REPORTABLE

      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  3677   OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.9751/2008)

UDHO DASS ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ..  RESPONDENT(S)

 WITH

CIVIL  APPEAL  NO.  3674  OF  2010

(Arising  out of  

SLP(C)No.4571/2008)

OM PRAKASH .. APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH  CA 3716/2010 @ SLP(C) 12765/2010 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10008 of 2009 [CHHOTO @ KABULI & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (For permission to file SLP, substitution, c/delay in filing  substitution appln. and office report)

CA 3718/2010 @ SLP(C) 12766/2010 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10015 of 2009 [DAYANAND (D) TR. LRS & ORS. V. STAT EOF HARYANA & ANR.] (For permission to file SLP, substitution, c/delay in filing  substitution appln. and office report)

CA No. 3761/2010 @ SLP(C) NO. 10191 of 2008 [SARDAR SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.  (With appln. for substitution of deceased petitioner, c/delay  in filing substitution appln. and office report)

-2-

CA  

3721/2010 @ SLP(C) 12767/2010 @ IA Nos. 1-2 In & S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10193 of 2009 [SABHA CHAND (D) TR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (For permission to file SLP and office report)

CA 3731/2010 @ SLP(C) 12772/2010 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10239 of 2009 [KUNDAN (D) THR. LRS.  V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (For permission to file SLP, substitution, c/delay in filing  substitution appln. and office report)

CA 3722/2010 @ SLP(C) 12768/2010 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10350 of 2009 [KUNDAN (D) THR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (For permission to file SLP, substitution, c/delay in filing

substitution appln. and office report)

CA 3723/2010 @ SLP(C) 12769/2010 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10429 of 2009 [[KISHAN CHAND & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] With IA  No. 1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)

CA 3724/2010 @ SLP(C) 12770/2010 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10431 of 2009 [SANTOSH KUMARI V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] With IA No. 1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)

CA 3725/2010 @ SLP(C) 12771/2010 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10521 of 2009 [RAJ MAL & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] With  IA  No.  1  (C/delay  in  filing  SLP  and  office  report)

CA 3678- 87/2010  @  SLP(C)  NO.  11303- 11312 of  2008 [JAI  BHAGWAN  &  ORS.  V. STATE  OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With office report)

CA 3762/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 12240 of 2010 [PRAKASH CHAND JAIN & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With appln. for /c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling  SLP and office report)

CA 3739/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 1318 of 2010 [KHAYALI RAM (D) BY LRS. & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling  SLP and office report)

-3-

CA 3688/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 14151 of 2008 [SHYAM SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With office report)

CA 3700/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 14363 of 2009 [OM PRAKASH V. STATE OF HARYANA] (With appln. for permission to place additional documents on  record, prayer for interim relief and office report)

CA  

3701/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 14514 of 2009 [PREM KUMARI V. STATE OF HARYANA] (With office report)

CA 3702/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 14515 of 2009 [SAT NARAIN & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA] (With office report)

CA 3703/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 14523 of 2009 [ZILE SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA] (With office report)

CA 3704/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 14946 of 2009 [JAI CHAND (D) THR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With office report)

CA 3705/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 15007 of 2009 [JAI CHAND (D) THR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With office report)

CA 3706/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 15041 of 2009 [KRISHAN & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With office report)

CA  

3707/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 15099 of 2009 [RAM KISHAN & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA] (With office report)

-4-

CA 3708/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 15100 of 2009

[MAHENDER V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With office report)

CA 3711/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 15356 of 2009 [ATAM PRAKASH V. STATE OF HARYANA] (With office report)

CA 3712/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 15593 of 2009 [RATTI RAM V. STATE OF HARYANA] (With office report)

CA 3690/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 16088 of 2008 [ATAM  PARKASH  V. STATE  OF  HARYANA  & ORS.] (With  appln.  for  c/delay  in  filing  SLP  and  office  report)

CA  

3689/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 16359 of 2008 [JAI CHAND (D) BY LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)

CA 3713/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 16676 of 2009 [BALJIT & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA] (With office report)

CA 3714/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 16694 of 2009 [RAGHBIR & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With office report)

CA 3692/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 16861 of 2008 [LAL CHAND V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With appln. for permission to place additional documents on  record)

CA 3715/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 17005 of 2009 [BALDEV RAJ V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With office report)

-5-

CA  

3719/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 17068 of 2009 [SURAJMAL (D) TR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA] (With office report)

CA 3693/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 17111 of 2008 [RAM KISHAN & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With office report)

CA 3720/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 17175 of 2009 [KISHAN CHAND V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With office report)

CA 3691/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 17736 of 2008 [SUDHIR KUMAR BATRA & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With office report)

