Supreme Court of India
ASHRAFI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 240
- Decided
- 11 April 2013
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ALTAMAS KABIR
Holding
Compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be based on market value with a cumulative 12% annual increase from the date of notification, and deductions for development costs should be limited to 33⅓%, resulting in a uniform rate of Rs.325 per sq. yard for the Haryana matters.
Summary
The Supreme Court heard a batch of appeals concerning compensation for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Haryana. The Court examined the method of determining market value, the appropriateness of deductions for development costs, the use of the belting system, and the manner of applying annual inflationary increases. It held that compensation must be based on the market value with a cumulative 12% per annum increase from the date of the acquisition notification, and that deductions towards development should be limited to 33⅓% rather than the 40% or 60% previously applied. Accordingly, the Court fixed a uniform compensation rate of Rs.325 per square yard for the principal Haryana cases and directed that all other awards be recalculated on the same basis. The Court also clarified that the belting system is inappropriate where lands have substantial development potential. All the appeals were disposed of with the compensation awards modified as directed.
Issues considered
- The proper method for determining compensation under s.23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – market value versus belting system.
- Whether a flat deduction of 40% or 60% for development costs is justified.
- Whether the annual 12% increase in land value should be applied cumulatively from the date of notification.
- The appropriateness of applying a uniform rate of Rs.235 per sq. yard across different land types.
- The correct percentage of deduction towards development cost – 33⅓% versus higher percentages.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 23(24), s. 28, s. 4
- Land Acquisition Act, 1984s. 24
Subjects
Land acquisitionCompensationMarket valueSection 23Land Acquisition Act 1894HaryanaDevelopment cost deductionCumulative inflationBelting systemUniform compensation rate
Judgment
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 148
A ASHRAFI AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
{Civil Appeal Nos. 3279-3287 of 2013)
APRIL 11, 2013
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. AND J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Determination of, on basis of market value of comparable
C lands - Passage of time between different acquisitions - Held:
On facts, compensation accordingly enhanced from Rs.2801
- per sq. yard to Rs.3251- per sq. yard.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
D Land in question falling within municipal limits - Deduction
towards development costs - Held: On facts, deduction of 40%
unjustified - Cut of 33113 per cent more realistic.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Land under acquisition already developed to some extent -
E Held: On facts, cut of 50% on the value is excessive - At best
a standard cut of 113rd would have been sufficient.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Land under acquisition already within developed municipal
F limits - Held: On facts, cut of 60%, as imposed by the High
Court, inappropriate - Cut of one-third the value would be
appropriate.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Land under acquisition divided into belts - Held: On facts,
G having regard to the potentiality of the acquired lands, the
belting system should not have been resorted to.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Land under acquisition having substantial potential - Sharp
H 148
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STAT.E OF HARYANA 149
in value of lands in recent times - Held: On facts, although, A
High Court had allowed a yearly increase of 12%, taking 1983
as a base-year, such increase was not commensurate with the
yearly escalation of prices and that was required to be
calculated on a cumulative basis - Compensation directed
to be reassessed by applying the cumulative rate of increase B
at the rate of 12% per annum with the base year being the
date of the Notification u/s.4 of the Act, together with the
statutory benefits.
Common question relating to claims for C
enhancement of compensation in respect of lands
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in several
States, such as, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh,
Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh,
arose for consideration in the present matters.
D
Since the majority of cases are from the States of
Punjab & Haryana, this Court heard the matters relating
to the State of Haryana before the other matters and for
the said purpose, also selected some specific matters, the
decision wherein would also govern the rest. E
Disposing of all the matters, the Court
HELD:1. In Smt. Ashrafi's case arising out of RFA
No.99 of 1997 decided by the Punjab & Haryana High
Court on 21st May, 2007, along with several other similar F
appeals, it was agitated on behalf of the appellants that
the compensation fixed by the High Court was on the
lower side in view of the fact that in respect of lands
acquired u11der the same Notification dated 20th August,
1989, the District Court had fixed the market value at G
Rs.328.50 per sq. yard and also at Rs.3371- per sq. yard,
in respect of the lands acquired under a Notification
issued in July, 1987. In Smt. Kamlesh Kumari's case, in
which the facts were the same, as that in Smt. Ashrafi's
case, the Reference Court awarded Rs.3251- per sq. yard. H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A In appeal, the said amount was increased to Rs.280/- per
sq. yard. Even the aforesaid enhancement does not
appear to have reflected the proper valuation of the lands
acquired since soon, thereafter, in 'Pritam Singh's case,
compensation was awarded at Rs.435/- per sq. yard and
B also at the rate of Rs.392.50 per sq. yard in respect of the
lands acquired under Notification dated 5th June, 1992.
The enhancement of the compensation from Rs.280/- per
sq. yard to Rs.435/- per sq. yard and Rs.392.50 per sq.
yard was probably occasioned by the fact that while the
c lands were acquired under the Notification issued in July,
1987, the comparative rate relating to the same property
was Rs.392.50 per sq. yard. In view of the passage of time
between the different acquisitions, a just compensation
would be at the rate of Rs.325/- per sq. yard instead of
Rs.280/- per sq. yard. Similar is the case of Smt. Kamlesh
0
Kumari, where the facts were similar to those in Ashrafi's
case. The just compensation in the lands in Smt. Kamlesh
Kumari's case also deserves to be increased to Rs.325/-
per sq. yard, which had been the amount awarded by the
Reference Court. In Sailak Ram's case, different amounts
E were assessed as compensation in respect of the lands
comprised in village Mewla, Maharajpur, acquired under
the Notification dated 2nd August, 1989. There too the
market rate was assessed at Rs.280/- per sq. yard along
with all statutory benefits under the 1894 Act. The
F compensation in respect of the lands involved has also
to be assessed at Rs.325/- per sq. yard. [Paras 35, 36, 37
& 38] [174-C-H; 175-A-H]
2. In Sucha Singh's case, although the land in
G question fell within the municipal limits, a deduction of
40% was unjustified. On the other hand, a cut of 331/3 per
cent would be more realistic. Accordingly, the
compensation for the said lands, after taking into
consideration the deduction of 331/3 per cent is assessed
H at Rs.7,25,000/- per acre. [Para 39]
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 151
3. As far as the lands within the District of Ambala are A
concerned, in respect of one set of lands, the Reference
Court assessed the market value of the acquired lands
to be Rs.57,000/- per acre. However, another Reference
Court assessed the market value of the acquired lands
at Rs.3,38,800/- per acre. The claim of the land owners, B
assessed at Rs.300/- per sq. yard is on the high side but
Rs.110/- per sq. yard, as had been held by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court, is on the low side. On a comparison
of the price of lands sold during 1981, or by adding 12%
per annum on Rs.70/- per sq. yard on annual c
compounded basis, the value of the lands is assessed
at Rs.180/- per sq. yard on a uniform basis for all lands.
[Para 40] [176-D-G]
4. In the lands covered in Atam Sinqh's case, the
Collector had initially assessed the compensation at the D
rate of Rs.54.75 per sq. yard. The lands acquired in 1987
were adjacent to the lands acquired subsequently in
1993. The value of the lands in 1989 would be about
Rs.200/- per sq. yard, and the prices had, in fact, doubled
to about Rs.400/- per sq. yard within the next two years, E
i.e. in 1991. By such standards, the value of the lands
acquired in 1987 should be Rs.100/- per sq. yard. [Para
41] [176-G-H; 177-A-B]
5. In Mukesh Kumar's case, having regard to the
F
potentiality of the acquired lands, the belting system
should not have been resorted to. Although, the High
Court had allowed a yearly increase of 12%, taking 1983
as a base-year, such increase was not commensurate
with the yearly escalation of prices and that was required G
to be calculated on a cumulative basis. Accordingly, in
Mukesh Kumar's case and the other cases heard along
with the said case, while adding 12% annual increase to
the value of the lands acquired, the same should be done
on a cumulative basis. In Mukesh Kumar's case, the
compensation awarded was at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq. H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A yard along with all statutory benefits, as provided under
Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Having discarded the belting system which has been
resorted to, the compensation as awarded at the rate of
Rs.235/- per sq. yard, has to be reassessed by applying
B the cumulative rate of increase at the rate of 12% per
annum with the base year being the date of thQ
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
together with the statutory benefits. The stand taken on
behalf of the State of Haryana, regarding the amount of
c escalation fixed at 12% being improper, does not appeal
having regard to the potentiality of the lands acquired and
the sharp increase in the value of the lands in recent
times. The valuation of the compensation of the acquired
land at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq. yard by the High Court,
appears to have been influenced by the compensation
0
already assessed in Atam Prakash's case, where the
market value of the land acquired in Sectors 9 and 11 was
assessed at Rs.235/- per sq. yard. The said lands were
far away from the lands involved in the present set of
cases and, accordingly, the rate of compensation for the
E lands under consideration should be definitely higher
than awarded in respect of the lands covered in Atam
Prakash's case. Accordingly, the compensation assessed
in respect of the lands covered by these cases is re-
assessed by applying the cumulative rate of interest,
F taking the date of Notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act as the base year for such calculation at
Rs.325/- per sq. yard. The said valuation will also be
applicable in Mahabir & Anr. vs. State of Harvana & Anr.
