NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8986-9012  OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3066-3092 of 2009)

M/s. Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Ltd. ……..Appellants

Versus

Punjab State and others etc. etc.  …….Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9013-9025  OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3093-3105 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9026-9058  OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3108-3140 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9074-9101 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3148-3175 of 2009)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9059-9073  OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 4648-4662 of 2009)

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi,  J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals by M/s. Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Ltd. (hereinafter  

referred  to  as,  `the  Company’),  which  is  now known as  HPCL -  Mittal  

Energy Limited, and the land owners are directed against judgment dated  

22.10.2008 of  the learned Single Judge of  the Punjab and Haryana High  

Court whereby he declined to interfere with the valuation of the land and  

belting method adopted by the Reference Court but remanded the matter for  

reconsideration of the issue relating to categorization of the acquired land.

3. The Government of Punjab acquired various parcels of land situated  

in  villages  Phulokhari,  Kanakwal,  Ramsra  and  Raman,  Tehsil  Talwandi  

Sabo, District Bhatinda for setting up Oil Refinery and Liquid Fuel based  

Power Plant.  Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land  

Acquisition  Act,  1894 (for  short,  `the  Act’)  was  issued  on 27.8.1997  in  

respect of 1995.82 acres land, but declaration under Section 6 was published  

only for 1992.575 acres land.  

2

4. The  Land  Acquisition  Collector  passed  award  dated  4.6.1999  for  

payment of compensation to the land owners.  He divided the acquired land  

in the following three categories:

“Sr.    Name of            Kind of land No.    Village     Nehri     Barani          G.M.        Total       Area in Acres                           K    M     K  M            K   M        K   M          K   M ................................................................................................................. 1.   Phulokhari   518.02    1724.01     60.17        2303.00    287.875 2.   Kanakwal   4002.08   6165.12    140.06      10308.06  1288.5375 3.   Ramsra       1848.08   1318.03      76.17        3243.08    405.425 4.   Raman            40.11       41.18        3.09            85.18      10.7375 ................................................................................................................ Total                 6469.09   9219.14     281.09      15940.12   1992.575” ................................................................................................................

For the aforesaid three categories of land, the Land Acquisition Collector  

fixed market value at Rs.3.50 lacs per acre, Rs.2.75 lacs per acre and Rs.5  

lacs per acre.

5. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition  

Collector, as many as 131 land owners filed applications under Section 18 of  

the  Act.   Thereupon,  the  Collector  made  a  reference  to  the  Court  of  

Additional District Judge, Bhatinda (Reference Court).   After considering  

the evidence produced by the parties, the Reference Court clubbed the land  

classified as Nehri/Chahi with Barani and tube well irrigated land and fixed  

3

market value thereof at Rs.3.50 lacs per acre.  For Gair Mumkin land, the  

Reference Court maintained the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition  

Collector but carved out a new category i.e.,  land abutting metalled road  

except Gair Mumkin, going from Raman to Kalianwala via Gyan up to a  

depth of 500 meters and fixed its market value at Rs.3.75 lacs per acre.   

6. The appellants challenged the award of the Reference Court by filing  

separate  appeals  under  Section  54  of  the  Act.   While  the  Company  

questioned  the  clubbing  of  Nehri/Chahi  land  with  Barani  and  tube  well  

irrigated land and creation of new category i.e., land abutting metalled road,  

the land owners claimed that compensation awarded by the Reference Court  

was not just and equitable and they were entitled to higher market value.

7. The High Court admitted the appeals but declined to stay the award of  

the Reference Court.  Thereupon, the Company filed Special Leave Petition  

(Civil) No. 8386/2006.  While issuing notice on 12.5.2006, this Court passed  

the following order:

“Issue notice.

Without   prejudice   to   the   claims   involved,   let   the  petitioners   deposit   Rs.7,50,00,000/-   (Rupees  Seven   Crores  and   fifty   lakhs   only)   in   the   trial    court.      The  amount shall be invested in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank  

4

initially for a period of   six   months.     There   shall   be  interim   stay   of   the   impugned   order   subject   to   the  aforesaid condition.”

Similar order was passed on 28.8.2006 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.  

13778/2006.   

