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

PETITIONER: MEHARBAN & ORS. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWMAY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G. B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Saghir Ahmed               Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik V.R. Reddy, Additional  Solicitor General,   Shanti Bhushan, Raju   Ramachandran, A.B.  Rohtagi, S.S.  Ray,   Sr.  Advs., Sunil Kr.  Jain, J.K.  Bhatia, Sanjeev Anand, A. Suhrawardy, Zaki Ahmad  Khan,  Shamamma  Anis,  Manoj    Swarup,  Jayant Bhushan, Dheer  Singh, Ranjan  Mukherjee, J.M.  Sharma, S.S. Jauhar, Ms.  Meenakshi Arora,  S.S. Tiwari,.,’     , Sanjeev Anand, A.K.  Goel,     S. Markandeya, Ms. Chitra Markandeya, B. Dayal, M.  Aggarwal, (S.K.  Sinha) Adv.  (NP) ,  Prashant Kumar, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.                          O R D E R The following order of the Court was delivered:                             WITH 4216-26, 4227,4228, 4229-4243, 4244, 4245-48, 4249-50, 4251, 4252, 4253 & 4254 OF 1997 [Arising out  of SLP  (C) Nos.  14082-92/95,  3619, 1160/96, 27701-15/95, 327/96,  331-34,  336-37, 326, 1510/96, SLP (C) No...... /97  (CC-3695/95) and  SLP (C)  No.....  /97.  (CC- 5753/96)]                             AND CIVIL APPEAL  NOS.7746-48,   7754,8870-9005,  9007-93, 9237- 9258,  9292, 10540-43, 9646-54, 10318-19/950 AND 248-53/97                          O R D E R      In  case   pertaining  to  the  village  Dantal,  leave confined to the question of interest, stands revoked.      Delay condoned.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      Leave granted  in all  the  matters  except  where  the appeals are already on record.      The Notification  in respect  of the lands of an extent of 235.95 acres of lands situated in village Quasimpur Nagla Tashi was  issued on  August 14,  1987 under Section 4(1) of the Land  Acquisition Act,  1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the ’Act’) for   planned  development of  Meerut City.  The Land Acquisition   officer awarded  compensation.   under section 11, on  February 22,  1990 at  the rate  of Rs. 50/- per sq. yard.    On  reference  under  section  18,  the  Additional

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

District Judge  passed the  award and  decree dated  May 11, 1992 awarding compensation at the  rate of Rs. 240/- per sq. yd.      Feeling  aggrieved  by  the  said  judgment,  when  the Development Authority  and the    Government  filed  appeals followed by  the cross  appeals by  the claimants,  the High Court in  the judgment  dated January  12, 1995  reduced the compensation   to Rs.  75/-  per  sq.  yard.    Thus,  these appeals.      In respect  of the lands situated in Mukarabpur Palhera admeasuring 416.5  acres,   the notification  under  section 4(1) of the Act was published on February 12, 1980. The Land Acquisition  officer in his award dated January 9, 1988 made a belting and awarded compensation for the first belt, i.e., land admeasuring  34.46 acres at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq. yard and  for the second belt, i.e., land admeasuring 368.32 acres,   at the  rate   of Rs.  11.25  per  sq.  yard.    On reference,  Additional District Judge award compensation for the land  admeasuring 33.45  acres falling  in first belt at the           fate of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard by his award and decree dated  May 7,  1990; for  the land  admeasuring  3.53 acres falling  in second  belt at  the rate of Rs. 37.50 per sq. yard; and for land admeasuring 16.38 acres of the second belt he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard.   In his another award dated December 18, 1991 for the land admeasuring  1.99 acres  covered in  the second belt he awarded compensation   at  the   rate of  Rs. 100/-  per sq. yard. On  appeals, the  High court  reduced the compensation for   the first  belting to Rs.55/- per sq. yard by judgment and decree  dated December  20,  1994  and  for  the  second belting at  the rate  of Rs. 30/- per sq. yard.  With regard to  1.99  acres  of  land  falling  in  the  second    award compensation was  reduced to  Rs. 65/-  per sq.  yard by the judgment dated March 20, 1995.      In respect  of an  extent of  105.23 acres  of the land situated in  village Dantal,  the notification under section 4(1) of  the Act was published on June 11, 1985.  Possession was taken   on  June 16,  1985, of an area of 53.5 acres and compensation  was awarded for 1.03 acre of land in the first belt at  the rate  of Rs.37.5/- per sq.  yard and for  52.45 acres of  land falling  in the second belting at the rate of Rs. 28.13  per   sq. yard.   On  reference,  the  Additional District     Judge  granted   compensation  by  award  dated 31.10.1990 for  4.94 acres  of land of the first belt at the rate of Rs. 75/- per sq. yard and for 20.85 acres of land of the second  belt, at  the rate  of Rs.70/-  per sq.  yard by award dated  August 28,  1991. By  another award of the same date, for  the second  belt area of 9.66 acres, compensation was awarded  at the  rate of  Rs.70\- per sq. yard.  For the second belt area of 29.81 acres,  by the award dated January 8, 1991  compensation   was awarded at the  rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. yard. For  small portion of the  second belt area of admeasuring 2.45 acres compensation at the rate of Rs. 56.25 per sq.  yard was  awarded by  award  dated  31.10.1990.  On appeal, the  High Court  has  reduced  the  compensation  to Rs.70/- per  sq. yard  in respect  of  48.44  acres  by  the judgment dated  February 12,  1995.   Thus, these appeals by special leave.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      We have perused the map produced before us and also the sale deeds  filed by the parties and their location  as well as the   award  of the reference court  made pursuant to the notification published  on April  5, 1980  for acquiring the similar lands  for laying the Grand Turnk by-pass Road.  The reference Court  awarded compensation   at  the rate  of Rs.

