SUBH RAM & ORS. v.

HARYANA STATE & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 5844 of 2004)

OCTOBER 20, 2009 [R.V. Raveendran and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.]

[2009] 15 (Addl.) SCR  287 The Order of the Court was delivered by

O R D E R

R.V.  RAVEENDRAN  J., 1.  These  appeals  relate  to  determination  of  compensation  for  38.48  acres  of  land  in  village  Jharsa,  Tehsil  &  District  

Gurgaon, Haryana, acquired for establishment of a jail. The acquisition was  

initiated under preliminary notification dated 22.11.1984, issued under section  

4(1)  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894  (`Act'  for  short).  Land  Acquisition  

Collector  (`LAC'  for  short)  by  his  award  dated  22.8.1985,  offered  

compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre for chahi land, Rs.50,000/-  

per acre for aabi land and Rs.40,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land. The  

Reference  Court  increased  the  compensation  uniformly  to  Rs.36.20  per  

sq.yd.  (that  is  Rs.1,75,200/-  per  acre)  by  judgment  and  award  dated  

26.9.1989.  The appeals  filed by the land owners for  further  enhancement  

were  dismissed  by  the  High  Court,  by  the  impugned  judgments  dated  

11.2.2004, 31.3.2004, 11.2.2004 and 7.11.2006.

2. Before the Reference Court, claimants relied upon sale deeds marked  

as Ex.P-1 to P-12 relating to the period 1981 and 1982 (except Ex.P8 which  

was dated 28.7.1983) which disclosed an average price of Rs.78/85 per sq.yd  

in  Jharsa  village.  The  said  sale  deeds  related  to  small  residential  plots  

varying in size between 167 sq.yards to 665 sq.yds. The Reference Court  

deducted one-third of such price (that is Rs.26.25) towards development cost  

and arrived at the market value as Rs.52.60 per sq.yd.during 1981-82. As the  

market value of the acquired lands had to be determined as on 22.11.1984,  

the  date  of  notification  under  section  4(1)  of  the  Act,  the  reference court

increased the said market value of Rs.52/60, at the rate of 12% per annum,  

for two years (that is, by Rs.12/62) and arrived at a market value of Rs.65/22.  

The Reference Court was of the view that it should also take note of the sale  

deed relied on by the LAC, namely Ex. R-2 dated 27.11.1984 which related to  

sale of  one acre of  land for  Rs.30000/-  which worked out  to  Rs.6.19 per  

sq.yd. The Reference Court took the average of Rs.65.22 which was the rate  

disclosed by the sale deeds relied on by the claimants and Rs.6.19 being the  

rate disclosed by the sale deed relied on by the LAC and awarded the same  

as  compensation.  Though  the  average  works  out  to  Rs.35/70,  the  

compensation  awarded  was  Rs.36/20  per  sq.yd.  This  determination  was  

affirmed by the High Court.

3.  The  claimants  have  filed  these  appeals  aggrieved  by  the  said  

judgments,  contending that  the compensation awarded is inadequate.  The  

appellants have urged the following two contentions:

(i) that Ex.R2 dated 27.11.1984 relied on by the LAC ought to have  

been  excluded  from consideration,  while  determining  the  market  

value; and

(ii) that the deduction of one-third of the market value of small plots,  

towards development cost, is erroneous and no deduction ought to  

have been made.

The appellants submit that if these two corrections were made, the market  

value would have been Rs.98/91 per sq.yd (that is Rs. 78/85 plus 12% per  

year cumulatively for two years) to be rounded off to Rs.100/- per sq.yd.  

Re : First Contention

4. Ex. R.2 dated 27.11.1984 relied on by the LAC relates to sale of one  

acre of  land for  a price of  Rs.30,000/-  per  acre.  This is far  less than the  

compensation  that  was  offered  by  the  LAC.  Having  regard  to  the  large  

variance  between  the  market  value  disclosed  by  the  twelve  sale  deeds  

exhibited and relied upon by the claimants (average of which is Rs. 78/85)

and the market value disclosed by Ex R2 (Rs.6/19 per sq.yd) relied upon by  

LAC and having regard to the fact that the value disclosed by Ex. R2 was  

even less than what was offered by the LAC, it has to be inferred that Ex R2  

was either grossly undervalued or was a distress sale and has to be excluded  

from consideration, as being unreliable.  