8. Both the special leave petitions were finally disposed of on 22.4.2008  

in the following terms:

“These special leave petitions are against interim orders passed  by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.  While issuing  notice  in the appeals, interim   protection was denied.   By order dated  12.05.2006, this Court, while issuing notice, directed deposit of  Rupees  7.5  crores  with  the  Trial  Court,  to  be  invested  in  a  nationalized Bank initially for a period of six months.  Since the  main matter is pending before the High Court, we do not think  it  necessary to pass any further  orders in the matter.  Let the  Regular First Appeals be heard by the High Court.

        We feel interest of justice would be best served if the  amount  deposited  is  permitted  to  be  withdrawn  by  the  land  owners  on  furnishing such security,  as  may be  fixed  by  the  Trial Court.

        The special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly.”

9. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge negatived the  

Company’s challenge to the belting of the land by recording the following  

reasons:

5

“It cannot be disputed that the area abutting a road certainly has  a better value as compared to the area falling behind it. To state  that  valuation  of  the  land  either  on  the  road  or  behind  that  should  be  at  the  same  rate  is  totally  misconceived.  Even  otherwise, the benefit given by the learned court below for the  land on the road is very marginal as the same has been assessed  at Rs. 3,75,000/- per acre, whereas other part of the land behind  that has been assessed at Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre. As the amount  of  compensation  awarded  for  the  front  portion  is  marginally  high, i.e., Rs. 25,000/- per acre, I do not find any good reason to  interfere with the impugned award on this ground.”  

However,  the  learned Single  Judge expressed reservation on the  issue of  

clubbing of the land categorized as Nehri/Chahi with Barani and tube well  

irrigated  land  and remanded  the  case  to  the  Reference  Court  for  further  

detailed examination and recording a specific finding with regard to the area  

shown  as  Barani.   This  is  evident  from  the  following  extracts  of  the  

impugned judgment:

“A perusal of the material produced on record shows that the  Collector  in  his  award had mentioned  the quality  of  land as  Nehri, Barani and Gair Mumkin giving specific area pertaining  to that quality in four villages, the land of which was acquired.  The land owners in the present case had produced evidence in  the form of records regarding Chakbandi etc. showing the land  to  be  Nehri,  whereas  on  the  other  hand  the  Refinery  had  produced jamabandis and khasra  girdawaris  to  show that  the  area, as mentioned in the award, with regard to Barani land is  correct  description  thereof  which  did  not  call  for  any  interference  by  the  learned  Court  below.  The  learned  court  below had merely referred to Ex.A1, Ex. A2, Ex. A25 and Ex.  A37 in Land Reference No. 103 of 2000 and has not referred to  any other material in other land references produced by the land  owners regarding quality of land. The total of the land which  

6

was allegedly found to be Nehri in terms of exhibits, as referred  to above,  is  also not  tallying with the area mentioned in the  exhibits. Even it has not been recorded as to in what area the  alleged  19  tubewells  were  installed  and  as  to  whether  those  were forming part of the land which was considered as Nehri by  the  Collector  or  those  were  found  in  the  area  which  was  recorded as Barani.  In addition to this, the learned Court below  has  recorded  certain  facts  in  paragraph  55  of  the  award  regarding  the  total  area  sown  in  Punjab  and  the  percentage  thereof which is irrigated.  Similar facts regarding the area of  Bhatinda were also mentioned. No evidence in that regard has  either been discussed by the learned Court below or has been  referred to.   At the time of hearing, nothing had been referred  to substantiate the plea that the khasra numbers,  which were  recorded  as  Barani  by  the  Collector  and  the  corresponding  evidence regarding the same showing them to be Nehri.  All  what has been referred to at the time of hearing was that the  total area shown in the evidence led by the land owners in Land  Reference No. 103 of 2000 is that the land forming part of the  documents  (Chakbandi)  etc.  is  more  than  the  area  which  is  shown  to  be  Barani  by  the  Collector,  but  the  same  is  not  showing that it is the same land which was shown as Barani by  connecting it with khasra numbers. Merely on the basis of the  figure  taken  by  the  learned  Court  below  from  certain  publications or elsewhere without there being any evidence to  that effect on record cannot be made the basis for changing the  category of the land, once the same was being contested by the  Refinery.

