KASHMIR SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                   [2013] 16 S.C.R. 1079.


                      KASHMIR SINGH                             A
                              v.
              STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No. 11030 of 2013)
                   DECEMBER 13, 2013
                                                               B
    (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, 18 & 23(1-A) -
Acquisition for public purpose - Land acquired falling. in the
 Revenue Estate of Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District C
Fatehabad, Haryana - Compensation - Determination of :....
Held: The acquisition of land in Fatehabad District itself,
which was acquired in the year 1993 was the subject matter
of consideration in the Asharfi case - It is clear fr.om the said
judgment that price of land in the said area in 1991 was fixed D
@ Rs. 4201· per square yard - Supreme Court had applied
 the formula of 12% increase per year in the valuation of/and
 and on that basis fixed the market rate at approx. Rs.5201-
per square yard and after taking a deduction of one-third, the
 valuation was arrived at Rs.3501- per square yard in the year E
 1993 - Going by the formula adopted in the said judgment,
 12% per annum increase can be applied on the value of land
determined as Rs.5201- per square yard in the year 1993, upto
the year 2001 when Notification uls.4 of the Act was issued
in the instant case - However, from 1993 to 2001, there was F
 attrition in the land rates - Therefore, on facts, land value
 enhanced by applying the formula of 12% per annum
 increase for a period of 4 years, instead of taking entire period
 1993 and 2001 - When calculated in this manner, valuation
 of land in the year 2001 comes to Rs. 7701· per square yard . G
- After making one-third deduction therefrom, the net
 valuation comes to Rs.5141- per square yard- Compensation
 accordingly fixed@ Rs.5141- per square yard for the acquired
 land of appellants.
                            1079                                H
    1080   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 16 S.C.R.


A     Notification was issued under Section 4 of the. Land
  Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 2001. The land of the
  appellants was acquired by the Government of Haryana,
  which falls in the Revenue Estate of Tohana, Tehsil
  Tohana, District Fatehabad,· Haryana. The Land
s Acquisition Collector (LAC) assessed. the market value of
  the acquired land @· Rs.2,75,000/- per acre for chahi;
  Rs.1,75,000/- per acre for fibba/Tall and Rs.3,25,000!- per
  acre· for gair mum kin land. The Reference Court under
  Section 18 of the Act _categorized the land into two
c categories, namely category-A and category-B and fixed
  the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for category-
  A and Rs.6,50,000/,. per acre for category-8. Under
  Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, the escalation was fixed at
  12% per annum on the assessed compensation. Still
  dissatisfied and aspiring for further enhancement of the
0
  compensation, the appellants filed appeal before the High
  Court which was dismissed. Hence the present appeals.

       Disposing of the appeals, the Court

E      HELD: The acquisition of land in Fatehabad District
  itself, which was acquired in the year 1993 was the
  subject matter of consideration in the case of Asharfi. Ip
  that case, the court had dealt with various Notifications
  issued by different State Governments acquiring lands in
F their respective States. It included acquisition of lands
  situated in Fatehabad, District Hissar, Harayana as well.
  The Court fixed the compensation @ Rs.350 per square
  yard as on 1993. It is clear from tJie said judgment that
  price of land in the said area in 1991 was fixed@ Rs.420/
G - per square yard. The Court had applied the formula of
  12% increase per year in the valuation of land and on that
  basis fixed the market rate at approximately Rs.520/- per
  square yard, and after taking a deduction of one-third, the
  valuation was arrived at Rs.350/- per square yard in the
  year 1993. Going by the formula adopted in the aforesaid
H judgment, 12% per annum increase can be applied on the
      KASHMIR SINGH v.STATE OF HARYANA                1081

value of land determined as Rs.520/- per square yard in       A·
the year 1993, upto the year 2001 when the Notification
under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the instant case.
However, from 1993 to 2001, there was a period when
instead of increase in the land price, there was attrition
in the land rates. Therefore, this Court would like to        B.
enhance the value by applying the formula of 12% per
annum increase for a period of 4 years, instead of taking
entire period 1993 and 2001 (and this would not be
treated as a precedent). When calculated in this manner,
the valuation of the land in the year 2001 shall come to      c
Rs.770/- per square yard. After making a deduction of one-
third therefrom the net valuation comes to Rs.514/- per
square yard. Compared to the land value of this very area
in 1993 which was fixed at Rs.350/- per square yards, the
same is increased by about 50% over a period of 7 years
                                                              0
or so, which is quite reasonable as this much
compensation is legitimately due to the appellants.
Accordingly, the compensation is fixed @ Rs.514/- per
square yard for the acquired land of the appellants. [Paras
9, 10, 11] [1087-8-E; 1089-A-B]
                                                              E
    Asharfi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana 2013 (5) SCC 527 -
held applicable.                          ·