5. If Ex R2 is excluded, the average of the prices disclosed by the twelve  

sale deeds relied on by the claimants, that is Rs.78/85 per sq.yd, would be  

indicative of the market value in 1981-82. The addition of 12% per annum for  

two years was not challenged by the respondents. By adding 12% per annum  

cumulatively for two years, the market value of small residential plots in the  

area neighbouring the acquired lands of that village, as on 22.11.1984, can  

be taken as Rs.98/90 per  sq.yd.  To determine the value of  large tract  of  

acquired land, it  is necessary to make an appropriate deduction therefrom  

towards development  cost.  Having regard to the fact  that  all  the acquired  

lands  adjoin  a  State  Highway  (Gurgaon  Alwar  Road)  and  the  proximate  

availability of facilities which can be easily accessed for development, it would  

be  appropriate  to  limit  the  deduction  to  40%  towards  development  cost,  

instead of  the usual  higher  percentage of  deduction ranging from 50% to  

67%.  Thus,  the  market  value  would  work  out  to  be  Rs.59/34  per  sq.yd  

(Rs.98/90 minus 40%) or Rs.2,87,200/- per acre.

Re : Second Contention

6.  We  will  now  deal  with  the  contention  of  the  appellants  that  no  

deduction need be made towards development cost, from the market value of  

residential  plots,  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  market  value  of  the  

acquired lands in this case. It  is not disputed by appellants that usually a  

deduction  towards  development  cost  is  necessary  when  the  `wholesale'  

market  value  of  large  undeveloped  land  is  determined  with  reference  to  

`retail'  market  value  of  small  developed  plots.  But  their  contention  is  that  

having regard to the purpose of acquisition (construction of a jail), which does

not involve any development activity, no deduction should be made from the  

market value of small developed plots. The said contention is based on the  

premises that the purpose for which the land is acquired is a relevant factor to  

decide whether any deduction should be made towards development cost or  

not. The appellants contend that as the acquisition was for construction of a  

jail, there will be no need set apart any part of the land for formation of roads,  

drains, parks etc. nor spend any amount for development of the land into a  

layout. They submitted that the observation of this Court in Viluben Jhalejan  

Contractor vs. State of Gujarat [2005 (4) SCC 789] and  Nelson Fernandes  

vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [2007 (9) SCC 447] that the purpose for  

which  acquisition  is  made,  is  also  a  relevant  factor  for  deciding  the  

compensation,  lends  support  to  their  contention.  The  contention  of  the  

appellants proceeds on a misunderstanding and misconstruction of the legal  

position relating to deductions.

7.  What  is  the  concept  of  deduction  of  development  cost  to  arrive  at  

market  value?  If  the  market  value  of  a  large  tract  of  agricultural  and  or  

undeveloped non-agricultural land possessing potential for development is to  

be determined with reference to the market value of a small residential plot  

situated in a neighbouring residential layout, it becomes necessary to work  

back the market value of the large tract of undeveloped land from the market  

value of the small residential plot. This is because the value of one square  

yard of undeveloped land is not the same as one square yard of developed  

residential plot. If there is a large tract of agricultural or undeveloped land,  

obviously  the  entire  extent  cannot  be  sold  as  residential  plots.  If  the  

agricultural or undeveloped land has to be sold as residential plots, it is first  

necessary to make a layout of plots in such land. This would mean that a  

provision will have to be made for roads to provide access to each plot in the  

layout. In a standard layout with plots measuring say 2500 sq.ft. (50'x 50')  

each, to provide road access to each plot, it will be necessary to provide a  

road after every two rows of plots. If the depth of each plot is 50', and if the

road width is 25 feet, then for every two strips of plots, there will have to be a  

strip of road of 25 feet. This means a minimum of 25% of the total land area  

will be utilised for roads. A typical layout will also have cross-roads, and areas  

earmarked  for  park,  and/or  community  areas.  Consequently  non-saleable  

area (area which cannot be sold as plots) would be around 30% to 40% of the  

total area. Therefore, in the hypothetical layout method of determination of  

market value, as a first step, the areas that will be used up for roads, drains,  

parks/playgrounds and community areas, will have to be excluded from the  

total extent of the acquired land. The standard deduction in this behalf is one-

third (33%). But merely deducting the areas required for roads, drains, parks  

and  community  areas,  will  not  convert  a  large  tract  of  agricultural  or  

undeveloped land into a developed residential layout. For that, considerable  

financial outlay has to be made. The land will have to be levelled. The land  

will have to be converted from agricultural use to non-agricultural residential  

use by paying necessary fees/fine to the Revenue/development authorities.  