CA 3726/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 18107 of 2009 [JAGE RAM & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With office report)

CA 3694/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 18168 of 2008 [HARJINDER SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With office report)

CA  

3697/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 18312 of 2008 [SHYAM SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. (With office report)

CA 3698/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 18314 of 2008 [JIWAN SINGH & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With office report)

CA 3695/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 19934 of 2008 [KUNDAN (D) TR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)

CA 3696/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 19938 of 2008 [BHAGWAN DASS V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With office report)

-6-

CA 3730/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 20147 of 2009 [RAGHBIR V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With office report)

CA 3727/2010 @  SLP(C)  NO.  22751 of  2009 [RADHA &  ORS.  V.  STATE OF  HARYANA  & ANR.] (With  office  report)

CA  

3728/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 23350 of 2009 [MADAN LAL & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With office report)

CA 3729/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 23357 of 2009 [RAJ KUMAR & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With appln. for substitution, c/delay in filing substitution  appln. and office report)

CA 3699/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 23926 of 2008 [DAYA NAND & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)

CA 3736/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 31649 of 2009 [HARI RAM & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With office report)

CA 3740-52/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 31689-31701 of 2009 [NET RAM & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA] (With office report)

CA 3737/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 31838 of 2009 [BHARTU (D) TR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With office report)

CA  

3738/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 33116 of 2009 [JAI PAL & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (With appln. for impleadment as party respondent and office  report)

-7-

CA 3732-35/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 35055-35058 of 2009

[HANS RAJ MALIK ETC. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With office report)

CA 3753/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 4663 of 2010 [RAMESHWAR DASS & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA] (With office report)

CA 3675/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 5537 of 2008 [RAJBIR & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With office report)

CA 3754-60/2010 @ SLP(C) 12776-82/2010 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6825-6831 of 2008 [RAMESH  KUMAR  &  ORS.  ETC.  V.  STATE OF  HARYANA  & ORS.] (With  appln.  for  

permission to file SLP and substitution of deceased petitioner  and office report)

CA 3709/2010 @ SLP(C) 12760/2010 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 9252 of 2009 [KRISHAN & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.] (For permission to file SLP, substitution, c/delay in filing  substitution appln. and office report)

CA 3709/2010 @ SLP(C) 12761/2010 @ S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 9310 of 2009 [KUNDAN (D) THR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (for permission to file SLP, substitution, c/delay in filing  substitution appln. and office report)

CA 3717/2010 @  IA NOS. 1-5 IN & SLP(C) NO. 9743 of 2010 [KHEM LAL (D) BY LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (For permission to file SLP and office report)

CA 3677/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 9751 of 2008 [UDHO DASS V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.] (With appln. for permission to place additional documents on  record and office report)

CA 3676/2010 @  SLP(C) NO. 9977 of 2008 [SURAJ MAL (D) THR. LRS & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & OS.]

-8-

O R D E  R

Permission to file SLPs is granted.

Delay condoned in filing substitution applications.

Applications for substitution are allowed.

Delay  condoned  in  filing  the  special  leave  

petitions.

Leave granted.

Vide Notification  dated 17th May, 1990 under Section

4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called  

`The Act') 162.5 acres of land situated in village Patti  

Musalmanan was notified for setting up of a housing project  

in Sector 12,  Sonepat.  This Notification was followed by  

a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 16th May 1991.  

The Collector rendered his Award on 12th May 1993 awarding a  

sum  of  Rs.  2,00,000/-  (Rupees  two  lakhs)  per  acre  as  

compensation for the entire land.

On  a  reference  under  Sec.  18  of  the  Act  to  the  

Additional District Judge, Sonepat, the compensation was  

enhanced to Rs.125/- per sq. yard for the land behind the  

E.C.E. factory situated away and on the left side of the  

Sonepat Bahalgarh  road and Rs.150/- per square yard on the  

right side abutting  the aforesaid road.  In arriving at  

these different figures the Reference Court held that the

-9-

land on the left side did not abut the road and it had  

therefore less potential value vis-a-vis. the land on the  

right side which touched the road.

The High Court in first appeal further enhanced the  

compensation from Rs.125/- to Rs.135/- for land on the left  

side  and to Rs.160/- from Rs.150/- on the right side  on  

the principle  applied by the Reference Court.  The present  

set of appeals at the instance of the landowners have been  

filed impugning the judgments of the courts below.

We have gone through the record and have heard the  

learned counsel for the parties at length.