Accordingly,  in  my  opinion,  on  this  issue  a  further  detailed examination is required by the learned Court below by  recording  a  specific  finding  with  regard  to  the  area  with  reference to khasra numbers which were shown as Barani by  the Collector. It has to be considered as to whether there exists  any source of irrigation in the land which has been recorded as  Barani  in  the  revenue  record  to  change  the  category  thereof  from Barani to Nehri.”  

7

10. The learned Single Judge rejected the land owners’ prayer for fixing  

higher market value of the acquired land and observed:

“As far as the claim of the land owners for further enhancement  in the value of the land, as assessed by the Court below while  upholding the award of the Collector is concerned, a perusal of  the evidence led by the land owners, as referred to in paragraph  41  of  the  impugned  award,  shows  that  the  sale  deeds  as  produced  on  record  were  pertaining  to  only  two  villages,  namely, Ramsra and Raman. Sale deeds (Ex. A14, Ex.A15, Ex.  A17, Ex. A18 and Ex. A23) are of a date which is subsequent to  the acquisition of land, whereas sale deeds (Ex. A13, Ex. A19,  Ex. A20, Ex. A21 and Ex. A22) are pertaining to dates which  are prior in time. Further perusal of the sale deeds shows that  the area comprised therein is ranging from 8 marlas to 4 kanals  with the price range of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 7,60,000/-  per  acre.  A  perusal  of  sale  deed  dated  4.8.1997  (Ex.  A.13)  shows that  the  land  measuring  4  kanals  described  as  Barani  (rural) was sold at average price of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. In  the sale deeds, Ex. A.19, Ex. A20, Ex. A21 and Ex. A 22, land  measuring 5-1/2 marlas to one kanal was shown to have been  sold from Rs. 4,35,000/- per acre to Rs. 7,60,000/- per acre. The  description of the land as mentioned in the aforesaid sale deeds  clearly  show that  the property  therein was urban and further  that the area dealt with is quite small as compared to the large  chunk of land measuring 1992.575 acres acquired. Firstly, these  sale deeds cannot be made basis for determination of value of  large chunk of acquired land. Secondly, even if a reasonable cut  is applied keeping in view smallness of area dealt with the sale  deeds and the location thereof, still  the value of the acquired  land as assessed at Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre cannot be said to be  on lower side.”

11. Shri Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the Company assailed the  

impugned judgment  and argued  that  the  reasons  assigned  by the  learned  

Single Judge for refusing to interfere with the belting of the land and grant  

8

of  higher  compensation  for  such land are  ex facie  erroneous because  no  

evidence was produced by the land owners to show that the land up to the  

depth of 500 meters from the metalled road was different from the remaining  

land and its price was higher.  Learned senior counsel emphasized that when  

a vast chunk of land measuring 1992.575 acres was acquired for setting up  

refinery, different market value could not have been fixed for a small portion  

of the land on the ground that it is near the metalled road and could fetch  

higher market value.  Learned senior counsel then argued that the sale deeds  

produced by the land owners were not at all relevant for fixing market value  

of the acquired land because the same related to very small parcels of land  

measuring 8 to 1 kanal or even less.   Shri Gupta produced a compilation of  

papers to show that Gair Mumkin land situated in and near the abadi can  

fetch higher market value and argued that the same cannot be made basis for  

awarding higher compensation for other categories of land.   

12. Shri Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the land owners argued that  

the entries made in the jamabandis and other revenue records, which were  

based on the  settlement  operations  carried  out  many decades ago do not  

reflect true nature of the land as on the date of acquisition and, as such, those  

entries could not have been relied upon by the Land Acquisition Collector  

9

for fixing market value of the acquired land.  Learned counsel emphasized  

that due to availability of irrigation facilities i.e., canals and tube wells, the  

