MEHTAB SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

               MEHTAB SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.                                 A
                                     v.
                         STATE OF HARYANA

                            AUGUST 30. 1994
                                                                               B
      (MAOAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA
                     REDDY, JJ.]


      Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section ~A large chunk of land acquired
for public purpose-Award made speedily~ule of adoption of 12% yearly           C
increase in price due to inflationary trends deduced by the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in another case-Applicability of-Universal application of Rule
disapproved.

      Land Acquisition Act, 189~Section ~A large chunk of land ac-
quired for public purpose-Acquired land classified in two cutegories-No        D
marked disparity between rates-Appeaf-High Court resurrected classifica-
tion on a large dispari(JWhether orders of High Court sustainable.

       A large chunk of land measuring 267.91 acres abutting the Delhi
Rohtak Road was acquired for the public purpose of development 'IJld
utilisation as industrial area. A notification under Section 4 of the Land     E
Acquisition Act was issued on 0~.01.1977. On 18.02.1977 the Land Acquisi-
tion Collector gave award fixing two rates of compensation. However, the
price difference amongst the two classification was barely Rs. 560 per acre.
On reference under Section 18 to the District Judge, Rohtak, landowners
obtained compensation at the flat rate of Rs. 7 per square yard doing away     F
with the classification.

      On appeal, the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court granted Rs. 10 per square yard but reviving the classification
gave a higher compensation of Rs. 15 per square yard for the land abutting G
on both sid.es of the Delhi Rohtak Road l'pto a depth of Rs. 200 ft. Some
of the dissatisfied land owners took their cases in Letters Patent Appeal
before a Division Bench of that High Court but were unsuccessful. They
preferred the present appeals. Their claim was to award of 12% price rise
every year due to the inflationary trends, on the basis of a decesion by the·
same High Court in another case.                                              H
                           •         793
    794                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A          Partly allowing the appeall, this court

           HELD : 1.1. The principle of 12% annual increase deduced by High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana in Maya Devi's case has no bearing to the
    instant case because it was within a mat~r of days from the date of
    notification that the award was made. No occasion arose to take judicial
B notice of the inflation and high rise of prices. From the date of award,
    interest becomes due to the claimant land owner, for henceforth the land
    ceases to be his and while so the question of price rise does not arise when
    he is compensated for the deprival by payment of interest. The amendment
    Act of 1984 is explicit in terms. '11te limited retrospectivity provided in the
C amending provisions do not pe1rmit adoption of 12% increase in price in
  · each and every acquisition. If it was so intended the legislature would have
    expressly provided so. This court would decry that rule and express its
    disapproval for its universal application or for all acquisitions. (797-C-F]

        Maya Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., Regular First
D Appeal No. 150 of 1982. decided on 18.05.90 (P & H) and Inder Singh v.
  State of Punjab, (1988) 2 Vol. 94 PLR 190, distinguished.

           1.2. "lten classification of two sets of land right from the beginning
     was marginal and not appreciable, there was no occasion for the High
     Court to have restored the classification on a large disparity and thus a
E    uniform rate of Rs. 15 per square yard would now inevitably have to be
     given as the correct compensation and not Rs. 18.60 on the basis of Maya
     Devi's case. Since there was no basis for classification, there was no
     premise for different rates of compensation. [798-D-F]

F          Sher Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, Regular First Appeal No. 488
     of 1975, decided on 16.11.1979 (P & H) (unreported), referred to.
                                                          '

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-48
     of 1994 etc. etc.

G         From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.83 of the Punjab &
     Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 729, 700, 711, 715, 725 & 913 of 1982.

           Mahabir Singh and S. Srinivasan for the Appellants in C.A. Nos.
     5743-48 & 5753/94.

H          Uma Dutta for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 5749, 5750, 5751, 5752,
                                                      •
                  MEHTAB SINGH v. STATE [PUNCHHI, J.]                        795

 5754 & 5755 of 1994.                                                               A
       K.C. Bajaj and Ms. !ndu Malhotra for the Respondent.