It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Srivastava, the

learned senior counsel in most of the appeals, that the  

appellants  were  entitled  to  take  the  Award  for  the  

acquisition in village Jamalpur Kalan which pertained to an  

acquisition  of  the  year  1992,  and  which  had  led  to  a  

compensation of Rs.250/- per square yard, as the basis for  

the determination of the compensation in the present case  

as well as the land of Jamalpur Kalan had a common boundary  

with the land acquired  behind the E.C.E. factory with a  

small  deduction in the price as the  present acquisition  

was of the year 1990. In the alternative he has submitted  

-10-

that the compensation ought to have been settled on the

basis  of  the  sale  instances  exhibits  P.2  to  P.14  which  

showed a substantial increase  yearwise from Rs.300/- per  

sq. yd in 1984 (Ext. P.2) to Rs. 600/- in 1989 (Ext. P.14).  

He has also submitted that as the land had been notified  

for the purpose of a housing project no distinction could  

be made between the land abutting  the main road and that  

which was slightly away and the belting principle applied  

by the District Judge as well as the High Court was not  

called  for.  For  this  argument  the  learned  counsel  has  

placed  reliance  on   P.  Rama  Reddi  and  Others vs.  Land  

Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority,  

Hyderabad and others  (1995) 2 SCC 305.  It has also been  

submitted that though the potentiality  of the land had  

admittedly been noted by the District Judge  and  the High  

Court  but  the  full  potential  of  land  had  not  been  

appreciated or recognized and as such it was open to this

Court to reappraise the evidence and to arrive at a fair  

assessment  on this aspect, as the compensation proceedings  

started in the year 1990, were still continuing.  

Mr. P.S. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel for  

some of the other claimants has supplemented  the arguments  

-11-

made by Mr. Srivastava and has also placed reliance on the  

award in the case of village Jamalpur Kalan. Some of the  

other counsel have also raised certain issues but as they  

are substantially covered by the submissions noted above  

we need not refer to them.

Mr. Shakil Ahmed, the learned counsel  appearing in  

SLP(C)  No.  18312/2008  has  further  pointed  out  that  the  

proper  compensation for the building and trees  had not  

been  correctly  awarded  and  the  compensation  under  these  

heads needed to be substantially enhanced.

The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the  

claimants have been controverted by Mr. Govind Goel, the  

learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary-respondents.  

He has submitted that the Award in the case of Jamalpur  

Kalan  could  not  be  taken  into  account  for  the  primary  

reason that it pertained to an acquisition of  1992 whereas  

the present one was of 1990 and the  District Judge as well  

as the High Court had fully recognized the potential of the  

land and had accorded compensation on that basis.  He has  

also submitted that the reliance  by the claimants on the  

sale  instances  Ext.  P.2  to  P.14  was  misplaced  as  they

pertained to  very small areas of one Biswa (50 sq. yd) and  

-12-

the other sale instances put on record by the claimants  

themselves  (Ext.p.15 and P.16) pertaining  to two sales  

made on 28th April, 1989 for 4400 square yards at Rs.120/-  

per square yard and P.16  for 1600 square yards at Rs.122/-  

per square yard had in fact been accepted by the Courts  

below with a marginal  increase towards the potential of  

the acquired land. It has also been submitted that in the  

light  of  the  fact  that  these  were  sale  instances  

pertaining to this very village that is Patti Musalmanan  

there was absolutely no justification in going to the Award

pertaining  to  Jamalpur  Kalan  for  determining  the  

compensation.  He has finally submitted that belting in the  

facts  of  the  case  was  fully  justified  and  in  this  

connection has placed reliance on  Executive Director Vs.  

Sarat Chandra Bisoi and Another (2000) 6 SCC 326)

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  

and gone through the record.  The location of the land in  

order  to  appreciate  its  potential  for  the  purpose  of  

compensation has first to be understood.. Admittedly, the  

land is situated within the municipal limits of Sonepat  

which is a district headquarter adjoining Delhi and within  

the National Capital Region.  The distance between

13-

Bahalgarh,  a  small  township  on  the  Grand  Trunk  Road,  

National Highway No.1, built five centuries ago by Sher  

Shah  Suri  (and  arguably  India's  most  important  and  

strategic  highway  and  the  lifeline  between  the  rest  of  

India and the north and northwest), and Sonepat is 7 km.,  

as per the indication on the National Highway itself.  The  

acquired land is situated on both sides of the road leading  

from Bahalgarh to Sonepat with some portions  touching the  

road  side  and  some  portion  slightly  away  and  situated  

behind  the  ECE  factory.   It  is,  however,  the  admitted  

position and (we have seen the location on the maps that  

have been produced before us) that the land behind the ECE  

factory adjoins the area of village Jamalpur Kalan which  

had been acquired in the year 1992 and which the appellants

claim should be made the basis for determining compensation  

in the present matter as well.  It must also be noticed  

that  the  enormous  development  from  the  Delhi  border  

alongside  the  Grand  Trunk  Road  and  well  beyond  the  

Bahalgarh – Sonepat bifurcation is now a matter for all to  

see and we have seen this on the maps produced in Court as  

well, as huge residential and commercial areas have been  

developed with a mind boggling increase in the price of  

-14-

agricultural land in the last 15 or 20 years. While dealing  

with  the  question  of  the  potential  value  of  the  land

acquired  this  Court  in  P.  Rama  Reddy's  case  (supra)  