[SLP(C)No.1512 of 2007], Sarwan Singh & Anr. vs. State
G of Harvana & Anr. [SLP(C)Nos.20144-20150 of 2007] and
State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Partap Singh & Anr.
[SLP(C)No.21597 of 2006]. As far as the lands in village
Patti Mehar, Saunda and Jandli in Ambala District and
forming the subject matter in Surinder Kumar's case
H [SLP(C)Nos.16372-16404 of 2008], in Manohar Lal
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 153
Khurana's case and in other cases falling in the same A
category are concerned, the compensation will be at the
above rate on a uniform basis. [Para 42] [177-B-H; 178-
A-E]
6. There is yet another set of lands forming the 8
subject matter of the appeals arising out of Special Leave
Petition (C) Nos.33637-33638 of 2011, filed by Manohar
Singh and others, which are situated in Hansi, District
Hisar. In the said cases, the High Court had assessed the
compensation payable for the acquired lands at the rate C
of Rs.805/- per sq. yard along with the statutory sums
available under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition
. Act and solatium on the market value under Section 23(2)
thereof. The High Court was justified in taking into
consideration the size of the plots, which were exhibited
for the purposes of comparison with the size of the plots D
acquired, but this Court is unable to uphold the cut of
60%, which has been imposed by the High Court, since
the acquired lands are already within developed
municipal limits. In these cases also, a cut of one-third
the value would be appropriate as in the other cases. E
Accordingly, the valuation arrived at by the High Court
is modified and it is directed that the amount of
compensation be re-assessed upon imposing a cut of
331/3 per cent while re-assessing the value of the land.
In regard to the amount of deduction effected in respect F
of the various properties, the general cut imposed is at a
flat rate of 40%, which is not warranted on account of the
fact that the lands in question have lost their character
and potentiality as agricultural lands and have more or
less been converted into lands which were ready for use G
for the purpose of construction. Taking factors which
determine deduction towards development cost, such as
location and potentiality, into account, a deduction of
3~1/3 per cent would be reasonable on account of the
passage of time and the all round development in the H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A area which has made it impossible for the lands to retain
their original character. Accordingly, it is directed that
except where provided otherwise, wherever a deduction
of 40% had been made, the same should be altered to
331 /3 per cent and. the compensation awarded is to be
B modified accordingly. [Paras 43, 44, 45, 46 & 47) [178-F-
H; 179-A-H]
7. In regard to the 157.20 acres of land situated in
Fatehabad, District Hlsar, Haryana, acquired for utilisation
and development of'residential and commercial purposes
C in Sector-3, Fatehabad, the Collector had awarded
compensation at a unlform rate of Rs. 1,81 ,200/- per acre
along with statutory, benefits. The Reference Court
determined the compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.
206/- per sq. yard. The High Court modified the said award
D and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 260/- per sq.
yard for the land acquiryd up to the depth of 100 meters
abutting National Highway No. 10. The value of the rest
of the acquired land was maintained at Rs. 206/- per sq.
yard. The area in question being already developed to
E some extent, a cut of 50% on the value is excessive.
Resorting to the belting system by the High Court was
improper and at best a standard cut of 1/3rd would have
been sufficient to balance the smallness of the exhibits
produced. On a comparative basis, the price of lands in
F the area in 1991 was on an average of about Rs. 420/- per
sq. yard. Given the sharp rise in land prices, the value, it
is stated, would have doubled to about Rs. 800/- per sq.
yard by 1993. Even if one has to apply the formula of 12%
increase, the valuation of the lands in question in 1993
G would be approximately Rs. 527/- per sq. yard. Imposing
a deduction of 1/3rd, valuation comes to about Rs. 350/-
per sq. yard, which would be the proper compensation
for the lands covered in the case of Mukesh and other
connected matters. [Para 48) [180-A-G]
H State of Haryana vs. Gurbax Singh (Dead) By LRs. & Anr.
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 155
(2008) 11 SCC 65: 2008 (11) SCC 65; Union of India vs. A
Harinder Pal Singh (2005) 12 SCC 564: 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR
669; Genera/ Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008) 14
SCC 7 45: 2008 (11) SCR 927; Udho Dass Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 51: 2010 (8) SCR 900; B
Genera/ Manager, 011 and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745: 2008 (11)
SCR 927; Charan Dass Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and
Urban Development Authority (2010) 13 SCC 398: 2009 (14)
SCR 163; Haridwar Development Authority Vs. Raghubir C
Singh & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 581: 2010 (2) SCR 201; Kasturi
& Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354: 2002 (4)
Suppl. SCR 117; Subh Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana &
Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 444: 2009 (15) SCR 287; Kanta Devi &
Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2008) 15 SCC 201: 2008
(10) SCR 367; Kasturi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 D
SCC 354: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 117 and Saibanna (Dead)
by Lrs. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition
Officer (2009) 9 SCC 409: 2009 (13) SCR 401 - cited.
Case Law Reference: E
2008 111) sec 65 cited Para 10
2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 669 cited Para 10
2008 (11) SCR 927 cited Para 19
F
2010 (8) SCR 900 cited Para 21
2008 (11) SCR 927 cited Para 22
2009 (14) SCR 163 cited Para 27
G
2010 (2 ) SCR 201 cited Para 27
2002 (4). Suppl. SCR 117 cited Para 27
2009 (15) SCR cited Para 30
2008 (10) SCR 367 cited Para 30 H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 117 cited Para 32
2009 (13) SCR 401 cited Para 33
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
3279-3287 of 2013.
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.05.2007 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second
Appeal Nos. 99of1997, 2574 of2000, 1426, 1, 1423, 1394,
1424 of 1997, 2428 of 1996 & 1422 of 1997.
c WITH
C.A. Nos. 3288-3299, 3300-3319, 3320, 3321-3323, 3324-
3325, 3326-3330, 3331-3333, 3334-3337, 3338-3340, 3341,
3342-3344, 3345, 3346-334 7' 3348-3349, 3350-3351, 3352
0 of 2013, 8719 of 2010, 3353-3433, 3434-3450, 3451-3452,
3453, 3454-3455, 3456-3458, 3459-3488, 3489-3495, 3496-
3516, 3517-3521, 3522-3523, 3524, 3525-3532, 3533, 3534,
3535-3576, 3577, 3578-3595, 3596, 3597, 3598-3602, 3603,
3604-3610, 3611, 3612, 3613, 3614, 361'5. 3616, 3617, 3618,
E 3619,3620, 3621, 3622,3623, 3624,3625~626,3627, 3628,
3629,3630, 3631, 3632, 3633,3634,3635, 3636, 3637, 3638,
3639,3640,3641,3642, 3643,3644,3645,3646, 3647,3648,
3649,3650, 3651,3652, 3653,3654,3655, 3656, 3657.3658,
3659, 3660, 3361, 3662, 3663-3677, 3678,3679, 3680, 3681,
F 3682,3683,3684,3685,3686,3687,3688,3689,3690,3691,
3692, 3693, 3694,3695, 3696,3697, 3698,3699,3700, 3701-
3704, 3705, 3706-3738, 3844-3852, 3740, 3741, 3742, 3743-
3762, 3763-3783, 3784-3787, 3788 of2013, 319-352 of2011,
8654-8661, 8642-8645 of 2010, 423-424, 418 419 of 2011,
8637, 8638, 8646-8653 of 2010, 354-411, 412-417 of 2011,
G 3789-3792, 3793-3800, 3801-3804, 3805-3806 of 2013,
3388-3389,5206, 5208, 5209,5210, 5211, 5212, 5213, 5214,
5207, 5215, 5216, 7179-7182 of 2011, 3807-3808, 3853-
3854, 3810-3817, 3818-3819, 3820-3821, 3822-3823, 3824-
3825, 3826-3827, 3828-3829, 3830-3831, 3832-3833, 3834-
H 3835 & 3836-3837 of 2013.
