http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

                            1

                                                   REPORTABLE

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

             CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2461-2465 OF 2000

State of Haryana                               ....Appellant

    Versus

Gurbax Singh (Dead) by LRs & Anr. Etc.         ....Respondents

                           WITH

               CIVIL APPEAL NO.2466 OF 2000

Lt. Col. Dharam Pal Singh                      .... Appellant

    Versus

State of Haryana                               .... Respondent

                           WITH

               CIVIL APPEAL NO.2467 OF 2000

Smt.Harmesh                                    .... Appellant

    Versus

State of Haryana                               .... Respondent

                           WITH

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

                             2

              CIVIL APPEAL NO.2468 OF 2000

Gurbax Singh (Dead) by LRs. & Anr.              .... Appellant

    Versus

State of Haryana                                .... Respondent

                             WITH

              CIVIL APPEAL NO.2469 OF 2000

Sucha Singh                                     .... Appellant

    Versus

State of Haryana                                .... Respondent

                             WITH

              CIVIL APPEAL NO.2470 OF 2000

Pratap Singh (Dead) by LRs.          .... Appellant

    Versus

State of Haryana                                .... Respondent

                      JUDGMENT

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

                                   3

1.    This Judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal Nos.2461-2465 of 2000

filed by the State of Haryana as also the other Civil Appeals being Civil

Appeal   Nos.2466/2000,     Civil   Appeal   No.2467/2000,    Civil   Appeal

No.2468/2000, Civil Appeal No.2469/2000 and Civil Appeal No.2470/2000

which have been filed by the private parties against the State of Haryana

complaining against the impugned judgment dated 5th November, 1998

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

2.    The subject matter in all the appeals is common, i.e., quantum of

compensation payable for the lands acquired from Villages Ratgal,

Sunderpur and Palwal. The total land which was acquired was 185 Kanals

13 Marlas. The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.2466 to 2470 of 2000 are

the land owners.     The land was acquired for the public purpose of

establishing Government Ayurvedic College and Pharmacy at Kurukshetra.

Section 4 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as "the Act") was issued on 8th February, 1983 while notification

under Section 6 was published on 11th May, 1983.           The Award was

announced by the Collector on 30th March, 1984 who assessed the

compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre in respect of "Chahi" land

and Rs.25,000/- per acre with regard to "Ghair Mumkin" land. The land

owners applied for a Reference under Section 18 of the Act.             The

Reference was accordingly placed before the Additional District Judge who

passed his Award on 27th February, 1985 and held that the market value

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

                                   4

should have been at the rate of Rs.15 per square yard.             Thus the

compensation at the rate of Rs.72,600/- per acre was awarded by the

Additional District Judge besides the statutory benefits. Some of the land

owners were given additional compensation at the rate of 25% in respect of

their unacquired land on account of severance caused by acquisition. Not

satisfied with the Award, the land owners filed appeals before the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

3.    The learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 26th May, 1988

found that the value of the land was Rs.20.59 per square yard and

accordingly fixed the market value at Rs.99,668/- per acre.          Further

appeals were filed before the Division Bench by the land owners.

4.    In all five Letter Patent Appeals came to be filed before the Division

Bench. Three land owners preferred applications (in the Judgment in RFA

No.7 of 1982) for permission to enhance the claim as also to produce

additional evidence and the Award given by the District Judge in Land

Acquisition Case No.22/4 of 1990. These documents were produced along

with applications as Annexures A-1 and A-2.           The Division Bench

considered both the documents, however, it did not find any justification for

the claim made on behalf of the land owners. It, however, considered the

two Sale deeds executed in January and March, 1981, which were on

record. It was noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the market

value of the land was less than the one evidenced in the two sale deeds.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

                                   5

Therefore, the Division Bench ordered an increase of 12% per annum for a

period of two years and rounded off the market value of the land at

Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. The other benefits granted by the learned Single

Judge were also maintained.

5.    Now the Government of Haryana as also the private appellants have

come up before us by way of the present appeals.