    lJdho Das vs, State of Haryana 201 O (8) SCR 900 .....
referred to,.                                                 F
                   ·Case Law Reference :
    2010 (8) SCR 900        cited                Para 6
    2013 (5) sec 521        held applicable      Para 7
                                                              G
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
11030 of 2013.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2010 ofthe ·
·High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RFA No. 2641 of 2006. H
    1082    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A                                WITH

    C.A. Nos. 11031, 11032, 11033, 11034, 11035, 11036 and
    11037 of 2013.

        A. K. Singla, Pankaj Gupta, Mridul Gupta for the App~llant.
B
          Dr. Monika Gusain, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Pragati Neekhra
    for the Respondents.

        The judgment of the Court was delivered by

C       A.K.SIKRl,J. 1. Leave granted.
        2. In all these appeals, challenge is laid to the judgment of
  the High Court pronounced on 20th September 2010, whereby
  number of appeals filed for enhancement of compensation
D under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
  as the 'LA Act') were dismissed by the High Court. The land
  of the appellants was acquired by the Government of Haryana,
  which falls in the Revenue Estate of Tohana, Tehsil Tohana,
  District Fatehabad, Haryana. The Land Acquisition Collector
E (LAC) had assessed the market value of the acquired land @
  Rs.2, 75,000/- per acre for chahi, Rs.1, 75,000/- per acre for
  Tibba/Tall and Rs.3,25,000/- per acre for gair mumkin land. The
  appellants had filed objections to the said determination of
  compensation by the LAC and the matte:r was referred to the
  learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad under Section 18
F of the LA Act. The learned ADJ passed the award dated
  21.2.2006. Vide this award, he categorized the land into two
  categories, namely category-A and category-8 and· fixed the
  compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for category-A and
   Rs.6,50,000/- per acre for category~B. Still dissatisfied and
G aspiring for further enhancement of the compensation, the
   appellants filed Regular First appeal from the aforesaid orders
   of the learned ADJ. However, these appeals have been
   dismissed holding that the compensation as fixed by the
   learned ADJ is appropriate and does not call for any further
H enhancement. Feeling aggrieved, present appeals have been·
        KASHMIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA ·                 1083
                   [A.K.SIKRI, J.]

filed. Since the land of all the appellants is situate in Revenue    A
Estate of Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana and is acquired
by the same Notification, facts pertaining to the said
Notification apply to all these appellants. The only difference is
in the quantum of land which was owned by these appellants
and has been taken away by the State in acquisition. Therefore,      B
taking general note of the particulars of acquisition and the
nature of land, would serve the purpose ..
     3. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition· Act,
1894 was issued on 11.1.2001. This was published in official
gazette on 08.01.2002. The land is situate in revenue estate         C
of Tohana, District Fatehabad, Haryana. The public purpose
mentioned was the construction of godowns and rice mills at
Tohana, for HAFED (Haryana State Co-operative Supply and
Market Federation Ltd.). In pursuance to the Land Acquisition
Collector's Award dated 19.9.2003, the acquired lands were           D
taken possession on 17 .12.2003. The Reference Court under
Section 18 of the Act vide its award dated 21.2.2006 assessed
the compensation @ Rs.8/- Lac per acre and Rs.6.50 Lac per
acre by categorizing the acquired land in two categories, viz.
Category-A and Category-B. Under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act,        E
the escalation was fixed at 12% per annum on the assessed
compensation. The other statutory benefits were also allowed
thereby. The appeals filed by land owners before the High
Court, seeking enhancement of compensation and the appeal
filed by HAFED seeking reduction of compensation are                 F
decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide a
common judgment dated 20.9.2010. Appeals of both the
parties have been dismissed as noted above.
     4. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court would reveal
that though the appellants had produced on reoord certain sale G
deeds and other documents showing higher value of the land,
the High Court chose to rely upon only one document, namely,
Ex.P-15 which is a conveyance deed registered for sale by ·
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) to
the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC). Vide this . H
    1084      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 16 S.C.R.