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 157
Manjit Singh, AAG, Somvir Singh Deswal, Satbir Singh A
Pillania, Shree Pal Singh, Dr. Kailash Chand, Dr. Sushi!
Balwada, R.D. Upadhyay, C.K. Sucharita, C.S.N. Mohan Rao,
Ashok K. Mahajan, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Jay Kishor Singh,
Jasmer Chand, Rajat Sharma, Dinesh Verma, R.V.
Kameshwaran, Shivaji M. Jadhav, C.D. Singh, N. Annapoorani, B
Manoj Swarup, Ankit Swarup, A.V. Palli, Rekha Palli, Atul
Sharma, Anupam Raina, A.P. Mohanty, K.K. Mohan, Prem
Malhotra, Anis Ahmed Khan, Ajay Kumar, Temple Law Firm,
Rohit Kumar Singh, Vineet Bhagat, Vivek Gupta, Naresh
Bakshi, Sharmila Upadhyay, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Tarjit c
Singh, Anil Anti!, Naresh Bakshi, Samir Ali Khan, G.N. Reddy,
Nitin Kumar Thakur, Govind Goel, Dr. Monika Gusain, Sanjay
Kumar Yadav, Ankit Goel, Rahul Pandey, S.L. Aneja, Yash Pal
Dhingra, Kuldip Singh, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Mohan Lal
Sharma, Anubha Agarwal, Manjusha Wadhwa, P.O. Sharma 0
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. 1. All these matters involve a
common question relating to claims for enhancement of E
compensation in respect of lands acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act",
in several States, such as, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh,
Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. In some
of the Special Leave Petitions, leave has already been granted F
and they have been listed as Civil Appeals. Leave is also
granted in all other Special Leave Petitions which are being
heard together in this batch of matters.
2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken up the
batch matters State-wise. The major number of cases are from G
the States of Punjab and Haryana and, accordingly, it was
decided to take up the said matters first. We have, therefore,
heard the matters relating to the State of Haryana before the
other matters and for the said purpose, we have also selected
H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A some specific matters, the decision wherein would also govern
the rest. Since in the State of Haryana, the lands acquired were
from different districts, such as Faridabad, Ambala, Fatehabad,
Hisar, Sonepat and Kurukshetra and under different
Notifications published under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, we
B took up the individual cases of Ashrafi and Others vs. State of
Haryana & Ors. Others, being SLP(C)Nos.24704-24712 of
2007, relating to the Notification dated 2nd August, 2009, and
Sailak Ram (D) Tr. LRs. & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,
being SLP(C)No.28686 of 2010, relating to the Notification
c dated 7th September, 1992, in respect of the lands situated in
Faridabad. In addition, we also took up SLP(C)No.18588 of
2006 filed by the State of Haryana against Surinder Kumar and
Others, in respect of the Notification dated 26th May, 1981,
relating to the lands situated within the District of Ambala.
D Another matter relating to the District of Ambala, namely, State
of Harvana vs. Manohar Lal Khurana, being SLP(C)No.11527
of 2007, relating to the Notification dated 2nd February, 1989,
was also taken up separately. As far as the lands relating to 1,
the District of Hisar are concerned, the Special Leave Petition
filed by the State of Haryana against Partap Singh and Another,
E being SLP(C) No.21597 of 2006, relating to the Notification
dated 21st March, 1991, was taken up for separate hearing as
also some of the cases involving lands in Sonepat, Kurukshetra
Districts, in respect of the Notifications published under Section
4 of the 1894 Act, dated 20th April, 1982 and 17th September,
F 1993, respectively.
3. Some of the Special Leave Petitions (now Appeals)
have been filed by the State of Haryana, which is equally
aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation assessed
G in reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. As would be
evident shortly, the High Court almost on a uniform basis
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq. yard
notwithstanding the type of land involved. Although a distinction
had been made between "chahi" lands, "pahar gair mumkin"
H lands and "gair mumkin" lands while assessing compensation,
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 159
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
ultimately, a uniform rate was awarded in respect of the different A
types of lands which had been acquired. Different reasons have
been given by the High Court in arriving at the uniform figure
of Rs.235/- per sq. yard, but what is important is that ultimately
by applying different methods, the compensation worked out
to be same. B
4. 1!1 the case of Smt. Ashrafi & Ors., arising out of RFA
No.99of1997 decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court
on 21st May, 2007, along with several other similar appeals,
lands measuring 184.66 acres in village Mewla, Maharajpur,
District Faridabad, were acquired for the development of Sector C
45 in Faridabad. Notification was published under Section 4
of the 1894 Act on 2nd August, 1989. The Land Acquisition
Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/-
per acre for chahi lands and Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for other
lands. On a reference made by the land owners to the learned D
District Judge, Faridabad, under Section 18 of the 1894 Act,
the Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs.45/- per sq.
yard against which the parties moved the High Court in First
Appeal.
E
5. One of the other cases which was taken up separately
was that of Smt. Kamlesh Kumari vs. State of Haryana &Anr.,
being SLP(C)No.28613-28642 of 2010, wherein 486.61 acres
of land in village Mewla, Maharajpur, were also acquired.
6. Coming back to the decision in Ashrafi's case, the High F
Court fixed the compensation at Rs.220/- per sq. yard in respect
of the lands situated in village Mewla, Maharajpur, acquired for
the purpose of establishing Sector 45, Faridabad.
7. It was sought to be urged that the compensation G
assessed was extremely low in comparison to the
compensation awarded in respect of the lands acquired in the
same area and under the same Notification under Section 4
of the 1894 Act. It was urged that the learned Single Judge in
H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A the High Court had wrongly assessed compensation at Rs.220/
- per sq. yard, when in respect of the lands acquired under the
same Notification dated 28th August, 1989, the learned District
Judge had fixed the market value at Rs.328.50 per sq. yard and
also at Rs.337/- per sq. yard, in respect of the lands acquired
8 under a Notification issued in July, 1987.
8. In Smt. Kam/esh Kumari's case, it was urged by Mr.
J.L. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, that while the Collector
had awarded Rs.1,96,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired
lands, the Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.325/- per
C sq. yard, which would be equivalent to Rs.15, 73,000/- per acre.
The High Court, however, reduced the rate from Rs.325/- per
sq. yard to Rs.90/- per sq. yard, which would be equivalent to
approximately Rs.4,35,000/- per acre. Letters Patent Appeals
filed against the said decision of the learned Single Judge were
D dismissed and the matter ultimately came up to this Court in
Civil Appeal No. 9808 of 2003, and the case was remanded
to the Reference Court for a fresh determination. After remand,
the Reference Court, by its Order dated 12th January, 2008,
assessed the compensation at Rs.238/- per sq. yard. In appeal,
E after considering the decision of a learned Single Judge of the
same Court in Sailak Ram's case, referred to hereinabove, the
learned Judge determined the compensation at Rs.280/- per
sq. yard. In fact, it was pointed out by Mr. Gupta that in Sailak
Ram's case, different amounts were awarded as compensation
F in respect of lands comprised in village Mewla, Maharajpur,
acquired under the Notification dated 2nd August, 1989. It was
finally held that the market rate for the acquired properties
would be Rs.280/- per sq. yard, along with all statutory benefits,
as per the provisions of the 1894 Act.
G 9. Mr. Gupta urged that even the enhancement made by
the High Court was not adequate in view of the compensation
awarded in other cases, in respect of the lands comprised in
the same village. It was highlighted that in Pritam Singh's case,
compensation had been awarded at the rate of Rs.435/- per
H
ASHRAFI AN9 ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 161
[ALJAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
sq. yard. Even in the case of lands situated in village Ajronda A
acquired under Notification dated 5th June, 1992, for the
development of Sector 20-B, Faridabad, compensation had
been awarded at Rs,392.50 per sq. yard. Mr. Gupta submitted
that, in such circumstances, the compensation should have
been assessed, if ndt at the said rate, at least at a figure near B
about the said rate. Mr. Gupta submitted that in yet another
case regarding land.s acquired from the same village by
Notification dated 30th July, 1987, for constructing a link road
from Delhi-Mathura road to Sector 46, Faridabad,
compensation awardEld was at the rate of Rs.337.20 per sq. c
yard.
10. Mr. Gupta lastly referred to the decision of this Court
in State of Haryana vs. Gurbax Singh (Dead) By LRs. & Anr.
