Holding

A Lok Adalat settlement cannot be used to determine the market value of acquired land unless the settlement is supported by detailed particulars establishing the land’s similarity; the High Court was correct to determine the fair market value based on established legal principles.

Summary

The appellants, owners of agricultural land in Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi, challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired under a 1982 notification. After successive awards by the Land Acquisition Collector (Rs 5,800‑2,400 per bigha), the Reference Court (Rs 9,750 per bigha) and the High Court (Rs 11,500 per bigha), the appellants pointed to a Lok Adalat settlement that fixed the market price at Rs 22,000 per bigha and argued that this should determine their compensation. The Supreme Court held that a Lok Adalat settlement cannot be the basis for fixing market value unless detailed particulars showing the land’s similarity are produced, and that market value must be determined by applying the established legal principles and relevant factors. Consequently, the High Court’s determination of fair market value was upheld. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an agreement reached in a Lok Adalat can be treated as determinative of the market value of similarly situated land for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the Lok Adalat settlement and determining market value on the basis of legal principles.
What factors must be considered in ascertaining the fair market value of land acquired under the Act.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23(1), s. 23(1A), s. 4(1)

Subjects

Land acquisitionMarket valueCompensationLok AdalatFair market valueSection 23Section 4Agricultural landLegal principles

Judgment

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 315

ATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 7203 of 2004)
AUGUST 4, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land acquisition - Market
' ' -4
value - Determination of - Claim for compensation on basis
of market value fixed of a similarly situated land in Lok Ada/at c
Settlement - High Court awarding compensation on basis of
its earlier decision - Correctness of - Held: Correct - It is not
known on' what basis settlement was .arrived at in Lok Ada/at
- Absence of any detailed particulars showing similarity of
land and/or advantages and dis-advantages pertaining D
-1 thereto, settlement not rightly made basis for determining
" market value of land - High Court was required to determine
fair market value of land on basis of the legal principles - It
based its decision on its earlier common judgment delivered
arising out of the same notification, which has attained finality. E

The question which arose for consideration in this .
•-:.i:
appeal was whether any agreement entered into by and
between the holders of the lands and the Union of India
in a Lok Adalat should have formed the basis for
determination of the amount of compensation in respect F
of the lands which are said to be similarly situated.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Determination of the market value of the
G
,...\ land acquired would depend upon a large number of
factors including the nature and quality thereof. The
norms which are required to be applied for determination
of the market value of the agricultural land and
315 H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 12 S.C.R.

A homestead land are different. In given cases location of
land and in particular, closeness thereof from any road
or high-way would play an important role for
determination of the market value wherefor belting
system may in appropriate cases may be resorted to. The
B position of the land, particularly in rainy season,
. existence of any building etc. also plays an important
role. A host of other factors including development in and
around the acquired land and/or the potentiality of
development will also have a bearing on determination
c of the fair market value of the land. Determination of the
market value of the land may also depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case, amongst them would
be the amount of consideration mentioned in a deed of
sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near
0 about the date of issuance of Notification in terms of s.
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; in absence of any
such exemplars, the market value can be determined on
yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of
number of fruit bea~ing trees. For the purpose of
E determination of price of acquired land, the courts should
consider the positive and negative factors. [Paras 10, 11
and 12) [320-8-D; 320-E-F; 320-G]

1.2. On what basis the settlement in the Lok Adalat •· •
was arrived at is not known. Details of the land with regard
F to location, nature, advantages and dis-advantages
pertaining thereto are absent. In absence of any detailed
particulars showing the similarity of the land and/or the
respective advantages and dis-advantages pertaining
thereto, the settlement was not rightly made the basis for
G determining the market value of the land. Thus, the High
Court was required to determine the fair market value of
the land on the basis of the legal principles laid down by
this Court. No contention has been could be raised that
the High Court in passing the impugned judgment failed
H
ATTAR SINGH AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIAAND 317
ANR.
~ to take into consideration the well settled legal principles. A
[Paras 14 and 15] [325-B-C; 325-D]

