http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3262-3270 of 2002

PETITIONER: RAJ KUMAR & ORS

RESPONDENT: HARYANA STATE & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/08/2007

BENCH: G.P. MATHUR & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  WITH {C.A. No. 3271/2002, C.A. No. 3279/2002, C.A. Nos.  3272-3278/2002, C.A. No. 1512/2004, C.A. No.  1513/2004, C.A. No. 5527/2005, C.A. No. 5833/2005,  C.A. No. 3923/2007 [SLP (C) No. 8161/2007], C.A. No.  3924/2007 [SLP (C) No. 9355/2007], C.A. No.  3929/2007 [SLP (C) No. 9283/2007], C.A. No.  3925/2007 [SLP (C) No. 9362/2007], C.A. No.  3926/2007 [SLP (C) No. 9364/2007], C.A. No.  3927/2007 [SLP (C) No. 9281/2007] and C.A. No.  3928/2007 [SLP (C) No. 9357/2007]}

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

1.              Leave granted in Petitions for Special Leave to  Appeal.  Delay condoned in filing application for  Substitution in Civil Appeal arising out of Petition for  Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9355 of 2007 and  application for substitution is allowed.  Heard learned  counsel on all sides.

2.              A Notification under Section 4 of the Land  Acquisition Act was issued on 19.5.1992 notifying the  proposal for acquisition of an extent of 504.27 acres of  land in the revenue estates of Hisar, Satrod Khurd and  Satrod Khas in District Hisar.  The public purpose put  forward was the development and utilization of land as  residential in Sectors 9 and 11 by the Haryana Urban  Development Authority.  On 18.5.1993, a declaration  under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made.   The area in respect of which the declaration was made  was of 478.44 acres.

3.              The Land Acquisition Collector passed an  award on 17.5.1995 adjudging the compensation  payable to the land owners at Rs. 3 lakhs per acre.  On a  claim for enhancement by various claimants, the  Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.  235/- per square yard for the lands in the revenue estate  of Hisar and to Rs.135/- per square yard in the revenue  estates of Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas. The Reference  Court found that the lands were agricultural lands and  were being used for agricultural purposes.  But still it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

found that the acquired lands were within the municipal  limits of the town and it took note of the potentialities of  the lands with reference to its location, its lie, and the  potentialities in view of the availability of civic amenities.   In other words, all the relevant aspects were taken into  consideration by the Reference Court while fixing the  land value at Rs. 235/- per square yard for the lands in  the revenue estate of Hisar and at Rs. 135/- per square  yard for the lands in the revenue estates of Satrod Khurd  and Satrod Khas.

4.              The State as well as the claimants appealed  against this award.  According to the State, the lands  being agricultural lands, the enhancement awarded was  exorbitant and the rate per square yard accepted was too  high.  No case for such enhancement had been made out  by the claimants.  According to the claimants, the land  value should have been awarded at a higher rate and  even going by the valuation adopted by the Reference  Court something more than Rs. 235/- per square yard  should have been awarded.  As far as the lands situate  in Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas were concerned, it was  contended that there was no justification in not adopting  the same rate as land value for them as for the lands in  estate Hisar and the fixing of the compensation at  Rs.135/- per square yard for those lands was  unjustified.  The learned single judge of the High Court  dismissed the appeals by the State.  He also found in the  appeals by the claimants in respect of lands in estate  Hisar, that the land value of Rs. 235/- per square yard  for the lands comprised therein was correct and called  for no interference.  But, the learned judge found that  though there was distinction between the lands in estate  in Hisar and those in estates Satrod Khurd and Satrod  Khas, the disparity in the value awarded was not  justified and that it would be appropriate to enhance the  compensation for the lands in Satrod Khurd and Satrod  Khas to Rs. 175/- per square yard.  Thus, the claim for  enhancement in respect of those lands was partly  accepted.  Feeling dissatisfied, the claimants went up in  further appeal.  It was argued before the Division Bench  that even on his own reasoning, the learned single judge  ought to have awarded a higher compensation for the  lands in estate Hisar.  As regards the lands in Satrod  Khurd and Satrod Khas, it was contended that the  compensation should have been awarded at a rate equal  to the rate adopted for the lands in estate Hisar.  The  Division Bench found that the learned single judge was  fully justified in awarding land value for the lands in  Hisar at Rs. 235/- per square yard and in awarding land  value of Rs. 175/- per square yard for the lands in  Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas.  The court particularly  found that even though the lands acquired in Satrod  Khurd and Satrod Khas were within the municipality,  they were agricultural lands being used for agricultural  purposes and they were away from the town whereas the  lands in estate Hisar were abutting the town and they  had better amenities.  It was noticed by the Division  Bench that the lands in Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas  were on the outer periphery on the far eastern side of the  township.  It was found that it was not developed land.   The Division Bench therefore found that the  compensation awarded for the lands in Hisar, Satrod  Khurd and Satrod Khas by the learned single judge were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

just and fair and called for no interference.  It is feeling  aggrieved by the compensation thus awarded that the  claimants have come up with these appeals.   