[(2008) 11 SCC 65], in which the decision of this Court in
another case, vir,_, Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh D
[(2005) 12 SCC 504] was referred to and quoted. In paragraph
15 thereof, it was indicated that the entire area was in a stage
of development and the different villages were capable of being
developed in the same manner, as lands situated elsewhere.
Mr. Gupta submitted that in the said decision, an enhancement E
of compensation by adding 12% per annum for a period of two
years, was duly accepted by this Court. It was, therefore,
submitted that the compensation awarded by the High Court
was required to be revised in parity with the compensation
awarded in respect of the other lands comprised in the same F
village, in line with the observations made by this Court in Sailak
Ram's case and also in Smt. Kamlesh Kumari's case.
11. One of the other sets of cases, viz., Sucha Singh &
Ors. vs. Collector, Land Acquisition & Ors., being G
SLP(C}Nos.1678-1697 of 2010, were taken up separately, at
the instance of Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned Advocate, appearing
for the Appellants-Claimants. According to Mr. Kapoor, the
submissions made on behalf of the Appellant, Sucha Singh,
would also cover SLP(C)Nos.13529-13549 of 2011, Surjit H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A Kaur & Ors. vs. Collector, Land Acquisition and Colonisation
& Ors., SLP(C)Nos. 15508-15511 of 2011, Joginder Singh &
Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., and SLP(C) .. CC
2620 of 2011, Mehar Singh (D) Tr. LRs. & Ors. vs. Collector,
Land Acquisition and Colonisation Department.
B
12. Mr. Kapoor contended that the Notification under
Section 4 was issued on 10th February, 1984, for acquisition
of 79 acres and 5 kanals of land in village Talwandi Bhai,
District Ferozepur, for the purpose of construction of a new grain
C market. In respect of such acquisition, the Land Acquisition
Collector awarded compensation to the land owners at the rate
of Rs.40,000/- per acre, which was enhanced by the Reference
Court to Rs.4,60,0001- up to 1 killa and to Rs.4,00,000/- beyond
one killa. On appeal to the High Court, the amounts were
reduced. Special Leave Petitions were, thereafter, filed against
D the said Order in this Court. While issuing notice on 5th January,
2010, confined to the question of deduction, this Court directed
stay of recovery of the amounts already paid by way of
compensation to the Petitioners therein.
E 13. Mr. Kapoor contended that having regard to certain
plots which were auctioned by the Municipal Committee before
acquiring the lands in question, the average rate in respect of
various plots was Rs.30,000/- per maria and Rs.6,00,0001- per
kanal, which would mean that the value of the land would be
F Rs.48,00,0001- per acre. Mr. Kapoor submitted that, since apart
from the above, sale deeds are also a reliable indicator of the
land value in a particular area, if the market value is not taken
at Rs.48,00,000/- per acre, the value of sale transactions during
the same period could also be taken into consideration in
G determining the compensation. According to Mr. Kapoor, the
High Court took the average value of such transactions for the
period 19th September, 1980 up to 3rd June, 1983. The
average sale price was found to be Rs.6,23,997/- per acre,
which would, therefore, be the market value of the land during
the period in question. An added increase of 12% per annum
H
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 163
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
would give a figure of Rs.7,82,746/- per acre. Accordingly, on A
the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act,
i.e., 10th February, 1984, the market value of the land would
be Rs.7,82,746/- per acre, even if the auction price of
Rs.48,00,000/- per acre is not taken into consideration. Mr.
Kapoor submitted that the lands in question fell within the B
Municipal limits of Talwandi Bhai and no development would
be required since the lands had been acquired for constructing
a new grain market only. Hence, a deduction of 40% was
unjustified in the circumstances. Mr. Kapoor, therefore, prayed
that even if the final figure of the market value, as determined c
by the High Court, i.e., Rs.6,23,997/-, is taken into
consideration, then also by adding 12% per annum to the said
figure, the compensation would amount to Rs.7,82,746/- per
acre.
14. In one of the other matters, Surinder Kumar vs. State D
of Haryana, being SLP(C) Nos.16372-16404 of 2008, 250.51
acres of land situated in village Patti Mehar, Saunda and Jandli
in Ambala District, covered by Notification dated 26th May,
1981, were intended to be acquired for development and
utilisation of residential areas for an Urban Estate in Ambala. E
Three Awards were made by the Land Acquisition Collector.
When Award No. 4 was pronounced on 27th June, 1984, the
market value of the acquired lands was assessed at Rs.
52,000/- per acre, thereafter, two further awards were
pronounced wherein some other chahi lands were assessed · F
at Rs.34,500/- per acre, barani land was assessed at
Rs.27,520/- P.er acre and banjar and gair mumkin land was
assessed at Rs.13,760/- per acre. On reference, the Reference
Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to
Rs.57,000/- per acre. Subsequently, however, another G
Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired
lands at Rs.3,38,800/- per acre. Being dissatisfied with the
orders of the Reference Courts, the parties approached the High
Court. The State of Haryana also filed appeals relating to the
judgment of 6th May, 1992. In the appeals filed by the claiman~. H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A they claimed that the acquired land was liable to be assessed
at Rs.300/- per sq. yard. The Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court accepted the contention of the land owners
and directed that they would be entitled to the market rate at
Rs.110/- per sq. yard for the acquired land, together with all
B statutory benefits, as per the amended provisions of the Act.
The appeals filed by the State of Haryana were dismissed.
15. Appearing for the Appellants, Ms. lndu Malhotra,
learned Senior Advocate, submitted that though the
C compensation was enhanced by the Division Bench from
Rs.70/- per sq. yard to Rs.110/- per sq. yard, there was no
basis for fixing the value at the said rate. Ms. Malhotra urged
that the said rate was fixed despite the fact that a Conveyance
of the year 1973 i.e. earlier than the date of acquisition
(26.5.1981), had been produced by the Appellants. Apart from
D the above, Sale Deeds of 1981 were also produced which
showed the value of the lands to be Rs.209-213/- per sq. yard.
Ms. Malhotra urged that it would be evident from the above that
the High Court has erred in fixing the rate of compensation at
Rs.110/- per sq. yard, without any basis whatsoever, when Sale
E Deeds of even previous years and years contemporaneous to
the acquisition, indicated a much higher valuation in respect of
the acquired lands. Ms. Malhotra submitted that the valuation
of the acquired lands was liable to be enhanced in a miJnner
which was commensurate with the value of the lands, as would
F be evident from the various Sale Deeds produced on behalf
of the Appellants.
16. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Advocate, appeared in
several of the matters relating to acquisition of the lands in
G Hisar, covered by various Notifications issued under Section
4 of the 1894 Act. Mr. Swarup, firstly, referred to the case of
Atam Singh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., being
SLP(C)Nos.33337-33340 of 2010, involving lands measuring
112 kanals and 12 marlas situated in village Basti Bhiwan,
; H Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hisar, notified for acquisition for
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 165
[ALTAMAS KABIR. CJI.)
establishing new fruit, vegetable and fodder market, under A
Section 4 of the aforesaid Act. Mr. Swarup also referred to the
case of Sarwan Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr., being
SLP(C)Nos.20144-20150 of 2007, involving lands measuring
429.75 acres of land, which is the subject matter of a
Notification dated 21.03.1991, under Section 4 of the above B
Act for the development of a part of Sectors 11, 13, 15, 16 and
17, Hisar, Haryana. Reference was also made to the case of
Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors., being
SLP(C)No.19668 of 2006, involving lands measuring 227.44
acres in Hisar, which was the subject matter of Notification c
dated 20.08.1992, under Section 4 of the above Act for use
as a residential sector by Haryana Urban Development
Authority (HUDA). Mr. Swarup, lastly, referred to the case of
Mukesh vs. State of Haryana & Anr., .being Civil Appeal Nos.
319-352 of 2011, involving lands measuring 157 .20 acres D
situated in Fatehabad, District Hisar, under Notification dated
21.07.1993, also for residential and commercial purposes in
Sector 3, Fatehabad.