6.    We must first consider the appeals filed by the Government of

Haryana but before that we must note that though the learned Single Judge

has enhanced the compensation payable to the land owners from

Rs.72,600/- per acre to Rs.99,668/- per acre, the Government of Haryana

had accepted that judgment and did not file any Letters Patent Appeal

against the same. The learned Single Judge had noted and taken into

consideration Exhibits P-8 to P-16 being the Sale Deeds, Exhibit P-17

which was an advertisement issued by HUDA regarding allotment of plots,

Exhibits P-28, P-29, R-1, R-2 and R-3 which were the mutations in respect

of different pieces of lands in the three villages as also Exhibit P-30 which

was the Award dated 8th August, 1984 given by the Additional District

Judge, Kurukshetra in respect of the land which was acquired vide

notification dated 24.11.1978. Thus it has to be said that the Government

of Haryana did not have any objection regarding the market value awarded

by the learned Single Judge at Rs.99,668/- per acre.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

                                    6

7.    The Division Bench has only marginally increased the compensation

from Rs.99,668/- per acre to Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. The Division Bench

has merely given the benefit of the two Sale Deeds being Exhibits P-8 and

P-9 in a very limited manner by ordering the enhancement at the rate of

12% per annum for two years since the acquisition in this case had taken

place in the year 1983 whereas those sale deeds were of January and

March, 1981.     We do not find anything wrong in this approach.          The

Division Bench has also justified this increase by observing that there was

continuous rise in the prices of land. It has further justified that though the

two transactions were in respect of the small pieces of lands, however, the

State had not challenged the action of the learned Single Judge in

accepting those sales as a valid basis. It has also further observed that

there was no evidence that the market value of the land was lesser than

the one mentioned in the two sale deeds. All that the Division Bench,

however, did was to marginally increase the quantum of compensation by

adding 12% per annum for a period of two years and doing so, the Division

Bench rounded off the market value for the year 1983 at Rs.1,25,000/-.

We do not find anything wrong in this and, therefore, the appeals filed by

the Government of Haryana (Civil Appeal Nos.2461-2465 of 2000) against

this marginal increase would have to be dismissed. They are accordingly

dismissed. However, the matters do not stop here.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

                                   7

8.    The land owners - appellants have, however, filed the appeals as

they are not satisfied with the marginal increase ordered by the Division

Bench. In fact it is suggested in the judgment that in LPA Nos.1213, 1311

and 1312 of 1988, i.e., the LPAs filed by the land owners, an application

was filed for permission to enhance the claim and to produce additional

documents consisting of the judgment in RFA No.7 of 1992 and the Award

given by the District Judge in Land Acquisition Case No.22/4 of 1990. The

two documents were filed as Annexures A-1 and A-2 with an application.

Relying on those judgments it was pointed out that the concerned land was

close to the Judicial Complex and the official residence of Deputy

Commissioner and the Senior Superintendent of Police.        A look at the

judgment suggests that higher compensation was awarded in the two

orders, the copies of which were produced by way of additional evidence.

It appears that the said application which was under the provisions of Order

41 Rule 27 seems to have been allowed since the Division Bench has

specifically referred to those two documents in its judgment. It was seen

from those judgments that the land therein was acquired for establishment

of an urban estate and was abutting the Pipli-Kurukshetra route.        The

Division Bench also noted that it was on this land that part of town of

Kurukshetra was established. The acquisition process with regard to this

land was completed in 1973, much earlier than the present land acquisition

proceedings. So also the land which was the subject matter of Award being

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

                                    8

Annexure A-2 was acquired in the year 1981. This acquisition was for the

development of a City Centre.

9.    The Division Bench has merely vaguely mentioned that the present

lands are situated at some distance from the lands covered in the above

judgments. It is only on this basis that the Division Bench went on to hold

that it would not be safe to say that the compensation awarded by the court

would be the correct measure for assessing the market value of the land in

the present proceedings. Again a statement seems to have been made

that despite the acquisition of lands vide notification dated 29th June, 1973

and 11th March, 1981 and the fact that the city of Kurukshetra was

developing, the price of land in the three villages had not shown any

upward trend. It is on these grounds that the claims made on behalf of the

appellants were rejected holding that the said documents could not be

made the basis for deciding the correct market value of the land in

question. In our opinion this is not the right approach. The Division Bench

having allowed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 and having

considered the documents in question should not have written the vague

finding regarding the distance of the land covered in the judgments and the

land covered by the present proceedings.        Further the Division Bench

should not have casually observed that the prices of lands in the three

villages had not showed any upward trend. We do not wish to comment on

these aspects as, in our opinion, it would be better for the Division Bench to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

                                   9

apply its mind to the facts and figures covered in the aforementioned

judgments.

