RANJIT SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                         [2014] 8 S.C.R. 352


A                      RANJIT SINGH & ANR.
                                   v.
                   STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 7657 of 2012)

                           JULY 31, 2014
B
          [R.M. LODHA, CJI, J. CHELAMESWAR AND
                      A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

         Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Enhancement of
c   compensation - Plea for - Lands pertaining to five different
    notifications published on 04. 06. 1980, 13. 03. 1981,
    22.06.1982, 05.07, 1982 and 10.02.1983 and located in
    Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 Part-I near Kamal byepass and
    also Kamal Kunjpura Road in issue ·· Scope for enhancement
0   of compensation with regard to the said lands - Held: On facts,
    market value determined by Supreme Court in Subhash
    Chander's case may be applied to the land acquired under
    the notifications dated 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982
    and 05. 07. 1982 -Further, having regard to all the aspects,
E   market value of the land acquired under the notification dated
    10. 02. 1983 must have parity with the market value of the land
    acquired under notification dated 05.07.1982 - Consequently,
    market value of land under notification dated 04. 06. 1980 fixed
    at Rs.58.45 per square yard, Rs.66.21 per square yard for the
    land under notification dated 13.03.1981, Rs. 76.21 for the land
F   acquired under notifications dated 22.06.1982, 05.07.1982
    and 10.02.1983 - Compensation awarded by the High Court
    accordingly enhanced - Appellants entitled to statutory
    benefits on the enhanced compensation.
G        Lands pertaining to five different notifications
    published on 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982,
    05.07,1982 and 10.02.1983 and located in Sectors 3, 6, 7,
    8, 9 and 12 Part-I near Kamal byepass and also Kamal
    Kunjpura Road were in issue in the present appeals. The
H                                 352
 RANJIT SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &           353
                   ORS.
question for consideration was whether there was any       A
scope for enhancement of compensation with regard to
the said lands in question.
     Many of the appellants heavily relied upon the
decision of this Court in the matter of 'Subhash Chander
& Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.'. They submitted that B
matter in Subhash Chander's case pertained to four
notifications dated 04.06.1980 (Sector-6), 13.03.1981
(Sector-3), 22.06.1982 (Sector 9) and 05.07.1982 (Sectors-
7 and 8) and that most of the subject lands were acquired
under the notifications which were under consideration C
in the matter of Subhash Chander. As regard notification
dated 10.02.1983 (Sector 12, Part-I), it was submitted that
the subjeot land therein was within the municipal area and
has a better potential than the land in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8
and 9.                                                      D
    Disposing of the appeals, the Court
      HELD:1.1. As per Subhash Chander's decision, the
market value of the land in the year 1980 was determined
at Rs.58.45 per square yard, year 1981 at Rs.66.21 per E
square yard, and year 1982 at Rs.76.21 per square yard.
In the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 22324 of 2013, the appellant placed a list of
dates, which refers to a sale deed (Exhibit P-6) dated
09.04.1980 for sale of 15 bighas for Gurudwara on G.T.,
Kamal Road Bypass, at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per bigha, F
i.e, at the rate of Rs.46.54 per square yard. The acquisition
of land pursuant to the notification c!.ated 04.06.1980 is in
very close proximity with the sale deed dated 09.04.1980.
If that is taken as a comparable exemplar for
determination of market value for the land acquired under G
notification dated 04.06.1980, the market value of the land
comes to Rs.46.54 per square yard. However, as per the
judgment of this Court in Subhash Chander's case, the
market value in the year 1980 is determined at Rs.58.45.
Since the State has not chosen to challenge the H
    354    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 8 S.C.R.