17. In Atam Singh's case, Mr. Swarup, pointed out that the
lands had been notified on 15.10.1987 for establishing a new E
fruit, vegetable and fodder market and that initially
compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.54.75 per sq.
yard. Mr. Swarup pointed out that the land acquired in 1987 is
adjacent to the land acquired subsequently in 1993. It was urged
that the R~ference Court had in its judgment found the F
potentiality of the suit land to be high having regard to the
various developments, which had occurred in the said area and
also for future development relating to a proposal for a truck
union and auto market. Certain contemporaneous private sales,
for the purpose: of comparison, had been filed, which were G
accepted by th·~ High Court, which had been held to be
genuine, from vJrich it would appear that there has been a
steady increase_:in the valuation of the lands and the chart
indicates that t~ price of land in tile year 1989 was about
Rs.200/- per sq. ward. The chart also demonstrates that two H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A years later, the prices had doubled to about Rs.400/- per sq.
yard. Taking the same to be a yardstick, Mr. Swarup submitted
that the value of the land acquired in 1987 should be taken as
the comparative unit and that the value of the land acquired in
1987 should, therefore, be assessed a!Rs.100/- per sq. yard.
B
18. Mr. Swarup pointed out that the, decision in Atam
Singh's case was thereafter followed by the High C9urt in the
case of Sarwan Singh & Anr., being SLP(C)Nos.20144-20150
of 2007. As indicated hereinbefore, the said matter involved
C acquisition of 429.75 acres of lands similar to the lands
acquired in Atam Singh's case. However, for the purpose of
assessing the value of the land, the methodology followed was
to add 12% annually towards the value of the lands for a period
of six years, which is also one of the methods for arriving at a
valuation taking a base year and, thereafter, computing the
D annual increase of the value at the accepted rate of 12% per
annum.
19. The question which was raised was whether the same
should be on the basis of a flat rate annually or by adding to
E the value at the rate of 12% per annum at a flat rate from the
date of notification till the award. In these matters, a connected
question arose as to whether instead of flat rate the interest
should be added cumulatively, which, according to Mr. Swarup,
had been considered and decided in the affirmative by this Court
F in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation L,imited
vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. [(2008) 14 SCC 745].
Mr. Swarup, therefore, urged that the compensation assessed
at Rs.2351- per sq. yard on the basis of an annual increase of
12% was inadequate and the yearly escalation is required to
G be calculated on a cumulative basis.
20. In the case filed by Mukesh Kumar, being
SLP(C)No.19668 of 2007, relating to acquisition of 227 .44
acres under Notification dated 20.08.1992, Mr. Swarup pointed
out that the decision had been arrived at on the reasoning in
H Sarwan Singh's case (supra) and Atam Singh's case, referred
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 167
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
to hereinabove. Mr. Swarup urged that in Sarwan Singh's case, A
the High Court considered the location of the acquired lands
and upon observing that they were situated next to prominent
localities to the north of the acquired lands, it had no hesitation
in arriving at the conclusion that the entire acquired land fell
within the municipal limits of the District of Hisar with substantial B
potential for its development for residential and commercial
purposes. Even the Division Bench in appeal, while rejecting
the submissions made on behalf of the State, observed that
having regard to the nature of the development of the
surrounding areas, it would be improper to resort to the belting c
system and to award one set of compensation for the entire
land.
21. Mr. Swarup then urged that in the case of Udho Dass
Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(2010) 12 SCC 51], this Court
had the occasion to observe that although, in the 1894 Act D
provision has been made for the payment of solatium, interest
and an additional amount, the same had not kept pace with the
astronomical rise in land prices in many parts of India, and
most certainly in North India, and the compensation awarded
could not fully compensate for the acquisition of the land. This E
Court further observed that the 12% per annum increase which
had often been found to be adequate in matters relating to
compensation, hardly did justice to those land owners whose
lands had been taken away and the increase was even at times
up to 100% a year for land which had the potential of being F
urbanised and commercialised, such as in the present case.
22. Mr. Swarup pointed out that similar observations had
been made by this Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel [(2008) G
14 sec 745], wherein similar views were expressed in a
similar vein as in the earlier case that primarily the increase in
land prices depends on four factors : (i) situation of the land,
(ii) nature of development in surrounding area, (iii) availability
of land for development in the area, and (iv) the demand for H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A land in the area. It was observed that in rural areas, unless there
was any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in
prices would be slow, steady and graduaL On the other hand,
in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster
and the demand for land is high and where there is construction
8 activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much
higher rate, as compared to rural areas and in some pockets
in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for
land, the escalation in prices have touched even 30% to 50%
or more per year during the nineties.
c 23. In the light of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Swarup
submitted that although, the High Court had allowed yearly
increase of 12%, taking 1983 as the base year, such increase
was not commensurate with the yearly escalation of prices and
the same was required to be calculated on a cumulative basis,
D as indicated in Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel's case (supra).
24. In regard to the 157 .20 acres of land situated in
Fatehabad, District Hisar, Haryana, acquired for utilisation and
development of residential and commercial purposes in Sector-
E 3, Fatehabad, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority
(HUDA), the Collector had awarded compensation at a uniform
rate of Rs.1,81,200/- per acre along with statutory ben!9fitS. As
against the claim of the land owners that the market value was
Rs.1000/- per square yard, the Reference Court determined the
F compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.206/- per square yard.
The High Court modified the said award and awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs.260/- per square yard for the
land acquired up to the depth of 100 meters abutting National
High Way No.10. The value of the rest of the acquired land was
G maintained at Rs.206/- per square yard. Mr. Swarup submitted
that having regard to the sale instances for the years 1989 and
1991, wherein the prices had doubled, by the same equation
the price of the land in 1993 should have been Rs.800/- per
square yard. Urging that the High Court had erred in imposing
a cut of 50% on the value, it was submitted that no cut was
H
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 169
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
required to be imposed since the lands forming the subject A
matter of the sale instances formed part of the acquired land
and was comprised in identically situated lands to the rest of
the acquired land. Mr. Swarup submitted that at best the
standard cut of 1/3rd would have been sufficient to balance the
smallness of the exhibits and, in any event, the belting system B
resorted to by the High Court was erroneous in the light of the
observations made by the High Court itself in Udho Dass and
RamefJhbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra).
25. In regard to the lands forming the subject matter of C
C.A.Nos.3381-89 of 2011 and other connected matters (Smt.
Jamna Bai & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana), Mr. Anoop G.
Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the
Appellants, submitted that the price of the plots to be sold by
auction by the municipality required an average of four sale
transactions to be taken as a sale indice price of the lands in D
, question. Mr. Choudhary urged that out of the four sale
transactions taken into consideration the High Court
erroneously chose the value of Rs.200/- per square yard, which
ought not to have been taken for the purpose of determining
the value of the lands acquired. E
26. Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate, who
appeared for the Petitioners in four of the matters relating to
the lands in question, submitted that if all the valuation available
were taken together and an average was drawn, the valuation F
of the land would come to Rs.4572/- per square yard.
Furthermore, deduction of 40% from the market value towards
development charges was excessive and where the acquired
land falls in the midst of already developed land, the reasonable
deduction would be not more than 1/3rd of the assessed value G
of the land.
27. In this regard, reference was firstly made to the decision
of this Court in Charan Dass Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing
and Urban Development Authority ((2010) 13 SCC 398],
wherein quoting from the decision of this Court in Triveni Devi's H
170 SUPREME-COURT REPORTS [2013) 6 S.C.R.
A case, this Court had observed that it had to be noted that in
the Building Regulations, setting apart lands for development
of roads, drainage and other amenities like electricity, etc., are
condition precedent for approval of a layout for building
colonies. Therefore, any deduction made should be based upon
B the situation of the land and the need for development. Where
acquired land is in the midst of already developed land with
amenities of roads, drainage, electricity, etc. then deduction of
1/3rd would not be justified. Reference was also made to the
decision of this Court in Haridwar Development Authority Vs.
C Raghubir Singh & Ors. [(2010) 11 SCC 581], wherein also,
taking into consideration the various stages of development,
this Court observed that appropriate deduction towards
development costs could vary between 20% to 75% depending
upon various factors, but that in the said case the deduction of
D 25% towards development cost was appropriate. Mr. Upadhyay
also referred to the decision of this Court in Kasturi .& Ors. Vs.
State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 354), wherein also, as against
the normal cut of 1/3rd from the amount of compensation, it was
held that a cut of 20% towards development charges was
E justified.
28. Appearing for the State of Haryana in
SLP(C)Nos.32764-32765 of 2011, Ms. Anubha Agarwal,
learned Advocate, submitted that the disparity in the sale price
of the different sale transactions was mainly on account of the
F different areas where the said lands were located. Furthermore,
the sale transactions relied upon by the Petitioners/ Appellants
related to only plots measuring about 60 square yards or so.