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

70/- per sq. yard which had become final.  From this factual matrix,   the question  that arises  for  consideration  is: whether the  determination   of  the  market  value  by  the reference Court as well as the High Court is vitiated by any error of  law and  whether the  appellants are  entitled  to higher compensation  ? it  is seen that the lands in all the village are  abutting the  national highway and are situated on either  side of  the National highway and are situated on either side  of the  National Highway. Some of the lands are in between  the developed Meerut Cantonment and the National highway and  some of the lands are on the either side of the National highway  but at  a closer  proximity to  the  lands abutting the National highway.  In view of this proximity of the lands of the developed area, the question arises:  as to what would  be the  reasonable market  value of the lands in question? Shri  Shanti Bhushan,    learned  senior  counsel, relied on  the sale deeds  which were filed in the reference Court but none connected with them was examined.  Though the certified copies    are  admissible  under  section    51-A, examination of  either vendor  or  vendee is mandatory.  So, they are  inadmissible in  evidence. However,  the award  of compensation   at the   rate  of Rs.70/- per sq. yard having become final,  would form the basis to the compensation . In view  of   the  gradual   rise  in   prices,      reasonable approximation .   in  view of  the gradual  rise in  prises, reasonable approximation may be made. Though, it involves an amount of  cost for  developments,  reasonable approximation should be made which, according to the appellants,  it would be Rs.  240/- per  sq. yard  as determined  by the reference Court.   This was  determined after  deducting developmental charges. The  High Court,   therefore, is  wrong in reducing the compensation from  Rs. 240\- to Rs.75/- per sq. yard.      Shri S.S.  Ray, learned  senior counsel  and Shri  V.R. Reddy, learned  Additional solicitor  General,  on the other hand, contended  that the Meerut Development Authority filed an application under order XLI, Rule 27, CPC to take certain documents on  record which  are, admittedly negotiated rules in respect of the lands covered under the notification dated April 5,  1980 for  extension of  by-pass Grand  Trunk Road. Therein, the parties by negotiation had agreed to sell their lands at  the rate  of Rs.  32.25 per sq.  yard.  That would form the  basis. Though,  in law  they cannot  go behind the award of  Rs.50/- per  sq.   yard further enhancement is not warranted on  the basis of the above unimpeachable evidence. The High  court,   therefore, is  wrong in  determining  the compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. yard.  Shri S.S. Ray further  contended   that  the  lands  are  situated  in different village  and near  different  fertility  and  are, therefore,   not capable  of securing the same market value. The reference  court,  though adopted the belting system did not properly  consider the  fixation of the  market value on the rational   basis.   In  the absence  of    adduction  of evidence either of the vendor  or of the vendee,  sale deeds cannot be  looked into.    The  Land  Acquisition    officer considered   unimpeachable evidence   and his  award  can be looked into.  Necessarily, the  award there  was no  need to increase further enhance the  compensation.      Shri  Raju   Ramachandran,     learned  senior  counsel appearing for the claimants in Mukarabpur Palhera,  contends that though  the notification  is dated  February 12,  1980, necessarily, there  is a  rise in  prices and the  reference court was  not   right in  making the belting and fixing the compensation at Rs.70/- and Rs.37.50 per sq.  yard etc.  The High Court  also committed  same error  of law.  The learned counsel appearing  for  the    claimants  from  the  village