1.3. The High Court based its decision on its earlier
common judgment delivered in the case of *Jia Ram and

} ....
r
others arising out of the same notification. There is no
information whether any appeal has been preferred
against that judgment and if what was the result
thereof. In absence of that inf rmation, the appellants
should not be treated differently rom Jia Ram's case who
1
B

might not have preferred any appeal and have accepted
the judgment of the High Court. [Para 16] [325-E; 325-F- c
G]
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4
"1 SCC 789; Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC
I
1; Ranvir Singh v. Union of India (2005) 12 SCC 59; D
~
Karimbanakkal Suleiman (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Special Tahsildar
" for K.A.K.P.l.P. (2004) 13 Sec 643; Viluben Jhalejar
Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 sec 789; Basant
Kumar v. Union of India (1996) 11 SCC 542; Jia Ram and
others vs. Union of India R.F.A. No. 500 of 1987, referred to. E

Case Law Reference:
~"" (2005) 4 sec 789 Referred to. Paras 12, 13
(2005) 12 sec 1 Referred to. Para 13
F
(2005) 12 sec 59 Referred to. Para 13
(2004) 13 sec 643 Referred to. Para 13
(1996) 11 sec 542 Referred to. Para 13
~- G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
7203 of 2004.

From the Judgment & Order dated 28.2.2003 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No. 394 of 1989.
H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

1
A WITH

C.A. Nos. 7204, 7205, 7206, 7207, 7208 of 2004.

B.S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh, Mamta Jain, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin
Gupta, Manish Raghav, Somvir Singh Deswal, M.P. Shorawala
B for the Appellants.

S.P. Singh, Krishna Kumar, Rekha Pandey, Asha G. Nair,
Gargi Khanna, Sanjeev Kumar Bhardwaj, Anil Katiyar for the ,._ <

Respondents.
c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Appellants were owners of agricultural
lands situated in village Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi. The subject
matter of these appeals is a Notification dated 14th July, 1982 ..
D issued by the Union of India expressing its intention to acquire ~
the land in the said village ...

2. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award on 10th
August, 1983 categoriz:ing the acquired lands in three
E categories, i.e. 'A', 'B' and 'C' and fixed the market value
thereof at the rate of Rs.5,800/- per; Rs.4,800/- per bigha; and
Rs.2,400/- per bigha respectively.
" .
3. The awardees not being satisfied with the said award
filed applications for reference before the District Collector.
F References having been made, the Reference Court vide its
Award dated 22nd July, 1987 assessed the fair market value
of the acquired land at Rs.9,750/- per bigha.

4. Still not satisfied, the appellants preferred appeals
G before the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation )...
for acquisition of their lands at the rate of Rs.27,750/- per bigha.

5. Before the High Court a contention was raised that in a
Lok Adalat Settlement, the market value of similarly situated
land was fixed at Rs.22,000/- per bigha at the instance of the
H
ATTAR SINGH AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND 319
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
Union of India, pursuant whereto a Division Bench passed a A
)
decree on the said basis.

6. A Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated
February 28, 2003, however, on the basis of its earlier decision,
assessed the fair market value at Rs.11,500/- per bigha.
B
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submitted that in a matter of this nature, the High Court having
regard to the claim of the appellants, namely Rs.27,750/- per
·~ bigha should have awarded compensation at least @
c
Rs.22,000/- which was fixed as the fair market price for lands
similarly situated.

8. The principal question which, therefore, arises for
consideration is as to whether any agreement entered into by
and between the holders of the lands and the Union of India in D
a Lok Adalat should have formed the basis for determination
-4 of the amount of compensation in respect of the lands which
". . are said to be similarly situated.

9. It does not appear that before the High Court, the
particulars of the matter which was settled in the Lok Aalat had E
been produced. Before us only an order sheet dated 5th

.. ,,. November, 1992 passed in R.F.A. No.891 of 1987 has been
produced, which reads as under:-

"Before the Lok Adalat, the parties agreed that the market F
price of the acquired land is Rs.22,000/- per bigha. In view
of the settlement made before the Lok Adalat, we fix the
market price of the land at Rs.22,000/- per bigha.