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered, by

       PUNCHHI, J. Special leave granted in all these matters.                      B
         These appeals artificially are divided in two groups but their aim is
  common, as is their foundation. A large chunk of land measuring 267.91
  acres abutting the Delhi-Rohtak Road near the town of Bahadurgarh,
  District Rohtak was acquired for the public purpose of development and            C
  utilisation as industrial area. A notification under section 4 of the Land
  Acquisition Act for the purpose was issued on 6.1.1977. The acquisition
. proceeded speedily because within a matter of days, i.e., on 18.2.1977, the
  Land Acquisition Collector gave award fixing two rates of compensation.
  The land abutting Delhi-Rohtak Road upto a deeth of 36 Karams (198 ft)
  on either side of the road was to fetch compensation at the rate of Rs.           D
  20,560 and the remaining land on either side of the road at the rate of Rs.
  20,000 per acre. Approximately the compen~tion worked out to about Rs.
  4 per square yard. Noticeably the price difference amongst the two clas-
  sifications was barely Rs. 560 per acre. The dissatisfied land owners on
  reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District            E
  Judge, Rohtak were successful in obtaining on 27.2.1982 compensation at
  the flat rate of Rs. 7 per square yard, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 33,880 per acre
  doing away with the classification. The acquisition was thus complete at
  the District Judge's level under the law as it stood prior to the Land
  Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. The Land Acquisition Collector was
  thus ordered to pay solatium @ 15% and interest @ 6% payable under the            F
  law then existing.

      Some dissatisfied land-owners, including the appellants, moved the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in first appeals claiming a higher rate of
compensation. A learned Single Judge of that Court on considering the               G
evidence and material on the record viewed that since several industries
had come up before the acquisition in the locality where the acquired land
was situated, the price, therefore, would have to be determined on that
potential. As correctly suggested, the Learned Single Judge placed no
reliance on instances where rates related to small pieces of land. The
learned Single Judge relied rather upon another decision of that Court in           H
    796                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   Regular first Appeal No. 1060 of 1981, decided on February 15, 1982,
    where with regard to the same acquisition Rs. 10 per square yard had been
    granted and thus instantly granted Rs. 10 per square yard for the land
    acquired but reviving the classification gave a higher compensa~ion of Rs.
    15 per square yard for the land abutting on both sides of the Delhi-Rohtak
    Road upto a depth of 200 ft, (almost equal to 36 Karams). Some of the
B   dissatisfied land owners took their cases in Letters Patent Appeal before
    a Division Bench of that High Court but unsuccessfully. They stand·granted
    special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Letters
    Patent Bench. They form one group. Some other land owners have directly
    obtained leave against the decision of the learned Single ; udge. They for~
c   the other group. Both seek enhancement of compensatio~.

           The basis of foe claim or the appellants is somewhat chain reacted
    and circuitous. It has been traced that the decision of the District Judge,
    Rohtak dated 27-2-1982 in the instant cases, awarding a uniform rate of
D   Rs. 7 per square yard, was followed by an Additional District Judge,
    Rohtak on 27-7-1982 in L.A. Case No. 145/4 of 1982 who had made in
    award on 27-7-1982 relating to the same acquisition, adopting the rate of
    Rs. 7 per square yard. And when the dissatisfied land owners of that case        '
    approached the High Court in Appeal, ano.ther learned Single Judge on
    May 18, 1990, in Maya Devi and another v. Stafe of Haryana & Others,
E   Regular ·First Appeal No. 150 of 1982, made an award gran6ng compen-
    sation at the rate of Rs~ 18.60 per square yard. To arrive at such figure the.
    decision of that Court in Regular First Appeal No. 488 of 1975, (Sher Singh
    & Another v. State of Haryana & Others, decided on 16.11.1979 was pressed
    into service wherein some lands in contiguous villages Hasanpur, Pamala
F   and Bahadurgarh were acquirnd under notification under section 4 issued
    on 17.10.1969, i.e. about 7 years and 2 months prior to the instant acquisi-
    tion, where rate of Rs. 10 per square yard was granted. Taking that as a
    foundation another Single Judge's decision of that Court in Inder Singh v.
    State of Punjab, (1988) 2 Vol. 94 Punjab Law Reporter 190, was pressed
    into service as a reaction to opine that the Amendment Act of 1984 bad
G   brought out the vision of the 11,gislature in giving 12% price rise every year
    due to the inflationary trends and applying that ratio to the rate awarded
    in Sher Singh's case, the price rise came to Rs. 8.60 per square yard
    totalling the market value of the land at Rs. 18.60 per square yard. The
    rate so derived in Maya Devi's case is now being claimed by the present
H   appellants on the assertion that when for part of the acquired land this rate
                 MEHTAB SINGH v. STATE [PUNCHH!. J. J                      797