observed that several matters had to keep in mind; they  

being (and we quote),  

“(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-

vis the city or the town or village which had  

been growing in size because of its commercial,  

industrial, educational, religious or any other  

kind of importance or because of its explosive  

population;  

(ii)the  suitability  of  the  acquired  land  for  

putting up the buildings, be they residential,  

commercial or industrial, as the case may be;

(iii)possibility of obtaining water and electric  

supply for occupants of buildings to be put up  

on that land;

(iv)absence of statutory impediments or the like

for  using  th  acquired  land  for  building  

purposes;

(v)existence of highways, public roads, layouts  

of  building  plots  or  developed  residential  

extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of  

the acquired land;

-15-

(vi)benefits  or  advantages  or  educational  

institutions, health care centres, or the like  

in the surrounding areas of the acquired land  

which may become available to the occupiers of  

buildings, if built on the acquired land;

(vii)and lands around the acquired land or the  

acquired  land  itself  being  in  demand  for  

building purposes, to specify a few.

The  material  to  be  so  placed  on  record  or  made  

available  in  respect  of  the  said  matters  and  the  like,  

cannot have the needed evidentary value for concluding that  

the acquired land being used for building purposes in the  

immediate or near future unless the same is supported by  

reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances  

permit.  When once a conclusion is reached that there was  

the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting  

up  buildings  in  the  immediate  or  near  future,  such  

conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired  

land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine  

its market value taking into account the increase in price  

attributable to such building potentiality.”

-16-

As  already  indicated  above,  these  are  the  broad  

factors that we too have kept in mind.