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

Dantal,   contended that  the lands  are situated in between the development   Meerut   cantonment  area and  the by-pass road possessed  of high  potentiality  for immediate use  as building   purpose. The  fixation of the market value by the High Court and the reference Court,  therefore,  is wrong in law.      Having regard  to the   respective    contentions,  the question that  arises  for  consideration  is:  whether  the determination of the compensation by the reference Court and the high  court is  correct in  law? It  is   settled  legal position     that  the   Court,    while  determining    the compensation must  sit in  the arm   chair  of a willing and prudent vendee  and put  a question whether the market value sought to be  determined would be capable to fetch the price that   hypothitic he  should determine  just and    adequate compensation for  the land  acquired.  Since none  connected with the  sale   deeds   was   examined,  the sale deeds are inadmissible in  evidence   though certified  copies  marked under Section  51-A are  available.   So, all the sale deeds stands   excluded. It  is the duty of the Court to take  all the relevant  factors into  account before  determination of the compensation.  Applying  the above acid test, in view of the paucity of evidence,  instead of remitting the matter to the  reference   Court  and  prolonging  the  agony  of  the claimants,   we thinks that the appropriate  course would be to base   the  award of   the reference  court in respect of the     notification  dated  April  5,  1980  in  which  the compensation  was determined at the  rate of Rs.70/- per sq. yard and  which has  become final,  That  would  form    the foundation and  base to determine the compensation  treating that area  as a  block.   That   was determined after giving necessary  deductions   towards  developmental  charges,  as required   under law.  The   belting in  this   case is  not reasonable for  the   entire  lands  are  situated  in  well defined and  developed blocks.   The  lands are possessed of immediate potential  value as building sites.  Having regard to that  base, the  question is:  whether the  claimants are entitled to  higher compensation   then  was determined?  In view of  the  fact  that  Meerut  City  is  a  fast  growing industrial and  commercial city  and in  many a  part  it is already   developed area,  there is pressure on the land for the  developmental   activities,    viz.  for  building  and commercial purposes.   In  fact , under these circumstances, we think   that  we should take into account reasonable rise in prices,   particularly  in view  of the  gap  of  several years,   we think   that  the approximate  net market  value would be Rs. 175/- per sq.  yard after giving deduction  for developmental charges  for the  lands situated  in Quasimpur Nagla Tashi  and the claimants  are entitled to the solatium at 30%   on enhanced compensation.  They  are also  entitled to interest  at the  rate of 95  per annum of one  year  and 15% per  annum on  enhanced compensation   from  the date of the taking  possession till   date of deposit in the  court. In case  the land   owners are still in possession, they are not entitled  to the  payment of  the interest.   similarly, they are  entitled to additional amount  under section 23(1- A) from the date of the notification till  date of the award or date of the  taking possession,  whichever is earlier.      The appeal  of claimants  in respect  of the  aforesaid village stands  disposed of.  The judgment and decree of the High Court stand set aside.  The judgment and decree of  the reference Court stand modified accordingly.      In respect  of the  Mukarabpur Palhera, it is seen that the notification is dated July 12, 1980. In view of the fact that this   land  also is  in very  close proximity  to  the

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

developed Meerut  city and the lands also were  possessed of potential  value for building purposes as on the date of the notification,   we think    that  approximate  market  value would be  Rs.85/- per  sq. yard.  The claimants are entitled to solatium on the enhanced compensation  at the rate of Rs. 30%.   They are  also entitled   to  interest  in  case  the possession was  delivered by  them with effect from the date of taking  possession for  one year  at 9% and thereafter at the  rate of 15% till the date of the  deposit in the Court. If possession  was not  so taken,   no interest is payable . They are  also   entitled to  additional   amount at 12% per annum under   section   23(1-A) till  date of passing of the award.  Equally,  in Dantal village,  the lands are situated very close  to the  developed  Meerut  city  and  they  also possessed of  same potential  value   as other areas  on the date of  the notification.  Therefore, they  are entitled to compensation at  the rate of Rs.85/- per sq. yard.  They are entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% in  case delivery of the possession   had  taken place;  in fact  possession  was taken in respect of the extent of 53.5 acres.  The claimants are entitled  to the  interest at  the rate of 9%  form June 16, 1985  for one   year  and at the rate of 15%  thereafter till date  of deposit.   They  are entitled  to   additional amount under  Section   23(1) from  the date of notification till date  of passing   of  the award   or  delivery of  the possession   at the  rate of  12% per  annum,  whichever  is earlier.      The appeals  are, accordingly allowed.  The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The award and decree of the reference Court  in respect  of villages  stand modified. In view of  the facts  and circumstance  of the  case , parties are directed  to bear   their  own  costs. If the amount has already been  deposited as  per  the award of the  reference Court to  the extent  of variation,   the Meerut Development Authority is  entitled to  restitution.   It is  open to the Meerut  Development  Authority  to  enforce  the  award  for seeking   restitution. In  view of the increase in  the case of  valuation   of  the   lands,  necessarily,      enhanced compensation would  from   a component for charging the said amount from  the   purchaser in  respect of  the  respective plots or  buildings,   as the   case  may be,  towards   the developmental expenses.