A   impugned judgment, the market value determined by this
    Court in Subhash Chander's case may be applied to the
    land acquired under the notifications dated 04.06.1980,
    13.03.1981, 22.06.1982 and 05.07 .1982. [Paras 11, 12) [357-
    F-H; 358-A, B, E, F]
B      1.2. As regards the acquisition of subject lands
  acquired under the notification dated 10.02.1983, the
  appellants raised two points for appropriate
  determination of market value, (one) the land acquired has
  better potential being located in the urban area and (two)
C the annual increase of 1983 must be given. This Court is
  not persuaded by the arguments. Coming to the second
  point first, it may be immediately stated that annual
  increase for a fraction of a year would not be ordinarily
  just for determination of the market value. As regards the
o first point, land under acquisition is a large tract of land
  and except that the subject land happens to fall in the
  municipal area, there is not much difference in the
  potentiality of the land acquired under the notification of
  05.07.1982 and the subject lands. Having regard to all
E these aspects, market value of the land acquired under
  the notification dated 10.02.1983 must have parity with the
  market value of the land acquired under the notification
  of 05.07.1982. [Para 13] [358-F-H; 359-A-B]
      1.3. Consequently, the market value of the land under
F the notification dated 04.06.1980 is fixed at Rs.58.45 per
  square yard, Rs.66.21 per square yard for the land under
  notification dated 13.03.1981, Rs.76.21 for the land
  acquired under the notifications dated 22.06.1982,
  05.07.1982 and 10.02.1983. The compensation awarded
G by the High Court is accordingly enhanced to the above
  extent. [Para 14) [359-C]
         1.4. The appellants who have approached this Court
    beyond one year of the impugned judgment shall not be
    entitled to any interest for the period of delay. The
H   appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits on the
 RANJIT SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &          355
                   ORS.

enhanced compensation. The differential amount shall be     A
paid by the respondents to the appellants within two
months from the date of receipt of the judgment of this
Court. [Para 15] [359-D, E]
     Subhash Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.      8
[Civil Appeal No.2187 of 2013; decision dated 19-02-2013
of Supreme Court of India] - referred to.
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7657 of 2012.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 05.10.2007 in RFA C
No. 1255 of 1988 of the by Punjab and Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh.
                             WITH
C.A. Nos. 7680-7681, 7691, 8924, 7661. 7675, 7676, 7678,    D
7679, 7658-7659, 7684-7688, 7683, 7689, 7690, 7692 &
7663 of 20012.
C.A. Nos. 250-256 of 2013.
C.A. Nos. 7385, 7386, 7387 and 7388 of 2014.                E
     V.K. Jhanji, D.S. Bali, Rajesh Sharma, Shalu Sharma,
Rajiv Kumar, Dinesh Verma, Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari (for Dr.
Kailash Chand), Ravindra Keshavra Adsure, M.K. Dua, Punit
Dutt Tyagi, Ajay Chaudhary, Naveen Kumar Chauhan, Avneesh
Garg, Abhik Kumar, Rahul Singh Chauhan (for Praveen         F
Swarup), Mohan Pandey, Shree Pal Singh, Abhik, R.S.
Chauhan, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Ajay Singh, Aribam Guneshwar
Sharma, Arna Das, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Jasbir Singh
Malik, S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellants.
    Narender Hooda, Sr. AAG, Vikas Sharan, AAG, Ankit       G
Swarup, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Dr. Monika Gussain for the
Respondents.
    Ti,e Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                            H
    356       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A       R.M. LODHA, CJI. 1. Delay in filing applications for
    substitution is condoned.
          2. Applications for substitution are allowed.
          3. Permission to file special leave petitions is granted.
B         4. Delay in filing the special leave petitions is condoned.
        5. Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 22324 of 2013, 5405 of
    2014, 16788 of 2014 and S.L.P.(C)@ CC NO. 12129 of 2013.
         6. In this group of appeals, the question for consideration
c   is whether there is any scope for enhancement of compensation
    with regard to the subject lands.            ·