Although,  in  the  present  matter,  sale  instances  

around  or  near  abouts  the  date  of  Notification  of  the  

present acquisition are available yet these cannot justify  

or explain the potential of a particular piece of land on  

the date of acquisition as the potential can be recognized  

only some time in the future and it is open to a landowner  

claimant  to  contend  that  the  potential  can  be  examined

first at the time of the Section 18 Reference, the first  

Appeal in the High Court or in the Supreme Court in appeal  

as well.  We must also highlight that Collectors, as agents  

of  the  State  Government,  are  extraordinarily  chary  in  

awarding compensation and the land owners have to fight for  

decades before they are able to get their due.  We take the  

present  case  as  an  example.  The  land  was  notified  for  

acquisition in May 1990. The collector rendered his award  

in May 1993 awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The  

Reference Court by its award dated January 2001 increased  

the compensation to Rs.125 per square yard for the land of  

the road behind the ECE factory and Rs.150 per square yard  

for the land abutting the road which would come to

-17-

Rs.6,05,000/- and Rs.7,26,000/- respectively for the two  

pieces of land.  This itself is a huge increase vis-a-vis  

the Collector's award.  The High Court in First Appeal by  

its  judgment  of  24th September  2007  enhanced  the  

compensation  for  the  two  categories  to  Rs.135  and  160  

respectively making it Rs.6,53,400/- and Rs.7,74,400/-. In  

other words, this is the compensation which ought to have  

been awarded by the Collector at the time of his award on  

12th May 1993.  This has, however, come to the land owner  

for the first time as a result of the judgment of the High  

Court which is under challenge in this appeal; in other  

words, a full 17 years from the date of Notification under  

Section 4 and 14 years from the date of the award of the

Collector on which date the possession of the land must  

have been taken from the landowner.  Concededly, the Act  

also provides for the payment of the solatium, interest and  

an additional amount but we are of the opinion, and it is  

common knowledge, that even these payments do not keep pace  

with  the  astronomical  rise  in  prices  in  many  parts  of  

India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price  

and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land  

and the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12%  

-18-

per  annum  increase  which  Courts  have  often  found  to  be  

adequate  in  compensation  matters  hardly  does  justice  to

those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial  

notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10  

or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for  

land  which  has  the  potential  of  being  urbanized  and  

commercialized  such as in the present case.  Be that as it  

may, we must assume that the landowners were entitled to  

the compensation fixed by the High Court on the date of the  

award  of  the  Collector  and  had  this  amount  been  made  

available to the landowners on that date, it would have  

been possible for them to rehabilitate their holdings in  

some other place.  This exercise has been defeated for the  

simple reason that the payment of compensation has been  

spread  over  almost  two  decades.   In  this  view  of  the  

matter, we are of the opinion that a landowner is entitled  

to say that if the compensation proceedings continued over  

a period of almost 20 years as in the present case, the

potential  of  the  land  acquired  from  him  must  also  be  

adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread  

over the period of 20 years if the evidence so permits and  

cannot be limited to the near future alone.  We, therefore,  

-19-

feel that in the circumstances, the appellants herein were  

fully entitled to say that the potential of the acquired  

land had not been fully recognized by the High Court or by  

the Reference Court. We must add a word of caution here and  

emphasize  that  this  broad  principle  would  be  applicable  

where the possession of the land has been taken pursuant to

proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to those cases  

where land is already in possession of the Government and  

is subsequently acquired.

There is another unfortunate aspect which is for  

all to see and  to which the Courts turn a Nelson's eye and  

pretend as if the problem does not exist.  This is  a  

factor which creates an extremely grim situation in a case  

of compensation based exclusively on sale instances.  This  

is the wide spread tendency to under value sale prices.  

The  provision  of  Collector's  rates  has  only  marginally  

corrected the anomaly, as these rates are also abnormally  

low and do not reflect the true value.  Where does all this  

leave a landowner whose land is being compulsorily acquired  

as he has no control over the price on which some other  

landowner sells his property which is often the basis for  

compensation?

-20-

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the above  

sale instances relied upon by the parties do not accurately  

reflect the potential of the acquired land and the award of  

the High Court in the case of Jamalpur Kalan granting  a  

sum  of  Rs.250/-  per  square  yard  as  compensation  is  the  

minimal proper base.

Mr. Goyal has, however, submitted that the belting  

system ordered by the reference and the High Court was the  

proper one in the circumstances, more particularly as it  

was well known that land alongside the road had more value  

vis.a.vis. the land away therefrom.  He has, accordingly,

submitted that the land behind the ECE factory which was  

not  abutting  the  road  needed  to  be  given  lower  

compensation.  Mr. Goyal's reliance on Sarat Chandra's case  

for this argument is however to no avail.  In this matter,  

agricultural land which had no potential for urbanization  

and commercialization had been acquired and it was on that  

basis,  this  Court  held  that  the  belting  system  was  

permissible.  In the case before us, admittedly the land  

was acquired in the year 1990, had great potential value,  

and  has  been  completely  urbanized  as  huge  residential  

complexes, industrial areas and estates and a huge  

-21-

education city have come up in  the last ten or fifteen  

years.  Moreover, insofar land which is to be used for  

residential purposes is concerned, a plot away from the  

main road is often of more value, as the noise and the air  

pollution  alongside  the  arterial  roads  is  almost  

unbearable.   It  is  also  significant  that  the  land  of  

Jamalpur  Kalan  was  touching  the  rear  side  of  the  ECE  

factory  and  the  High  Court  had  granted  compensation  of  

Rs.250/- per square yard for the acquisition of  the year  

1992.  We have also seen the site plan to satisfy ourselves  

and find that the land acquired from Jamalpur Kalan and the  

present  land  share  a  common  boundary  behind  the  ECE  

factory.  The belting system in the facts of the present  

case would thus not be permissible.

We are, therefore, of the opinion as the said award  

pertained to the year 1992, a sum of Rs.225/- per square

yard which would come Rs. 10,89000/- per acre would be the  

adequate compensation in the present case and for arriving  

at this figure not only  have we computed the value of the  

land on the date of the Notification under Section 4 but  

have also recognized its potential on the basis of evidence  

of  development  in  the  area  around  the  Bahalgarh-Sonepat  

road.

-22-

Mr. Shakil Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing in  

one of the cases has also prayed that compensation for the  

building and trees awarded in his case was inadequate and  

needed  to  be  enhanced.   We  are  unable  to  accept  this

submission as there is no evidence with regard to the value  

of these buildings and trees.

For  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  we  allow  these  

appeals and award a sum of Rs.225/- per square yard as  

compensation  for  the  entire  acquired  land  and  further  

direct that the appellants will have all statutory benefits  

that they would be entitled to as a consequences of this  

order.  We also direct the respondent State of Haryana or  

the  beneficiaries,  as  the  case  may  be,  to  pay  the  

compensation as enhanced by us by the end of this year.

..................J.                                      (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

                     .................J.           (J.M. PANCHAL)    

   New Delhi, April 21, 2010.