The appellant shall be entitled to increased compensation G
under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
as amended by 1984 Act. The appellant shall also be
entitled to solatium at 30% per annum and interest at the
rate of 9% per annum for the first year and at the rate of
15% per annum thereafter till payment. The Supreme Court
has already decided the matter regarding the payment of H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A interest and, therefore, the question of award of interest
need not await the decision of the Supreme Court as
suggested by the Lok Adalat.

The appeal is allowed with costs."
B 10. It is now a well settled principle of law that determination
of the market value of the land acquired indisputably would
depend upon a large number of factors including the nature and
quality thereof. The norms which are required to be applied for
determination of the market value of the agricultural land and
C homestead land are different. In given cases location of land
and in particular, closeness thereof from any road or high-way
would play an important role for determination of the market
value wherefor belting system may in appropriate cases may
be resorted to. The position of the land, particularly in rainy
D season, existence of any building etc. also plays an important
role. A host of other factors including development in and
around the acquired land and/or the potentiality of development f
will also have a bearing on determination of the fair market
value of the land.
E
11. Determination of the market value of the land may also
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case,
amongst them would be the amount of consideration
)< •
mentioned in a deed of sale executed in respect of similarly
situated land near about the date of issuance of Notification in
F terms of Section 4(1) of the Act ; in absence of any such
exemplars, the market value can be determined on yield basis
or in case of an orchard on the basis of number of fruit bearing
trees.

G 12. It is also well settled that for the purpose of
determination of price of acquired land, the courts would be well
advised to consider the positive and negative factors, as has
been laid down by this Court in Vi/uben Jhalejar Contractor
VS. State of Gujarat [(2005) 4 sec 789], i.e. :

H
ATIAR SINGH AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIAAND 321
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
Positive factors Negative factor A

(i) Smallness of size (i) Largeness of area

(ii) Proximity to a road (ii) Situation in the interior
at a distance from the
road B

(iii) Frontage on a road (iii) Narrow strip of land with
very srnall frontage
1 Ji. compared to depth
c
(iv) Nearness to developed (iv) Lower level requiring
area the depressed portion to
be filled up

-
(v) Regular shape (v) Remoteness from
developed locality D
-4
... (vi) Level vis-a-vis land (vi) Some special
under acquisition disadvantageous
factors which would
deter a purchaser E
(vii) Special value for an owner
~,.
of an adjoining property to
whom it may have some very
special advantage.
F
13. This Court in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, [(2005)
12 sec 1], on the question of determination of market value
opined :-

"24. While determining the amount of compensation
G
payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, the
market value therefor indisputably has to be ascertained.
There exist different
, modes therefor.
:6
25. The best method, as is well known, would be the
amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 12 S.C.R.

A of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, i
however, may take recourse to various other known
methods. Evidences admissible therefor inter al1a would
be judgments and awards passed in respect of
acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or
B neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award, in the
absence of any other evidence like the deed of sale, report
of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only
evidentiary value.

26. Therefore, the contention that as the Union of India was
".
c a party to the said awards would not by itself be a ground
to invoke the principles of res judicata and/or estoppel.
Despite such awards it may be open to the Union of India
to question the entitlement of the respondent claimants to

D
the amount of compensation and/or the statutory limitations
in respect thereof. It would also be open to it to raise other
contentions relying on or on the basis of other materials
brought on record. It was also open to the appellant to
t-
.
-
contend that the lands under acquisition are not similar to
the lands in respect whereof judgments have been
E delivered. The area of the land, the nature thereof,
advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst
others would be relevant factors for determining the actual
market value of the property although such judgments/ >< '

awards, if duly brought on record, as stated hereinbefore,
F would be admissible in evidence."