A Conveyance Deed 34,475 square meters of land was sold by
  the HSIDC to CWC @ Rs.150/- per square meter. The
  allotment letter issued in this behalf was dated 4.9.2001 and
  from this the High Court inferred that process for sale must have
  been started much prior thereto. In the instant case, since the
B Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act is dated 11.1.2001,
  in the opinion of the High Court, it was the most approximate
  date to the aforesaid sale of land in favour of CWC. The High
  Court also found that the land sold to CWC is located at a link
  road whereas the land of the appellants which was acquired
c by the Government was located at a crossing of five roads and
  thus lands sold of HSIDC to CWC was better located. The High
  Court, thus, relied upon the said sale deed on the basis of which
  it has concluded that the assessment of compensation by the
  learned ADJ is most appropriate.
D         5. In an endeavour to find fault with the aforesaid approach
    of the High Court, Mr. Singla, the learned senior counsel
    appearing for the appellants _submitted that. the High Court
    committed an error in relying upon the said solitary document
    and in the process ignore other more relevant documents which
E   had been produced by the appellants. He submitted that the
    acquired land is strategically located which the landowners have
    proved by producing on record the site plans, Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-
    28. The acquired land is located near the industrial area. There
    are many commercial establishments located near the acquired
F   like viz. FCI godwon, CWC godown, HUDA Colony, Grain
    Market of Tohana, Mirch Mandi, Railway Station. The land is
    situated in the fast developing area of Tohana town and all the
    civil facilities are available there. The acquired land is situated
    on a State Highway close to industrial and residential area. The
G   valuation of the land considering the same merely of agricultural
    kind is not fair as it had great future potential. Mr. Singla
    specifically referred to Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-4 which are the
    Government documents and as per these documents even the
    State agencies had been mentioning the value of acquired land
    @ Rs.7/- Lac per acre. He also referred to Ex.P-18 which
H   shows the allotment of commercial plot of 100 square yards by
        KASHMIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                  1085
                   [A.K.SIKRI, J.]
HUDA @ Rs.1193/- per square yard. His submission was that           A
though these arguments and the aforesaid referred documents
were specifically taken note of by the High Court but not dealt
with and completely ignored. Mr. Singla also drew our attention
to the following findings of the Reference Court regarding the
nature of the land:                                                 B

    " ....... After careful consideration of the case law relied
    upon by both the parties ar:id after appreciating the
    evidence brought on record by both the parties, it is held
    that in view of the cogent and reliable oral as well as
    documentary evidence coupled with the admissions of             C
    RW1, it is clearly proved on the file that as far as the
    location and potentiality of industrial, commercial and
    industrial nature and it was not simply agricultural land as
    found by the learned Land Acquisition Collector while fixing
    the market rate and as such, the market rate granted by         D
    the Land Acquisition Collector was much less than the
    prevailing rate at that time."

     6. He further referred to the following observation from the
judgment of this Court in Udho Das vs. State of Haryana 2010        E
(8) SCR 900:

    ".... Concededly, the Act also provides for the payment of
    the solatium, interest and an additional amount but we are
    of the opinion, and it is common knowledge, that even
    these payments do not keep pace with the astronomical           F
    rise in prices in many parts of India, and most certainly in
    North India, in the land price and cannot fully compensate
    for the acquisition of the land and the payment of the
    compensation in driblets. The 12% per annum increase
    which courts have often found to be adequate in                 G
    compensation matters hardly does justice to those land
    owners whose land have been acquired as judicial notice
    can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10 or 12
    or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for land
                                                                    H
    1086    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 16 S.C.R.

A       which has the potential of being urbanized and
        commercialized such as in the present case."

      7. His last submission was that in any case, the matter had
  now been set at rest by recent judgment of this Court in Asharfi
B & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana 2013 (5) SCC 527 where similar
  submissions, which are made by the app_ellants herein, have
  been accepted by the court.