On account of the above, the sale price of such transactions
could not be taken to be an accurate assessment of the
G valuation of the lands which were acquired in bulk. What was
also important was the level of development of the lands
acquired. According to Ms. Agarwal, most of the lands forming
the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings under different
Notifications published under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, at
H different points of time, were agricultural in nature and
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 171
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
comprised the interior portion of lands acquired which were not A
developed at all. The valuation of the said lands could not, in
any way, be compared with the lands which were closer to the
main roads and the developed zones and as such the High
Court had wrongly relied upon the same in assessing the value
of the extent of compensation for the lands forming the subject B
matter of the present proceedings.
29. Referring to the decision of the Reference Court, Ms.
Agarwal pointed out that development work and/or construction
had taken place alongside the roads, such as the National C
Highway, Tosham Road and Bhiwani Road and it was more or
less established that the development in the acquired land was
along the roads only and the entire acquired land was not a
developed block. Even alongside the roads the development
was not symmetrical or systematic, but at the same time, it also
had to be recognised that the acquired land had potential for 0
being developed for residential, commercial and/or industrial
purposes as on the date of the Notification.
30. Referring to the decision of this Court in Subh Ram &
Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(2010) 1 SCC 444], Ms. E
Agarwal pointed out that the factors determining percentage of
deduction had nothing to do with the purpose for which the land
was acquired, nor could the purpose of acquisition be used to
increase the compensation awardable with reference to
expected profits from future user. In the said judgment it was F
pointed out that Section 24 of the 1984 Act prohibits Courts
from taking into consideration any increase in value of land
acquired, or likely to accrue from use to which it is put when
required. Ms. Agarwal submitted that it had also been indicated
in the judgment that deduction of "development cost" is a G
concept used to derive the "wholesale price" of a large
undeveloped plot. The difference between the value of a small
developed plot and the value ()f a large undeveloped land is
the "development cost". Reference was also made to the
decision in Kanta Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A [(2008) 15 SCC 201), where it had been held that to determine
the market value for purposes of compensation, deduction of
development charges was normally 1/3rd of the market value
which also required the nature of land to be acquired to be taken
into consideration. In the said case, relying upon the sale price
B of a small plot, the High Court had fixed the market value of
the acquired land, but deducted 70% therefrom towards
development charges to make the land suitable for the purpose
for which the land had been acquired. This Court held that since
the land was adjacent to the village Abadi which was already
C developed, the deduction at the rate of 70% was on the high
side and a deduction of 60% of the market value would be
reasonable. Various other decisions were also cited on the
same lines and referring to the same would only amount to
repetition.
D 31. Ms. Agarwal submitted that the deduction towards
development cost depended mainly on the area in which the
land was located and their potentiality for development and in
the instant case, the deduction of 40%, as suggested, was quite
apposite and did not require any interference.
E
32. Mr. R.S. Badharan, learned Advocate for HUDA, in
Civil Appeal Nos.3388-89 of 2011, urged that the lands in
question could not be compared with the lands under
consideration in a review. While referring to other decisions,
F Mr. Badharan also referred to the decision of this Court in
Kasturi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 354],
wherein a question had arisen as to whether the deduction of
development charges at the rate of 70% in regard to the
acquired lands was justified or not. Ultimately, after taking the
G various factors into consideration, the said Court agreed that
a cut of 20% towards the development charges, which was
lower than the normal 1/3rd, was understandable and could be
justified. However, the same principle as has been relied upon
in all the above-mentioned decisions, has also been dealt with
in Kasturi's case (supra) and Courts have relied basically on
H the normal deduction of 1/3rd of the value.
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 173
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
33. Responding to the submissions made on behalf of the A
respective parties, the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr.
A.S. Chandhiok, referred to the decision of this Court in
Saibanna (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and
Land Acquisition Officer ((2009) 9 SCC 409). wherein the
same question, as was considered earlier, once again fell for B
examination. Relying on the earlier judgments of this Court, the
learned Judges reiterated the factors which led to higher rates
of deduction in respect of lands within the municipal limits of a
city. Their Lordships held that the deduction of 53% as imposed
was on the higher side and should not have been more than 1/ c
3rd. Their Lordships observed that though no hard and fast or
rigid rule can be laid down, and each case had to be decided
on its individual facts, in the case before Their Lordships the
deduction of 331/3 per cent towards development charges,
was justifiable. Mr. Chandhiok urged that the quantum of
0
compensation, as decided by the High Court in the various
cases under consideration, was based on the above-mentioned
principles and did not warrant the interference of this Court.
34. As indicated hereinbefore, a common question is
involved in all these matters in respect of the lands acquired in E
the States of Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra
Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Since the
acquired lands are situated in different areas even within the
different States, different quantums of compensation have
been awarded for the lands so acquired. The general principles F
which have been followed in assessing the compensation
payable in all these matters are the location of the lands sought
to be acquired, their potential for development, their proximity
to areas which are already developed and the exorbitant rise
in the value of the lands over the years. In some of the cases, G
the authorities have taken recourse to the comparison method
in regard to sale transactions effected in respect of similar plots
of land in the area under notifications close to the date of
notification by which the lands of the Appellants were acquired.
The Courts have also taken recourse to assessing the value H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A of the lands for the purposes of compensation on a uniform rate
in respect of the lands acquired, making a special concession
in respect of the lands which are close to the roads and
National Highways where a certain amount of development had
already taken place.
B
35. Having resorted to the aforesaid methods, the
Collectors of the different areas arrived at different valuations
in respect of the lands situated within their respective
jurisdictions. In most of the cases, the High Court almost on a
C uniform basis awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.235/-
per sq. yard on a flat rate notwithstanding the type of land
involved. In Smt. Ashrafi's case arising out of RFA No.99 of
1997 decided by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 21st
May, 2007, along with several other similar appeals, the Land
Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the rate of
D Rs.3,50,000/- per acre for "chahi" lands and Rs.1,50,000/- per
acre for other lands. The Reference Court fixed the
compensation at Rs.45/- per sq. yard as against the rate of
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. In
respect of similar lands, the High Court fixed the compensation
E at Rs.220/- per sq. yard in respect of the lands situated in
village Mewla and Maharajpur for establishing Sector 34,
Faridabad. It has been agitated on behalf of the Appellants that
the said assessment of compensation fixed by the High Court
was on the lower side in view of the fact that in respect of lands
F acquired under the same Notification dated 20th August, 1989,
the District Court had fixed the market value at Rs.328.50 per
sq. yard and also at Rs.337/- per sq. yard, in respect of the
lands acquired under a Notification issued in July, 1987. In Smt.
Kamlesh Kumari's case, in which the facts were the same, as
G that in Smt. Ashrafi's case, the Collector had awarded
Rs.1,96,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired lands which
figure had been enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.325/
- per sq. yard, which would be equivalent to Rs.15,73,000/- per
acre. The High Court reduced the rate from Rs.325/- per sq.
H yard to Rs.90/- per sq. yard, but ultimately the compensation
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 175
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.)
was assessed at Rs.238/- per sq. yard. In appeal, the said A
amount was increased to Rs.280/- per sq. yard.
36. Even the aforesaid enhancement does not appear to
have reflected the proper valuation of the lands acquired since
soon, thereafter, in Pritam Singh's case (supra), compensation 8
was awarded at Rs.435/- per sq. yard and also at the rate of
Rs.392.50 per sq. yard in respect of the lands acquired under
Notification dated 5th June, 1992, in village Ajronda.
37. In our view, the enhancement of the compensation from
Rs.280/- per sq. yard to Rs.435/- per sq. yard and Rs.392.50 C
per sq. yard was probably occasioned by the fact that while the
lands were acquired under the Notification issued in July, 1987,
the comparative rate relating to the same property was
Rs.392.50 per sq. yard. In view of the passage of time between
the different acquisitions, in our view, a just compensation D
would be at the rate of Rs.325/- per sq. yard instead of Rs.280/-
per sq. yard. Similar is the case of Smt. Kamlesh Kumari,
where the facts were similar to those in Ashrafi's case. In Smt.
Kamlesh Kumari's case, initially the amount of compensation
assessed by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.325/- per E
sq. yard was reduced to Rs.90/- per sq. yard by the High Court
and, ultimately, the amount of compensation was increased to
Rs.280/- per sq. yard, in appeal. In our view, the just
compensation in the lands in Smt. Kamlesh Kumari's case
also deserves to be increased to Rs.325/- per sq. yard, which F
had been the amount awarded by the Reference Court.
38. In Sailak Ram's case, different amounts were
assessed as compensation in respect of the lands comprised
in village Mewla, Maharajpur, acquired under the Notification
dated 2nd August, 1989. There too the market rate was G
assessed at Rs.280/- per sq. yard along with all statutory
benefits under the 1894 Act. In our view, the compensation in
respect of the lands involved has also to be assessed at
Rs.325/- per sq. yard.