Then the roads will have to be asphalted or concreted. Drains will have to be  

dug and lined with reinforced cement concrete or stone, for drainage of rain  

water. Electricity, water, and sewage lines will have to be laid. Deposits will  

have to be made to the Authorities dealing with electricity,  water,  sewage  

removal.  The  development  will  also  involve  the  service  of  surveyors,  

engineers  and  developers.  All  these  involve  considerable  expenditure.  

Further, as there will be a time gap between the expenditure for development  

and  the  actual  sale  of  plots,  the  cost  of  development  will  also  have  an  

element  of  interest  on  investment.  The  developer  who  undertakes  the  

development  and invests  the  monies  for  evelopment  would also expect  a  

reasonable profit when the plots are sold. All these expenditure and factors  

are standardised into another one-third (33%) deduction towards expenses of  

development.  Thus,  if  the  valuation  of  a  large  extent  of  agricultural  or  

undeveloped land is to be based on the sale price of a small developed plot in  

a private layout, then the standard deductions should be one-third (for roads

etc.) plus one-third (for expenditure of development) in all two thirds (or 67%),  

as  'development  cost'  from  the  value  of  small  plot.  The  percentage  of  

deduction may however vary between 20% to 75% depending on several  

circumstances (See :  Lal Chand vs. Union of India - 2009 (11) SCALE 627,  

paras 8 and 9 for illustrations of such circumstances).

8.  Therefore,  when  deduction  is  made  from  the  value  of  a  small  

residential plot towards the development cost, to arrive at the value of a large  

tract  of  agricultural  or  undeveloped  land  with  development  potential,  the  

deduction has nothing to do with the purpose for which the land is acquired.  

The deduction is with reference to the price of the small residential plot, to  

work back the value of  the large tract  of  undeveloped land.  On the other  

hand,  where  the  value  of  acquired  agricultural  land  is  determined  with  

reference to the sale price of a neighbouring agricultural land, no deduction  

need be made towards `development cost'.  

9. It is not doubt true that this Court in some decisions has observed that  

purpose  of  acquisition  will  also  be  relevant.  But  it  is  made  in  a  different  

context.  The  Land  Acquisition  Collectors  in  some  cases  adopt  belting  

methods for valuation of land, with reference to a focal point, that is either  

with  reference  to  the  distance  from  the  main  road,  or  distance  from  a  

developed area. Lands that adjoin a developed area or a main road is given a  

higher value than a land farther away from the road or the developed area.  

The  Land  Acquisition  Collectors  also  award  different  compensation  

depending upon whether the acquired land is a dry land or wet/irrigated land.  

When  different  categories  of  lands  (or  lands  with  different  situational  

advantages)  are  acquired  for  the  same  purpose,  say  for  forming  of  a  

residential layout, courts have sometimes felt that determination of their value  

with reference to previous status or situation should be avoided and a uniform  

rate of  compensation should be awarded for  all  lands acquired under  the  

same notification. The logic employed by the court is that categorising the  

lands acquired for a common purpose, say for a residential colony, into high

value irrigated land and low value dry lands is meaningless, as all lands are  

to  be  levelled  and  used  for  the  same  purpose  that  is  for  formation  of  a  

residential  layout  and  once  the  layout  is  formed,  it  makes  no  difference  

whether the land was previously a land with irrigation facilities or a dry land. It  

is in this context, in some cases, to avoid the need to differentiate the lands  

acquired under a common notification for a common purpose, and to extend  

the benefit of a uniform compensation, courts have observed that the purpose  

of acquisition is also a relevant factor. The said observation may not apply in  

all cases and all circumstances as the general rule is that the land owner is  

being  compensated  for  what  he  has  lost  and  not  with  reference  to  the  

purpose of acquisition.