10.   It has been held by this Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer,

Kheda & Anr. v. Vasudev Chandrashankar & Anr. [(1997) 11 SCC 218]

that the earlier Awards which were passed prior to about 8 years would

provide a reasonable base for arriving at the correct market value. In the

reported decision in the earlier Award Rs.2100/- per acre was held to be

the proper market value, while in the subsequent Award in question, the

market value was increased to Rs.2500/- per acre. This Court approved of

the increase by observing that the lands in question were situated in the

same village, though on different survey numbers. Some of the claimants

are the claimants in the earlier acquisition as well. The Court observed:

     "...It is now well settled legal position that the award of the       reference court relating to the same village of the similar land       possessed of same quality of land and potential offers a       comparable base for determination of the compensation. The       reference court also noted in paras 18 and 19 the similarities       of the lands under acquisitio0n and that they were covered by       Ex.43. No doubt, the lands under acquisition are situated out       the outskirts of the village. In the absence of any tangible       material brought on record, as regards the distinctive features       of differentiation between the quality of the land situated, the       land, subject matter of Ex.43 and the lands under acquisition       Ex.48, it is difficult to find out whether the reference court has       applied any wrong principle of law in determination of the       compensation...."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

                                    10

11.   In an another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Harinder

Pal Singh & Others [(2005) 12 SCC 564] where one of us (Altamas Kabir,

J.) was a party. This Court while confirming the judgment of the Punjab

and Haryana High Court observed:

     "...From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to       us that while the lands in question are situated in five different       villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little       to choose between one stretch of land and another. The       entire area is in a stage of development and the different       villages are capable of being developed in the same manner       as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the market       value of the acquired land was fixed at a uniform rate of       Rs.40,000 per acre."

This Court in para 13 of the above judgment took note of the contentions

raised on behalf of the claimants that all the lands involved in the

acquisition proceedings had similar potential for commercial exploitation

and could be consolidated into a single unit where the process of

development and improvement had already commenced. It was also noted

that there were several mills and factories along with the residential

accommodation which had come up in the area and there was little to

differentiate between the lands comprised in either village Kathania or

Village Hamidpur and those comprised in the adjacent village of Kala

Ghanu Pur, they were equally well connected by arterial roads. The Court,

therefore, declined to interfere with the Award.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

                                    11

12.   In our opinion, practically the abovesaid consideration could be

applied to the lands in question. The lands are abutting the Kurukshetra

town and can easily be said to be a part and parcel of the Kurukshetra

town, having a great potential. In our opinion, the Division Bench should

have taken into consideration both the Annexures A-1 and A-2 and then

should have decided the question of market price. Looking at the judgment

of the Division Bench we get the impression that the matter has been

approached rather casually.

13.   Learned counsel took us through the above two Annexures but we

are deliberately not making any comments thereupon as, in our opinion, it

would be better for the Division Bench to reconsider the matter in the light

of what has been stated above.

14.   In the above backdrop we allow Civil Appeal Nos.2466, 2467, 2468,

2469 and 2470 of 2000 filed by the private appellants and direct remand of

the matters to the Division Bench to reconsider the matter in the light of the

observations made above.       Needless to mention that since we have

accepted the first part of the judgment of the Division Bench marginally

enhancing the market price to Rs.1,25,000/- per acre, that portion will

remain untouched in the sense that if so considered appropriate in law,

there may be only upward revision in the market price. We accordingly set

aside the judgment to the extent that we have indicated above and remand

the matter for fresh consideration to the Division Bench. Since the matter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

                                   12

has become very old, it would be desirable if the matter is decided as early

as possible, preferably within nine months from the date the petitions are

presented before the Division Bench.

15.   In the result Civil Appeal Nos.2461-2465 of 2000 filed by the State of

Haryana are dismissed and Civil Appeal Nos.2466, 2467, 2468, 2469 and

2470 of 2000 are allowed and remanded back to the Division Bench of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court for fresh consideration.               Under the

circumstances we desist from ordering any costs.

                                                  ...............................J.                                                    (Altamas Kabir)

                                                  ...............................J.                                                    (V.S. Sirpurkar) New Delhi; May 8, 2008

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

                                 13

                           Digital Performa

Case No.           :    CA 2461-2470/2000

Date of Decision :      08.05.2008

Cause Title       :     State of Haryana                               Vs.                         Gurbax Singh (Dead) by LRs. & Anr.

Coram             :     Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir                         Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar

Judgment delivered by : Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar

Nature of Judgment :     Reportable