        8. Learned counsel appearing for Haryana State Co-
  operative Supply and Market Federation Ltd. (HAFED), on the
C other hand, submitted that the High Court has taken into
  consideration all the relevant documents even including sale
  deed on which the appellants relied upon, but found that the only
  relevant document for the purpose of arriving at just
  compensation was Ex. P-15. He submitted that in preferring to
D make this document as the basis for compensation, the High
  Court has given cogent reasons and therefore judgment of the
  High Court cannot be faulted with. His submission was that the
  learned ADJ had suitably enhanced the compensation by
  increasing it quite substantially than what was granted by the
E LAC. His further submission was that reiiance on allotment letter
  dated 8.10.2002 (Ex.P-18) during the course of arguments,
  was totally misconceived as this was not even pleaded in the
  memo of SLP filed or the memo of appeals filed before the
  High Court. In any case, the relevant date for determination of
F market price of the land was 11,. 1.2001 when Notification undet
  Section 4 of the LA Act was issued and relying upon two
  allotment letters were of subsequent dates which were issued
  more than 17 months after the date of issuance of Section 4
  Notification. Therefore, relying upon these documents was
G totally misplaced. Referring to the question of law framed in the
  SLP, he further submitted that the earlier arguments advanced
  were neither raised in the SLP nor argued before the courts
  below and therefore the appellants cannot be allowed to take
  fresh plea for the first time in this Court. It was also his

H
        KASHMIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                    1087
                   [A.K.SIKRI, J.]

submission that the judgment relied upon by the appellants had       A
no application to the facts of the present case.

     9. We are of the view that the matter does not require
elaborate discussion inasmuch as the acquisition of land in
Fatehabad District itself, which was acquired in the year 1993
                                                                     8
was the subject matter of consideration in the case of Asharfi
(supra). In that·case, the court had dealt with various
Notifications issued by different State Governments acquiring
lands in their respective States. It included acquisition of lands
situated in Fatehabad, District Hissar, Harayana as well. The        C
Court fixed the compensation @ Rs.3.50 per square yard as
on 1993 and the following discussion ensued in this behalf in
Para 15 of the judgment.

     10. It is clear from the above that price of land in the said
area in 1991 was fixed @ Rs.420/- per square yard. The Court         D
had applied the formula of 12% per year in the valuation of land
and on that basis fixed the market rate at .approximately
Rs.520/- per square yard after taking a deduction of one-third,
the valuation was arrived at Rs.350/- per square yard in the year
1993. The relevant portion of the judgment, in this behalf reads     E
as under:

     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
                                                                     F
     in Sector 3, Fatehabad, the compensation in respect
     thereof has been questioned in Civil Appeals Nos. 319-
     52 of 2011 by one Mukesh and a number of appeals have
     been tagged with the said matter, including the one filed
     by the Haryana Urban Development Authority,·being SLPs
     (C) Nos. 26772-79 of 2009 (now appeals). As indicated           G
     hereinbefore, in para 25, the Collector had awarded
     compensation at a uniform 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 square yard. The High Court modified the said           H
     1088   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 16 S.C.R.


A       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 Highway No. 10. The value
        of the rest of the acquired land was maintained at Rs 206
        per square yard. The area in question being already
B       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 one-third would
        have .been sufficient to balance the smallness of the
c       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 square
        yard. Given the sharp rise in land prices, the value,
        according to Mr. Swarup, would have doubled to about Rs
lo      800 per square 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
        square yard. Imposing a deduction of one-third, valuation
        comes to about Rs 350 per square yard, which, in our view,
        would be the proper compensation for the lands covered
E       in the case of Mukesh and other connected matters."

         11. Going by the formula adopted in the aforesaid
  judgment, 12% per annum increase can be applied on the value
  of land determined as Rs.520/- per square yard in the year
F 1993, upto the year 2001 when the Notification under Section
  4 of the Act was issued in the instant case. However, we cannot
  be oblivious to the fact that from 1993 to 2001, there was a
  period when instead of increase in the land price, there was
  attrition in the land rates. Therefore, we would like to enhance
G the value by applying the formula of 12% per annum increase
  for a period of 4 years, instead of taking entire period 1993
  and 2001 (and this would not be treated as a precedent). When
  calculated in this manner, the valuation of the land in the year
  2001 shall come to Rs.770/- per square yard. After making a
H deduction of one-third therefrom the net valuation comes to
         KASHMIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                 1089
                    [A.K.SIKRI, J.]

Rs.514/- per square yard. Compared to the land value of this        A
very area in 1993 which was fixed at Rs.350/- per square yards,
we have increased the same by about 50% over a period of 7
years or so, which we think, is quite reasonable as this much
compensation is legitimately due to the appellants. We,
accordingly, fix the compensatieln@ Rs.514/- per square yard        B
for the acquired land of the appellants. ·

     12. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                         Appeals disposed of.