10.  The purpose of  acquisition  can never  be a factor  to  increase  the  

market  value  of  the  acquired  land.  We  may  give  two  examples.  Where  

irrigated land belonging to `A' and dry land of `B' and waste land of `C' are  

acquired for purpose of submergence in a dam project, neither `B' nor `C' can  

contend that they are entitled to the same higher compensation which was  

awarded for the irrigated land, on the ground that all the lands were acquired  

for the same purpose. Nor can the Land Acquisition Collector hold that in  

case of acquisition for submergence in a dam project, irrigated land should be  

awarded lesser compensation equal to the value of waste land, on the ground  

that purpose of acquisition is the same in regard to both. The principle is that  

the quality (class) of land, the situation of the land, the access to the land are  

all  relevant  factors  for  determination  of  the  market  value.  But  in  certain  

acquisitions, in certain circumstances, for lack of detailed or clear evidence,  

courts  have  chosen  to  ignore  the  difference  in  the  quality/situational  

advantages and treat  all  lands equally for awarding uniform compensation  

having regard to the common purpose of acquisition. How far such a course  

is proper or valid may be debatable. Whether such a procedure is legally valid  

or proper or not, may have to be decided in the context of the respective  

acquisitions. All that has to be noticed in the context of the issue before us, is

that the use to which the acquired land may be put, can have no bearing  

upon  the  deduction  to  be  made  towards  development  cost.  Nor  can  the  

purpose of acquisition be used to increase the compensation awardable with  

reference to the expected profits from the future user. The observation that  

purpose of acquisition is a relevant factor, unless properly understood and  

carefully applied with reference to special circumstances, may lead to absurd  

or unjust results. It is accepted generally that residential plots are costlier than  

industrial plots, and commercial plots are costlier than residential plots. If the  

purpose of acquisition is a relevant factor in determining compensation, then  

it  would  lead  to  the  absurd  and  unjust  situation,  that  the  compensation  

payable for the same land will be different, depending upon the purpose of  

the acquisition; and that compensation will be less if the acquisition is for a  

sewage treatment  plant,  more if  the acquisition is  for  an industrial  layout,  

much more if acquisition is for residential layout and highest if the acquisition  

is for commercial  value.  The purpose of acquisition cannot  therefore be a  

factor to increase the compensation.

11. Deduction of `development cost'  is  the concept used to derive the  

`wholesale price'  of  a large undeveloped land with  reference to the `retail  

price' of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small  

developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the `development  

cost'.  Two  factors  have  a  bearing  on  the  quantum  (or  percentage)  of  

deduction in the `retail price' as development cost. Firstly, the percentage of  

deduction is decided with reference to the extent and nature of development  

of the area/layout in which the small developed plot is situated. Secondly, the  

condition  of  the  acquired  land  as  on  the  date  of  preliminary  notification,  

whether  it  was  undeveloped,  or  partly  developed,  is  considered  and  

appropriate adjustment is made in the percentage of deduction to take note of  

the  developed  status  of  the  acquired  land.  The  percentage  of  deduction  

(development cost factor) will be applied fully where the acquired land has no  

development. But where the acquired land can be considered to be partly

developed (say for example, having good road access or having the amenity  

of electricity, water etc.),  then the development cost (that is percentage of  

deduction) will be modulated with reference to the extent of development of  

the acquired land as on the date of acquisition. But under no circumstances,  

the future use or purpose of acquisition will  play a role in determining the  

percentage of deduction towards development cost.  

12. Section 24 of Land Acquisition Act prohibits the court from taking into  

consideration any increase to the value of the land acquired, likely to accrue  

from the use to which it will be put when acquired. A three-judge Bench of this  

Court in Tarlochan Singh vs. State of Punjab  1995 (2) SCC 424 held :

"Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act expressly prohibits and puts an  

embargo on the Court in taking the factors mentioned in section 24 as  

relevant in determining the market value. Under these circumstances, the  

future development and potential prospective use of the acquisition etc.,  

are not relevant circumstances.  Even the purpose of acquisition is not  

relevant."

(emphasis supplied)

The above position was reiterated in Raj Kumar vs. State of Punjab  1995 (3)  

SCC 121. This Court led :

".....The purpose of acquisition i.e. to establish market and on its account  

the  lands  are  possessing  potential  value,  is  irrelevant  by  operation  of  

section 24 of the Act."