·has been given by the High Court itself, they arc now entitled to the said       A
 rate. In Mara Deri's case the learned Single Judge had even granted the
 post-amendment statutory benefits of sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. but
 these benefits the present appellants have not claimed and thus these are
 out of our consideralion.
                                                                                  B
        The abo\'c narration discloses i:he mess existing and the inept han-
 dling of these matters affecting the ceffers of the State and its transferee·s
 interests. The Hon'ble Single Judge deciding Maya Deri's case, for
 whatever reason, was not apprised of the decision rendered by the learned
 Sing!e Judge under appeal in the instant cases wherein, for the same
 acquisition, in the year 1982, compensation had been fixed at the rate of        C
 Rs. 15 and Rs. 10 respectively. In the normal circumstances, the learned
 Single Judge, if apprised, in Maya Devi's case too would have awarded the
 rate as given instantly by the learned Single Judge. Even the principle of
 12% annual increase deduced in Maya Devi's case and lnder Singh's case
 has no beaming to the instant .case because it was within a matter of days       D
 from the date of notification that the award was made. No occasion arose
·to take judicial notice of the inflation and high rise of prices. It must be
 borne in mind that from the date of award, interest becomes due to the
 claimant land owner, for thenceforth the land ceases to be his and while
 so the question of price rise does not arise when he is compensated for the
deprival by payment of interest. That apart we have our strongest reserva"        E
 tions to the rule evolved by the Court in Maya Devi's case as also in lnder
Singh's case afore-quoted. The Amendment Act of 1984 is explicit in terms.
The limited retrospectivity provided in the amending provisions do not
permit adoption of 12% increase in price in each and every acquisition. If
it was so intended the Legislature would have expressly provided so. We           F
would decry that rllle and express our disapproval for its universal applica-
tion or for all acquisitions.

      We have had the advantage of reading the judgment in Sher Singh's
case (supra) since at our asking its copy was placed before us. The High
Court had foced Rs. 10 per square yard for an acquisition of October 17,          G
1969 on the finding that during the year 1968-69 the value of the land in
the vicinity of the land acquired was between Rs. 5.90 to 8.33 per square
yard and so it was appropriate to fix the market value of the acquired land
at the rate of Rs. 10 per square yard. There the Land Acquisition Collector
had himself awarded the rate at Rs. 9 per square yard and the High Court          H
    798                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   enhanced it just by a rupee. No classification was resorted to. The present
    acquired land is in the \icinity of that land. Sher SinRh 's case helps the
    appellants in a limited way to suggest uniformity of price.

           As hinted earlier, the Land Acquisition Collection even though
    classifying the aCEJUired land in two categories had not made any marked
B   disparity between the rates. The difference barely was of Rs. 560 per acre
    - a few paise per square yard. The learned District Judge, in our \iew,
    rightly wiped out the classification in giving a flat rate of Rs. 7 per square
    yard. The learned Single Judge in appeal resurrected the classification and
    put it at Rs. 15 per square yard on the land abutting the Delhi-Rohtak
c   Road upto a depth of 200 ft. on either side of the road and remaining land
    at Rs. 10 per square yard. The State of Haryana seemingly submitted to
    the rate as given by the learned Single Judge for the land abutting Delhi-
    Rohtak Road, for it did not carry the matter further in appeal. Thus as a
    sequator we are of the view that when classification of two sets of land right
    from the beginning was marginal and not appreciable, there was no oc-
D   casion for the High Court to have restored the classification on a large
    disparity and thus a uniform rate of Rs. 15 per square yard would now
    inevitably have to be given as the correct compensation awardable to the
    claimant-land owners and not Rs. 18.60 on the basis of Maya Devi's case
    (supra). The enhancement due to the claimants-land owners is on the basis
E   of uniformity of rate as for part of the land acquired Rs. 15 has been
    awarded and since there was no basis for clasification, there was no
    premise for different rates of compensation. For this reason alone; we allow
    these appeals, modify the orders of the High· Court and award to the
    appellants a flat rate of Rs. 15 per square yard for their lands acquired.
    They shall, in additional to the enhancement of compensation, be entitled
F   to 15% solatium on the enhanced amount and interest at the rate of 6%
    on the unpaid amount from the date of award till actual payment.

         The appeals are thus allowed to the extent and manner above-
    mentioned with costs.

    A.G.                                                 Appeals partly allowed.