H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A 39. In Sucha Singh's case, Mr. Kapoor had submitted that
the Land Acquisition Collector had awarded the compensation
at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per acre, which was enhanced by the
Reference Court to Rs.4,60,000/- up to one killa and to
Rs.4,00,000/- beyond one killa. On appeal to the High Court,
B the amounts were reduced to Rs.3,74.400/- per acre up to one
acre and Rs.2,24,640/- per acre beyond one acre. According
to Mr. Kapoor, while the average sale price had been found to
be Rs.6,23,997/- per acre, together with increase of 12% per
annum, the figure would amount to Rs.7,82.746/- per acre.
c However, although the land belonging to Mr. Kapoor's clients
fell within the municipal limits of Talwandi Bhai, a deduction of
40% was unjustified. On the other hand, a cut of 331/3 per cent
would be more realistic. Accordingly, the compensation for the
said lands, after taking into consideration the deduction of 331/
3 per cent is assessed at Rs.7,25,000/- per acre.
0
40. As far as the lands within the District of Ambala are
concerned, in respect of one set of lands, the Reference Court
assessed the market value of the acquired lands to be
Rs.57,000/- per acre. However, another Reference Court
E assessed the market value of the acquired lands at
Rs.3,38,800/- per acre. In our view, the claim of the land owners,
assessed at Rs.300/- per sq. yard is on the high side but
Rs.110/- per sq. yard, as had been held by the Division Bench
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, is on the low side. On
F a comparison of the price of lands sold during 1981, or by
adding 12% per annum on Rs.70/- per sq. yard on annual
compounded basis, the value of the lands is assessed at
Rs.180/- per sq. yard on a uniform basis for all lands, as also
submitted by Ms. Malhotra.
G
41. In the lands covered in Atam Singh's case, the
Collector had initially assessed the compensation at the rate
of Rs.54.75 per sq. yard. Having regard to Mr. Manoj Swarup's
submissions that the lands acquired in 1987 were adjacent to
the lands acquired subsequently in 1993, the value of the lands
H
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 177
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
•
in 1989 would be about Rs.200/- per sq. yard, the prices had, A
in fact, doubled to about Rs.400/- per sq. yard within the next
~ two years. Mr. Swarup's submission that by such standards, the
value of the lands acquired in 1987 should be Rs.100/- per sq.
yard, is, in our view, justifiable.
B
42. In Mukesh Kumar's case (Supra), Mr. Manoj Swarup
1
had pointed out that having regard to the potentiality of the
acquired lands, the belting system should not have been
resorted to. We are inclined to accept Mr. Swarup's contention
on this score. We are also inclined to accept Mr. Swarup's
other submissions that, although, the High Court had allowed C
a yearly increase of 12%, taking 1983 as a base-year, such
increase was not commensurate with the yearly escalation of
prices and that was required to be calculated on a cumulative
basis, as was held in Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel's case
(supra). Accordingly, in Mukesh Kumar's case and the other D
cases heard along with the said case, we are of the view that
while adding 12% annual increase to the value of the lands
acquired, the same should be done on a cumulative basis. In
Mukesh Kumar's case, the compensation awarded was at the
rate of Rs.235/- per sq. yard along with all statutory benefits, E
as provided under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act. Having discarded the belting system which has
been resorted to, we are of the view that the compensation as
awarded at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq. yard, has to be
reassessed by applying the cumulative rate of increase at the F
rate of 12% per annum with the base year being the date of
the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
together with the statutory.benefits, as indicated hereinabove.
The stand taken on behalf of the State of Haryana, regarding
the amount of escalation fixed at 12% being improper, does G
not appeal to us having regard to the potentiality of the lands
acquired and the sharp increase in the value of the lands in
recent times. The valuation of the compensation of the acquired
land at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq. yard by the High Court,
appears to have been influenced by the compensation already H
' .•
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 6 S.C.R.
A assessed in Atam Prakash's case, where the market value of
the land acquired in Sectors 9 and 11 was assessed at Rs.235/-
per sq. yard. According to Mr. Swarup, the said lands were
far away from the lands involved in the present set of cases and,
accordingly, the rate of compensation for the lands under
B consideration should be definitely higher than awarded in
respect of the lands covered in Atam Prakash's case.
Accordingly, we re-assess the compensation assessed in
respect of the lands covered by these cases by applying the
cumulative rate of interest, taking the date of Notification under
c section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as the base year for such
calculation at Rs.325/- per sq. yard. The said valuation will also
be applicable in Mahabir & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
[SLP(C)No.1512 of 2007], Sarwan Singh & Anr. vs. State of
Haryana & Anr. [SLP(C)Nos.20144-20150 of 2007] and State
D of Haryana & Anr. vs. Partap Singh & Anr. [SLP(C)No.21597
of 2006]. As far as the lands in village Patti Mehar, Saunda and
Jandli in Ambala District and forming the subject matter in
Surinder Kumar's case [SLP(C)Nos.16372-16404 of 2008], in
Manohar Lal Khurana's case and in other cases falling in the
same category are concerned, the compensation will be at the
E above rate on a uniform basis.
43. There is yet another set of lands forming the subject
matter of the appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
Nos.33637-33638 of 2011, filed by Manohar Singh and others,
F which are situated in Hansi, District Hisar. The said lands also
form the subject matter of several other Special Leave Petitions,
which will be covered by the decision in the above-mentioned
Special Leave Petitions (now appeals). In the said cases, the
High Court had assessed the compensation payable for the
G acquired lands at the rate of Rs.805/- per sq. yard along with
the statutory sums available under Section 23(1A) of the Land
Acquisition Act and solatium on the market value under Section
23(2) thereof. It was also indicated that the land owners would
also be entitled to interest as provided .under Section 28 of the
H Act.
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 179
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
44. While deciding the valuation of the lands, the High A
Court applied a cut of 60% and also took into consideration
that the lands in question were small plots, the value whereof
was definitely higher than the lands which had been acquired
which were much larger in area.
B
45. In our view, the High Court was justified in taking into
consideration the size of the plots, which were exhibited for the
purposes of comparison with the size of the plots acquired, but
we are unable to uphold the cut of 60%, which has been
imposed by the High Court, since the acquired lands are
already within developed municipal limits. In these cases also, C
a cut of one-third the value would be appropriate as in the other
cases. Kccordingly, we modify the valuation arrived at by the
High Court upon imposing a cut of 60% and direct that the
amount of compensation be re-assessed upon imposing a cut
of 331/3 per cent while re-assessing the value of the land. D
46. This brings us to the last part of the submissions made
with regard to the amount of deduction effected in respect of
the various properties. The general cut imposed is at a flat rate
of 40%, which, in our view, is not warranted on account of the E
fact that the lands in question have lost their character and
potentiality as agricultural lands and have more or less been
converted into lands which were ready for use for the purpose
of construction. Taking Ms. Agarwal's submissions regarding
the factors which determine deduction towards development F
cost, such as location and potentiality, into account, we are of
the view that a deduction of 331/3 per cent would be reasonable
on account of the passage of time and the all round
development in the area which has made it impossible for the
lands to retain their original character.
G
47. Accordingly, we direct that except where we have
provided otherwise, wherever a deduction of 40% had been
made, the same should be altered to 331/3 per cent and the
compensation awarded is to be modified accordingly.
H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A 48. In regard to the 157.20 acres of land situated in
Fatehabad, District Hisar, Haryana, acquired for utilisation and
development of residential and commercial purposes in Sector-
3, Fatehabad, the compensation in respect thereof has been
questioned in Civil Appeal Nos. 319-352 of 2011 by one
B Mukesh and a number of appeals have been tagged with the
said matter, including the one filed by the Haryana Urban
Development Authority, being SLP(C) Nos. 26772-26779 of
2009 (now appeals). As indicated hereinbefore, in paragraph
24, the Collector had awarded compensation at a uniform rate
c of Rs. 1,81,200/- per acre along with statutory benefits. The
Reference Court determined the compensation at the uniform
rate of Rs. 206/- per sq. yard. The High Court modified the said
award and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 260/- per
sq. yard for the land acquired up to the depth of 100 meters
D abutting National Highway No. 10. The value of the rest of the
acquired land was maintained at Rs. 206/- per sq. yard. The
area in question being already developed to some extent, a cut
of 50% on the value is, in our view, excessive. We agree with
Mr. Swarup that resorting to the belting system by the High
Court was improper and that at best a standard cut of 1/3rd
E would have been sufficient to balance the smallness of the
exhibits produced. It has been pointed out by Mr. Swarup that
on a comparative basis, the price of lands in the area in 1991
was on an average of about Rs. 420/- per sq. yard. Given the
sharp rise in land prices, the value, according to Mr. Swarup,
F would have doubled to about Rs. 800/- per sq. yard by 1993. ~
Even if we have to apply the formula of 12% increase, the
valuation of the lands in question in 1993 would be
approximately Rs. 527/- per sq. yard. Imposing a deduction of
1/3rd, valuation comes to about Rs. 350/- per sq. yard, which,
G in our view, would be the proper compensation for the lands
covered in the case of Mukesh (supra) and other connected
matters.