It was furthermore opined :-

"36. Yet again in Ras Behari Manda! v. Raja Jagadish
Chandra Dea Dhaubal Deb the Patna High Court
G reiterated the presumption that the lessor retains all the )..
rights in mines and quarries. It also noticed the decision
of the House of Lords in Great Western Rly. Co. v.
Carpal/a United China Clay Co. Ltd.wherein a grant
reserving minerals was held to exclude a deposit of china
...
H clay despite the fact that the same was found near the
ATIAR SINGH AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIAAND 323
ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.J
r surface." A

It was also held that:-

"8. In V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer
& Manda/ R. Officer th.e law is stated in the following terms:
B
"It is now a well-established principle of law that the
land abutting the national highway will fetch far more
higher price than the land lying interior."
• -j..
This Court furthermore opined :-
c
"84. It is also trite to state that the market value of
agricultural land is lower than that of the land suitable for
commercial purposes. (See Om Prakash v. Union of
India.)
p
~ It was observed :-
-..
"87. The courts will also have to take into consideration the
enormity of the financial implication of enhancement in
view of the size of the land acquired for a particular project."
E
In Ranvir Singh v. Union of India, [(2005) 12 SCC 59],
this Court held as under:-
~· .>'.

"22. Concededly, the High Court in its impugned judgment
did not place any reliance whatsoever upon the sale F
instances whereupon strong reliance has been placed by
the parties solely on the ground that neither the vendors.
nor the vendees thereof had been examined as witnesses.
It has also not placed any reliance upon any other judgment
or award filed by the parties. The High Court while arriving
G
~ at the said finding evidently took .into consideration the law

- as it then stood. The correctness of the decisions wherein
the aforementioned view had been taken was doubted and
the matter was referred to a larger Bench."

Referring to Cement Corporation (supra), it was opined H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A that the High Court was required to consider the deeds of sale
in their proper perspective for determining the market value of
the acquired land.

In Karimbanakkal Sulaiman (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Special
B Tahsildar for K.A.K.P.l.P., [(2004) 13 SCC 643], this Court
held:

"These factors have been taken into consideration by the
High Court in fixing the land value. Moreover, the land
acquired was agricultural land and it was acquired for the
c purpose of an irrigation project. There is nothing on record
to show that the land had any commercial value or future
potentialities. We do not think that the land value fixed is
too low to be interfered with by this Court."

D In Viluben Jha/ejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat, [(2005)
4 SCC 789], this Court opined :-

"24. The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a
relevant factor for determining the market value. In
Basavva v. Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer deduction to the
E extent of 65% was made towards development charges."

In Basant Kumar v. Union of India, [ (1996) 11 SCC 542
], this Court held that even if the entire land is of one village ~ •
one standard for determining the market value should not be
F applied, stating:-

".... It has been firmly settled law by beadroll of decisions
of this Court that the Judge determining the compensation
under Section 23( 1) should sit in the armchair of a willing
prudent purchaser in an open market and see whether he
G would offer the same amount proposed to be fixed as
market value as a willing and prudent buyer for the same
or similar land, i.e., land possessing all the advantageous
features and to the same extent. This test should always
be kept in view and answered affirmatively, taking into
H consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. If feats
ATTAR SINGH AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIAAND 325
ANR. [S.S. SINHA, J.]
of imagination are allowed to sway, he outsteps his A
domain of judicial decision and lands in misconduct
amenable to disciplinary law... "

14. On what basis the aforementioned settlement in the
Lok Adalat was arrived at is not known. Details of the land with 8
regard to location, nature, advantages and dis-advantages
pertaining thereto are absent. In absence of any detailed
particulars showing the similarity of the land and/or the
• + respective advantages and dis-advantages pertaining thereto,
in our opinion, the said settlement had rightly not been made C
the basis for determining the market value of the land.

15. The High Court, thus, was required to determine the
fair market value of the land on the basis of the legal principles
laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to
heretobefore. No contention has been/ could be raised that the D
High Court in passing the impugned judgment failed to take into
consideration the well settled legal principles.

16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot
also be lost sight of. The High Court based its decision on its E
earlier common judgment arising out of the same notification.
The lead judgment was delivered in the case of JiaRam and
others vs. Union of India, - R.F.A. No. 500 of 1987.

We have not been informed whether any appeal has been
preferred against that judgment and if so, what was the result F
thereof. In absence of that information, we are of the opinion
that the appellants should not be treated differently from Jia Ram
(supra) who might not have preferred any appeal and have
accepted the judgment of the High Court..
G
17. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in these
appeals. The same are dismissed accordingly. No costs.

N.J. Appeals dismissed.