(12.1.)  Administrator  General  of  West  Bengal  vs.  Collector,  Varanasi,   

[1988  (2)  SCC  150]  contains  a  precise  statement  as  to  the  concept  of  

deducting development cost. This Court stated:

"It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe   

bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable   

properties.  .....  The principle that  evidence of  market value of  sales of  

small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land

has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that  

prices fetched for  small  developed plots cannot  directly be adopted in  

valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be  

valued ..............is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that  

could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that  

valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay out could with  

justification  be  adopted,  then  in  valuing  such  small,  laid  out  sites  the  

valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or  

about  the  time  of  the  notification  would  be  relevant.  In  such  a  case,  

necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of  

roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by  

laying  out  roads,  drains,  sewers,  water  and  electricity  lines,  and  the  

interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the  

price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made. In Sahib Singh Kalha  

v. Amritsar Improvement Trust  [1982 (1) SCC 419], this Court indicated  

that  deductions  for  land  required  for  roads  and  other  developmental  

expenses can, together,  come up to as much as 53 per cent.  But the  

prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in the case of  

large areas, for the reasons that the former reflects the `retail'  price of  

land and the latter the `wholesale' price.

(emphasis supplied)

This  Court  referred  to  and  relied  upon  several  earlier  decisions  including  

three Judge Bench decisions in  Mirza Nausherwan Khan v.  The Collector  

(Land) Acquisition, Hyderabad [1975 (1) SCC 238] and Padma Uppal v. State  

of Punjab [1977 (1) SCC 330].

(12.2.) In  Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer    

1988 (3) SCC 751, this Court held :

"..... a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out,  

carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting

for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will  be blocked up) and  

the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making  

a  deduction  by  way  of  an  allowance  at  an  appropriate  rate  ranging  

approx, between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart  

for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to  

some extent  also depend on whether  it  is  a rural  area or  urban area,  

whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during  

which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or  

shorter and the attendant hazards".

It should be noted that deduction of 20% to 50% referred to therein is only in  

regard to the land to be earmarked for roads, community areas etc. and does  

not refer to the further deduction towards the expenses of development.

(12.3.)  In  K.S.  Shivadevamma  vs.  Asstt.  Commissioner  &  Land  

Acquisition Officer [1996 (2) SCC 62], this Court held :

"It  is then contended that 54% is not automatic but depends upon the  

nature of the development and the stage of development. We are inclined  

to agree with the learned counsel that the extent of deduction depends  

upon development need in each case. Under the Building Rules 53% of  

land is required to be left out. This Court has laid as a general rule that for  

laying the roads and other amenities 33-1/3% is required to be deducted.  

Where the development has already taken place, appropriate deduction  

needs to be made. In this case, we do not find any development had  

taken place as on that  date.  When we are determining compensation  

under Section 23(1), as on the date of notification under Section 4(1), we  

have to consider the situation of the land development, if already made,  

and other relevant facts as on that date. No doubt, the land possessed  

potential value, but no development had taken place as on the date. In  

view of the obligation on the part of the owner to hand over the land to the  

City  Improvement  Trust  for  roads  and  for  other  amenities  and  his

requirement to expend money for laying the roads, water supply mains,  

electricity  etc.,  the  deduction  of  53%  and  further  deduction  towards  

development charges @ 33-1/3%, as ordered by the High Court, was not  

illegal."

(12.4.) In Atma Singh vs. State of Haryana  2008 (2) SCC 568 this Court  

reiterated the settled principles regarding deductions thus :

"The reasons given for the principle that price fetched for small plots cannot  

form  safe  basis  for  valuation  of  large  tracks  of  land,  according  to  cases  

referred to above, are that substantial area is used for development of sites  

like laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and other civic  

amenities. Expenses are so incurred in providing these basic amenities. That  

apart it takes considerable period in carving out the roads making sewers and  

drains  and  waiting  for  the  purchasers.  Meanwhile  the  invested  money  is  

blocked up and the return on the investment flows after a considerable period  

of time. In order to make up for the area of land which is used in providing  

civic  amenities  and  the  waiting  period  during  which  the  capital  of  the  

entrepreneur gets locked up a deduction from 20% onward, depending upon  

the facts of each case, is made."

13.  The legal  position is  therefore clear  and well  settled.  But  in  Atma  

Singh, after reiterating the said principle regarding deduction of development  

cost, this Court made an observation that no deduction need be made having  

regard to the purpose of acquisition, which requires to be clarified. We extract  

the relevant portion below:

"15. The question to be considered is whether in the present case those  

factors  exist  which warrant  a deduction by way of  allowance from the  

price exhibited by the exemplars of small plots which have been filed by  

the parties.  The land has not  been acquired for  a  Housing Colony or  

Government  Office  or  an  Institution.  The  land  has  been  acquired  for  

setting up a sugar factory. The factory would produce goods worth many

crores  in  a  year.  A  sugar  factory  apart  from  producing  sugar  also  

produces many by-product in the same process. One of the by-products  

is molasses, which is produced in huge quantity. Earlier, it had no utility  

and its disposal used to be a big problem. But now molasses is used for  

production of alcohol and ethanol which yield lot of revenue. Another by  

product degases is now used for generation of power and press mud is  

utilized in manure. Therefore, the profit from a sugar factory is substantial.  