5.              As regards the lands in estate Hisar, it is clear  that the Awarding Officer has considered the potentiality  of the land and all other relevant aspects in fixing the  compensation.  On the evidence, it could be said that he  was more than fair to the claimants.  The learned single  judge, on a re-appreciation of the circumstances, came  to the conclusion that the value awarded was justified on  the facts and in the circumstances of the case.  The  Division Bench again, after a careful consideration of the  relevant aspects, came to the conclusion that the land  value awarded was fair and there was no scope for  further enhancement.   

6.              Normally, this Court  interferes with the award  made under the Act by the High Court only if any error  in principle is involved in the adjudging of the  compensation.  After all, every award involves some  guess work.  It is true that the lands in Hisar are situate  within the municipal limits.  This aspect has been taken  note of by the Awarding Officer, by the learned single judge  and by the Division Bench.   The potentialities of the lands,  its location, the amenities available have all been taken note  of again by the Awarding Officer, by the learned single judge  and by the Division Bench.  The method adopted for  adjudging the compensation cannot also be said to be  incorrect or unreasonable.  The most acceptable rate has  been taken and a suitable reduction has been made and it  cannot certainly be said that anything arbitrary has been  done either by the learned single judge or by the Division  Bench.  There is no material on the basis of which further  enhancement could be granted.  It is seen from the award  that all the relevant aspects had been noticed by the  Awarding Officer when he fixed the compensation.   It is seen  that all the relevant sale instances relied on and detailed in  paragraph 39 of the award were all instances of sale of small  extents and therefore could not form the basis of adjudging  the compensation when the acquisition of a larger extent is  involved.  May be the lands are held in severalty by several  owners.  Even then suitable adjustments had to be made  while determining the land value.  Lands in the periphery of  a municipal town have been acquired and while adjudging  the compensation, the necessary adjustments will have to be  made for determining the compensation payable while taking  note of such sale instances.   On going through the award, it  is difficult, if not impossible, to say that anything relevant  has been omitted by the Reference Court.

7.              What is relied upon is that Reference Court made  a statement that it was making a conservative estimate.  On  the materials, it is seen that the use of that expression has  not resulted in any under-assessment of either the  potentialities of the lands or the compensation payable.  The  argument that the residential potential should be taken note  of does not carry the appellants far, since that aspect has  also been taken note of while adjudging the compensation at  Rs. 235/- per square yard.  On the whole, it cannot be  said that the compensation adjudged is unjust.  It has to  be held that there is no material on the basis of which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

the same could be enhanced by us in this third appeal.   There may be some justification in the argument on  behalf of the State that the award was a generous one,  but then, the State is bound by the award in the light of  Section 25 of the Act.  Suffice it to say that, we are not  satisfied that any enhancement of land value for the  lands in estate Hisar is justified.   

8.              Coming to the lands in Satrod Khurd and  Satrod Khas, it is seen that they are agricultural lands  being used for agricultural purposes on the relevant  date.  They were in the outer periphery of the municipal  town, away from the centre.  They did not enjoy the same  potential as the lands in estate Hisar.  It was in that  context that the Awarding Officer awarded compensation  at the rate of Rs. 135/- per square yard.  But on appeal,  the learned single judge felt that though there was  disparity in the nature of the lands and the potential, the  disparity in the award of compensation was a bit too  much and that an enhancement in value for the lands in  Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas was justified.  The  learned single judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.  175/- per square yard.  The Division Bench also found  that there was no scope for any further enhancement.   

9.              It is contended before us that the lands lay in a  block and there was no reason for not awarding  compensation at an equal rate for the lands in Satrod  Khurd and Satrod Khas.  But as noticed by the Awarding  Officer,  Reference  Court  and  the  High  Court, the  nature of the land, its present state, its present location,  its comparative advantages and disadvantages, all justify  the difference in the rate of compensation awarded.  In  any event, it cannot be said that there is any irrationality  in the position adopted by the Reference Court and by  the learned single judge and by the Division Bench while  determining the compensation payable for the lands in  Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas.  All the relevant aspects  have been taken into consideration and we do not find  any error in principle committed by the High Court  justifying our interference in appeal.  An argument was  raised that the prices of lands fetched in auction had  been ignored on the basis that prices fetched in auction  sales cannot form the basis.  It was submitted that there  was no general rule that such prices cannot be adopted.   On considering the relevant facts disclosed, it cannot be  said that the High Court has committed any error in  discarding those auction sales while determining the  compensation payable.  The element of competition in  auction sales makes them not safeguides.  Similarly, the  argument that when a compact piece of land is acquired  there cannot be adoption of separate rates cannot be  accepted in the light of the decision of this Court in  Union of India & others Vs. Mangatu Ram, etc. [AIR  1997 S.C. 2704].  That case related to acquisition of  lands in the vicinity of the present properties.  The ratio  of that decision also supports the distinction made by  the Awarding Officer and the High Court in the matter of  fixing the land value for the lands in Satrod Khurd and  Satrod Khas.   

10.             On the whole, it cannot be said that there is

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

any error in principle committed by the High Court  justifying our interference.  Tested in the light of the  approach commended in Thakur Kanta Prasad Singh  (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1976 S.C. 2219],  we are not satisfied that sufficient grounds are made out  for interference.  Thus, we decline to interfere with the  decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.  We  confirm the decisions of the High Court and dismiss  these appeals.  We direct the parties to suffer their  respective costs.