quality  of  the  land  in  Phulokhari,  Kanakwal,  Ramsra  and  Raman  has  

altogether changed in last 20 years and the Reference Court did not commit  

any error by clubbing Barani and tube well irrigated land with Nehri/Chahi  

land for fixing market value of such land.  Learned counsel then argued that  

Gair  Mumkin land  is  not  superior  to  Nehri/Chahi,  Barani  and  tube  well  

irrigated land and when the State Government has itself fixed market value  

of Gair Mumkin land at Rs.5 lacs per acre, the Reference Court should have  

awarded compensation for the entire land at least at the rate of Rs.5 lacs per  

acre.  Learned counsel submitted that if this Court is not inclined to interfere  

with  the  order  of  remand  passed  by  the  High Court,  then  the  Reference  

Court  should  be  directed  to  decide  all  the  issues  afresh  after  giving  

opportunity to the parties to produce additional evidence.  In the end, the  

learned  counsel  submitted  that  the  land  owners  may  be  permitted  to  

withdraw  the  amount  deposited  by  the  Company  in  furtherance  of  the  

conditional interim order dated 12.5.2006 passed in Special Leave Petition  

(Civil) No. 8386/2006.  He pointed out that even though the land owners had  

applied  to  the  Reference  Court  for  withdrawal  of  the  amount,  necessary  

orders were not passed by the concerned Court because of the stiff resistance  

10

put up by the counsel for the Company.

13. Learned senior counsel for the Company seriously opposed the last  

mentioned request of the land owners’ counsel and submitted that his client  

should be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited in compliance of the  

direction given by this Court because by virtue of the judgment of the High  

Court, the award passed by the Reference Court has become non est and the  

land owners cannot derive any benefit from the same..

14. We  have  considered  the  respective  submissions.   The  reasons  

recorded by the High Court for remanding the case to the Reference Court  

for deciding the issue of clubbing the land categorized as Nehri/Chahi with  

Barani and tube well irrigated land do not appear to be flawed.  In our view,  

the  Reference  Court  was  not  justified  in  deciding  the  issue  relating  to  

fixation of market value of the acquired land by presuming that irrigation  

facilities are available throughout the State of Punjab either through canals  

or  through tube wells.   The Reference Court  should have referred to the  

substantive evidence produced by the parties and then decided whether it  

was just and proper to club the land categorized as Nehri/Chahi with Barani  

and tube well  irrigated land.  Therefore,  we do not find any error in the  

11

direction given by the High Court to the Reference Court to decide issue  

relating to clubbing of different categories of land.   

15. However, we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the  

land owners that the High Court should have ordered an open remand so as  

to enable the parties to lead additional evidence on all the issues including  

the belting of land and fixation of market value at a flat rate keeping in view  

the rate fixed by the State Government for Gair Mumkin land.  What is the  

extent of land falling within 500 meters of the metalled road and whether  

such land can fetch higher price in the market are questions which can be  

decided  only  after  giving  opportunity  to  the  parties  to  adduce  further  

evidence.  Likewise, the questions whether the entire Gair Mumkin land i.e.,  

281 kanals 9 marlas is in abadi and market value thereof can be made basis  

for fixing market value of other categories of land or higher market value  

fixed by the State Government for Gair Mumkin land would supply basis for  

grant of higher compensation in respect of other lands are required to be  

decided  after  considering  the  evidence  which  may  be  produced  by  the  

parties.  Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice if the Reference Court  

is  directed  to  decide all  the  issues  afresh after  giving opportunity  to  the  

parties to adduce additional evidence.

12

16. We shall  now deal  with the question of  withdrawal  of the amount  

deposited by the Company in compliance of order dated 12.5.2006 passed  

by this  Court  in S.L.P.  (C) No.8386 of 2006.  A reading of order  dated  

24.4.2008 by which the special leave petitions filed by the Company against  

the  High Court’s  refusal  to  stay  the  award  of  the  Reference Court  were  

disposed of by this Court shows that liberty was given to the land owners to  

withdraw the amount on furnishing appropriate security to be fixed by the  

trial Court.  It is not in dispute that the Company did not seek modification  

of that order.  Therefore, we do not find any justification to pass an order  

which may run contrary order dated 24.4.2008.

17. In the result, the appeals are disposed of in the following terms:

(i) The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the  

matter is remanded to the Reference Court with the direction  

that  it  shall  pass  fresh award after  giving opportunity  to  the  

parties to produce additional evidence on all the issues.

(ii) The  Reference  Court  shall  not  entertain  any  unreasonable  

request made by either party for adjournment of the case and  

13

shall  dispose of the matter within 6 months from the date of  

receipt/production of this judgment.

(iii) The  land  owners  shall  be  entitled  to  withdraw  the  amount  

deposited by the Company after furnishing appropriate security  

to  the  satisfaction  of  the  Presiding  Officer  of  the  Reference  

Court.

….………………….…J. [G.S. Singhvi]

…..…..………………..J. [Asok Kumar Ganguly]

New Delhi October 20, 2010.

14