49. This disposes of all the various matters which were
H heard along with lead matters, a table of which has been
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 181
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
supplied by Mr. Swarup. A
50. The decision rendered in the appeals arising out of
SLP{C)Nos.24704-24712 of 2007 (Ashrafi & Ors. vs. State of
Haryana & Ors.) will govern SLP{C)Nos.13415-13426 of 2008,
SLP{C)Nos.12263- 12282 of 2008, SLP(C)No.15648 of 2008, B
SLP{C)Nos. 5392-5394 of 2008, SLP(C)Nos. 15485-15486 of
2009, SLP{C)Nos.8592-8596 of 2009, SLP{C)Nos.34118-
34120 of 2010, SLP{C)Nos.4176-4179 of 2010, SLP(C)Nos.
11156-11158 of 2009, SLP(C)No. 28895 of 2008,
SLP(C) .... cc 863-865 of 2011, SLP(C)No.33257 of 201 o.
SLP(C)Nos.11171-11172 of 2009, SLP(C)Nos. 3125-3126 of C
2011, SLP{C)Nos.29721-29722 of 2009, SLP(C)No.31281 of
2009, C.A. No.8719 of 2010, SLP(C)Nos.18744-18824 of
2008, SLP(C)Nos. 1089-1105 of 2008, SLP(C)Nos.27923-
27924 of 2008, SLP(C)No. 246 of 2009, SLP(C)Nos.3367- D
3368 of 2010 and SLP(C) Nos.9268-9270 of 2011. The
decision rendered in appeals arising out of
SLP(C)Nos.28613-28642 of 2010 (Kamlesh Kumari Etc. Etc.
vs. State of Haryana and Anr.) and SLP(C)No.28686 of 2010
(Sailak Ram Vs. State of Haryana) will govern the appeals
arising out of SLP(C)Nos.7233-7239 of 2011, E
SLP{C)Nos.35673-35693 of 2010, SLP(C)Nos.12083- 12087
of 2011, SLP(C)Nos. 14389-14390 of 2011, SLP(C)No.13613
of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.674-681 of 2011, SLP(C)No.33749 of
2010, SLP(C)No.364 7 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.28644-28685 of
2010, SLP(C)No.31832 of 2010, SLP{C)Nos.27706-27723 of F
2010, SLP(C)No.14425 of 2011 and SLP(C)Nos. 31772-
31776 of 2011. The decision rendered in the appeal arising
out of SLP(C)No.19668 of 2007 (Mukesh Kumar Vs. State
of Haryana) will govern the appeals arising out of
SLP(C)No.16005 of 2006, SLP(C)No.16262 of 2006, G
SLP(C)No.16271 of 2006, SLP(C)No.16302 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.16303 of 2006, SLP(C)No.16304 of 2006,
SLP{C)No.16378 of 2006, SLP(C)No.16379 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.16407: of 2006, SLP(C)No.16536 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.16537 of 2006, SLP(C)No.16538 of 2006, H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 6 S.C.R.
A SLP(C)No.19384 of 2006, SLP(C)No.16793 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.16794 of 2006, SLP(C)No.18564 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.19381 of 2006, SLP(C)No.19379 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.19382 of 2006, SLP(C)No.19380 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.19419 of 2006, SLP(C)No.19489 of 2006,
B SLP(C)No.19603 of 2006, SLP(C)No.21851 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.21850 of 2006, SLP(C)No.20188 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.5509 of 2007, SLP(C)No.6175 of 2007,
SLP(C)No.8129 of 2007, SLP(C)No. 7001 of 2007,
SLP(C)No.5571 of 2007, SLP(C)No.5895 of 2007,
C SLP(C)No.5572 of 2007, SLP(C)No.6167 of 2007,
SLP(C)No. 7002 of 2007, SLP(C)No.11527 of 2007,
SLP(C)No.2944 7 of 2008, SLP(C)No.18448 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.18876 of 2006, SLP(C)No.18877 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.19133 of 2006, SLP(C)No.19231 of 2006,
D SLP(C)No.5487 of 2007, SLP(C)No.18588 of 2006,
SLP(C)No. 7601 of 2007, SLP(C)No.21848 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.21846 of 2006, SLP(C)No.3416 of 2007,
SLP(C)No.3468 of 2007, SLP(C)No.2420 of 2007,
SLP(C)Nos.6866-6880 of 2008, SLP(C)No.3356 of 2007,
SLP(C)No.3415 of 2007, SLP(C)No.3411 of 2007,
E SLP(C)No.17564 of 2006, SLP(C)No.14642 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.14536 of 2006, SLP(C)No.17361 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.6326 of 2006, SLP(C)No.7165 of 2006,
SLP(C)No. 7106 of 2006, SLP(C)No.14161 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.9990 of 2006, SLP(C)No.18583 of 2006,
F SLP(C)No.16272 of ,2006, SLP(C)No.17268 of 2006, ·
SLP(C)No.12661 of 2006, SLP(C)No.16273 of 2006,
SLP(C)No.3646 of 2011, SLP(C)No.3350 of 2007,
SLP(C)No.6899 of 2006, SLP(C)No. 7036 of 2006,
SLP(C)No. 724 7 of 2006, SLP(C)No.19676 of 2007,
G SLP(C)Nos.19539-19542 of 2007, SLP(C)No.20667 of 2007,
SLP(C)Nos.16372-16404 of 2008, SLP(C)No ...... (CC 2754 of
2007), SLP(C)No ...... (CC 9752 of 2007), SLP(C)No.6332 of
2007 and SLP(C)No.6335 of 2007. The decision rendered
in the appeals arising out of SLP(C)Nos.1678-1697 of
H 201 O (Sucha Singh Vs. Collector) will govern the appeals
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 183
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
arisiiig out of SLP(C)Nos.13529-13549 of 2011, A
SlP(C)Nos.15508-15511 of 2011 and SLP(C) ....... (CC 2620
of 2011 ). The decision rendered in C.A.Nos.319-352 of
2011 (Mukesh etc. etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Another) will
govern C.A.Nos.8654-8661 of 2010, C.A.Nos.8642-8645 of
2010, C.A.Nos.423-424 of 2011, C.A. No.418 of 2011, B
C.A.No.419 of 2011, C.A.No.8637 of 2010, C.A.No.8638 of
2010, C.A.Nos.8646-8653 of 2010, C.A.Nos.354-411 of 2011,
C.A.Nos.412-417 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos. 26772-26779 of 2009
and SLP(C)Nos.31842-31845 of 2009. The decision
rendered in the appeals arising out of SLP(C)Nos.33637- c
33638 of 2011 (Manohar Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr.)
will govern Civil Appeal Nos.3388-3389 of 2011, C.A.No.5206
of 2011, C.A.No.5208 of 2011, C.A.No.5209 of 2011, C.A.No.
5210 of 2011, C.A.No.5211 of 2011, C.A.No.5212 of 2011,
C.A.No.5213 of 2011, C.A.No.5214 of 2011, C.A.No.5207 of D
2011, C.A.No.5215 of 2011, C.A.No. 5216 of 2011,
C.A.Nos.7179-7182 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos ....... (CC 14220-
14221 of 2011), SLP(C)No ...... (CC 14164 of 2011),
SLP(C)Nos.21344-21351 of 2011,SLP(C)Nos.32764-32765
of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.32766-32767 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos.32770- 32771 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos. 32772-32773 E
Of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.32790-32791 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos.32792-32793 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.32796-32797
of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.32798-32799 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos.32801-32802 of 2011 and SLP(C)Nos.32806-
32807 of 2011 . F
51. Having regard to the facts of the various cases
disposed of by this judgment, the parties will bear their own
costs.
G
B.B.B. Matters disposed of.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search