate.  The  normal inference would be that they received the amounts  since they found it proper compensation for their lands.   Surely, that fact would furnish some evidentiary value  regarding the market value of the lands in the locality.  It  must be remembered that some of the sale deeds at the  approximate point of time relating to agricultural lands  indicated sales even at Rs. 11 per square meter.   

12.             We find that the Awarding Officer had taken note  of a sale deed, which was at a time proximate to the date of  notifications in these cases and it related to a piece of land,  though a small extent, which was not distant from the  acquired lands, to borrow the language of the Awarding  Officer.  We are inclined to see some force in the stand  adopted by the High Court that the Awarding Officer himself  had been generous in his award.  Since he has adopted such  a rate, the question is whether this Court should interfere  with the decision of the High Court restoring that Award or  award any further compensation.  The scope of interference  by this Court was delineated by the decision in Thakur  Kanta Prasad Singh (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. State of Bihar  [A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2219], wherein this Court held that there  was an element of guess work inherent in most cases  involving determination of the market value of the acquired  land.  If the judgment of the High Court revealed that it had  taken into consideration the relevant factors prescribed by  the Act, in appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution of  India, assessment of market value thus made should not be  disturbed by the Supreme Court.   For the purpose of  deciding whether we should interfere, we have taken note of  the position adopted by the Awarding Officer, the stand  adopted by the Reference Court and the relevant aspects  discussed by the High Court.  On such appreciation of the  facts and circumstances of the case as a whole, we are of the  view that the sum of Rs. 80 per square meter awarded as  compensation in these cases is just compensation paid to the  land owners.  Once we have thus found the compensation to  be just, there arises no occasion for this Court to interfere  with the decision of the High Court restoring the award of  the Land Acquisition Officer.  

13.             In view of our conclusion as above, all the appeals  relating to Harthala have only to be dismissed.  

14.             In respect of the lands at Mukkarrabpur, the claim  for enhancement was allowed by the Reference Court in spite  of the finding that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 adduced on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

behalf of the claimants was unreliable.  It also found that the  two sale deeds relied on by the claimant in support of the  claim for enhancement were also not comparable or reliable  in the light of the evidence of the claimant himself and that it  has not been shown that the lands involved therein were  comparable to the lands acquired.  In spite of it, the  Reference Court granted an enhancement only based on its  award in L.A.R. No. 134 of 1988 and on that basis the award  was made at Rs. 192/- per square meter.  Obviously, the  award in L.A.R. No. 134 of 1988 was set aside by the High  Court.  Hence, the award of the Reference Court in the case  on hand became untenable.  Once no reliance could be  placed on that award to enhance the compensation, it is  clear that even on the finding of the Reference Court, no  claim for enhancement has been made out by the claimants.   In that situation, the High Court was fully justified in setting  aside the award of the Reference Court and in restoring the  award of the Land Acquisition Officer.  We may incidentally  notice that the lands were agricultural lands being used for  cultivation and even the method of valuing it on the basis of  price per square meter does not appear to be justified.   All  the same, the award has adopted that method and the State  cannot go back on it.  In the absence of any acceptable legal  evidence to support the claim for enhancement, no grounds  are made out for interference with the decision of the High  Court in the appeals relating to village Mukkarrabpur.   

15.             Same is the position regarding the acquisition of  lands in Village Sonakpur.  The award was at Rs. 11.59 and  Rs.22 per square meter respectively.  They were enhanced to  Rs. 290 per square meter and to Rs.350/- to Rs.390/- by the  Reference Court.   In spite of the lands being recorded as  agricultural lands, the Reference Court proceeded to award  compensation on the basis that the lands are \021Abadi lands\022.   Other than the oral evidence of certain witnesses, which,  according to us, cannot form the foundation for any  enhancement, what was relied on was the awards made in  some other cases.  The documents produced were not shown  to be sale of lands comparable to the lands acquired.  The  Reference Court proceeded to enhance the compensation to  Rs. 290/- per square meter without any acceptable legal  evidence in support.  The High Court found that there was  no basis for enhancement and that the claimants had not  been able to show that the Land Acquisition Officer did not  award the proper compensation.  The High Court was  obviously right in proceeding on the basis that the burden  was on the claimants to prove their claim for enhancement.   The High Court thus took the view based on the materials,  that it was a fit case where the award of the Land Acquisition  Officer should be restored.   

16.             We find on a scrutiny of the relevant materials in  the light of the arguments raised that it cannot be said that  the High Court has either made an erroneous approach to  the claim for enhancement of compensation or that it has so  erred as to warrant our interference under Article 136 of the  Constitution of India.  Normally, in an appeal against the  award of compensation by the High Court, this Court  interferes only if there has been a misapplication of any  principle of assessing compensation.  In the case before us  regarding the lands in Sonakpur, we are not satisfied that  any error in principle has been committed by the High Court  justifying our interference.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

17.             After all, assessment of compensation for lands  acquired involves an amount of guess work, no doubt, based  on the evidence available regarding comparable sale of lands  in the locality and so on.  Viewed from that angle, we are in  agreement with the finding that the Awarding Officer has  been generous in his award of compensation in all these  cases.  

18.             In the light of our above conclusion, no  interference is called for with the decisions of the High Court  in these cases.   We confirm the decisions of the High Court  and dismiss these appeals.  We make no order as to costs.