Moreover, it is not confined to one year but will accrue every year so long  

as the factory  runs.  A housing board does not  run on business lines.  

Once plots are carved out after acquisition of land and are sold to public,  

there is no scope for earning any money in future. An industry established  

on acquired land,  if  run efficiently,  earns money or makes profit  every  

year.  The  return  from  the  land  acquired  for  the  purpose  of  Housing  

Colony, or Offices, or Institution cannot even remotely be compared with  

the land which has been acquired for the purpose of setting up a factory  

or industry. After all the factory cannot be set up without land and if such  

land is giving substantial return, there is no justification for making any  

deduction from the price exhibited by the exemplars even if they are of  

small plots. It is possible that a part of the acquired land might be used for  

construction  of  residential  colony  for  the  staff  working  in  the  factory.  

Nevertheless where the remaining part of the acquired land is contributing  

to production of goods yielding good profit, it would not be proper to make  

a deduction in the price of land shown by the exemplars of small plots as  

the reasons for doing so assigned in various decisions of this Court are  

not applicable in the case under consideration."

The above observations no doubt seem to suggest that where the acquisition  

is for a residential lay out, deduction towards development cost is a must, but  

if the acquisition is for an industry which does not require forming a layout of  

sites, the market value of small residential plots may be adopted without any  

cuts  towards  development  cost.  The  said  observations  are  made  with

reference to the special facts of that case. If they are read out of context to  

support  a contention that the purpose of acquisition is a relevant factor to  

avoid  the  deduction  of  development  cost  in  valuation,  it  may  then  be  

necessary  to  consider  the  said  observations  as  having  been  made  per  

incuriam,  as  they  overlook  a  mandatory  statutory  provision  --  section  24  

(clause fifthly) of the Act and the series of decisions of larger benches of this  

Court  which hold that  when value of  large tracts  of  undeveloped lands is  

sought to be determined with reference to small residential plots in developed  

area,  it  is  mandatory  to  deduct  an  appropriate  percentage  towards  

development  cost.  But  it  may  be  unnecessary  to  consider  whether  the  

observations are per incuriam as para 15 of the decision makes it clear that  

what is stated therein, is with reference to the special facts of that case, with  

a view not to disturb the smaller deduction of 10% by the High Court, and not  

intended to be statement of law.

Relevancy of other acquisitions in the same village

14.  Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  lastly  contended  that  having  

regard  to  two  judgments  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  High  Court  relating  to  

acquisition in the same village in  Azad Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr.   

(RFA  No.2  of  1991  decided  on  30.9.1997)  and  Kabul  Singh  &  Ors.  vs.  

Haryana  State  &  Anr.  (RFA  No.556  of  1994  decided  on  13.5.1999)  the  

compensation to be awarded should not be less than Rs.68/- (plus 25%) per  

sq.yd. In both cases Rs.68/- per sq. yard was awarded as compensation for  

acquisitions of land in village Jharsa in the years 1982 and 1983. It was also  

submitted that as the subject acquisition was two years later in 1984, at least  

25% should be added to Rs.68/- per sq.yd. But the map of the area produced  

by the appellants show that the lands which are the subject matter of those  

two  decisions  are  more  advantageously  situated  as  they  adjoin  National  

Highway  No.8  and  are  next  to  well  developed  areas  (like  Hidayatpur  

Cantonment, etc.) whereas the acquired lands are farther away from National

Highway No.8 and any developed area. Hence, the said decisions, though  

relating to Jharsa village, are not of any assistance.

Conclusion

15. In view of the above, we allow these appeals in part and increase the  

compensation for the acquired lands to Rs.2,87,200/- per acre. The appellants will  

also be entitled to all statutory benefits, that is solatium at 30% under section 23(2) of  

the Act, additional amount at 12% from the date of preliminary notification to date of  

award under section 23(1A) of the Act, and interest on the total compensation less the  

amount awarded by the LAC, at 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking  

possession and 15% PA thereafter. Parties to bear respective costs.