         7. The subject lands pertain to five different notifications
    published on 04.06.1980; 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982, 05.07,1982
    and 10.02.1983 and are located in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
D · 12 Part-I near Kamal byepass and so also Kamal Kunjpura
    Road.
         8. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel appearing
    for many of the appellants heavily relied upon the decision of
E   this Court in the group of matters, lead matter being Civil
    Appeal No.2187 of 2013 arising from Petition for Special
    Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.17615 of 2008, 'Subhash Chander
    & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.' given on 19.02.2013. They
    submitted that matter in Subhash Chander's case (supra)
    pertains to four notifications dated 04.06.1980 (Sector-6),
F   13.03.1981 (Sector-3), 22.06.1982 (Sector 9) and 05.07.1982
    (Sectors-7 and 8). Most of the subject lands were acquired
    under the notifications which were under consideration in the
    matter of Subhash Chander (supra).
G        9. As regard notification dated 10.02.1983 (Sector 12,
    Part-I), learned counsel submits that the subject land therein is
    within the municipal area and has a better potential than the
    land in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
         10. In Subhash Chander's case (supra), this Court noted
H   the judgment of the High Court to the following extent:-
  RANJIT SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &                   357
             ORS. [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
    "In absence of sufficient material of comparable rates, the       A
    market price can be determined by periodi~al increase
    formula approved by the Apex Court in the case of
    Sahaswan, District Baduan (supra). If the formula approved
    by the Apex Court in Shaswan, District Baduan (supra) is
    to be applied with 1973 year as the base, the market value        B
    of the land in the year 1980 comes to Rs.58.45/-, in the
    year 1981 comes to Rs.66.21/- and in the year 1982
    comes to Rs.76.21/-. The land being big chunk~ 1/3rd of
    the development purposes, for roads, parks and public
    utilities. Therefore, the rate per square yard comes to           c
    Rs.39.17/- as on the date of notification d~ted 4.6.1980
    and Rs.44.37/- per square as on the date of notification
    dated 13.3.1981 and at Rs.51.07/- per square yard as on
    the dates of notifications dated 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982.
    Accordingly, the mark~t price of the land under different         D
    acquisition notifications is assessed at Rs.39/- per square
    yard in respect to land acquired for Sector 6 (represented
    by notification dated 4.6.1980) and Rs.44/- for Sector 3
    (represented by the notification dated 22.6.1982 and
    5. 7.1982). These appeals are accordingly allowed with
                                                                      E
    costs and respondents are directed to calculate the
    compensation for the acquired land at the above rates.
    The appellants are also entitled to solatium and interest
    as determined by the Reference Court on the amount
    determined herein."
                                                                      F
     11. As per Subhash Chander's decision, the market value
of the land in the year 1980 was determined at Rs.58.45 per
square yard, year 1981 at Rs.66.21 per square yard, and year
1982 at Rs.76.21 per square yard.
                                                                      G
      12. In the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 22324 of 2013, learned counsel for the appellant
placed before us a list of dates, which refers to a sale deed
(Exhibit P-6) dated 09.04.1980 for sale of 15 bighas for
Gurudwara on G.T. Kamal Road Bypass, at the rate of                   H
    358     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A Rs.35,000/- per bigha, i.e, at the rate of Rs.46.54 per square
  yard. The acquisition of land pursuant to the notification dated
  04.06.1980 is in very close proximity with the sale deed dated
  09.04.1980. If that is taken as a comparable exemplar for
  determination of market value for the land acquired under
B notification dated 04.06.1980, the market value of the land
  comes to Rs.46.54 per square yard. However, as per the
  judgment of this Court in Subhash Chander's case (supra), the
  market value in the year 1980 is determined at Rs.58.45. It is
  pertinent to note here that the Single Judge determined the
c market value of the subject lands by applying the principles· laid
  down by this Court in the case of "Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,
  Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin
  Kumar and Another, (2004) 2 SCC 283. He took the exemplar
  of 1973 as the base and then gave increase of 15% per year
D and then applied cut of 1/3rd price for developrrent purposes,
   roads, parks and public utilities. This Court although maintained
  the order of the Single Judge insofar as he took the exemplar
  of 1973 as the base and yearly increase but found no
  justificati'on for cut for development purposes and such other
   considerations. Be that as it may, since the State has not
E chosen to challenge the impugned judgment, we are satisfied
  that the market value determined by this Court in Subhash
   Chander's case (supra) may be applied to the land acquired
   under the notifications dated 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981,
  22.06.1982 and 05.07.1982. We order,accordingly.
F
       13. As regards, the acquisition of subject lands acquired
  under the notification dated 10.02.1983, Mr. M.K. Dua, learned
  counsel for the appellants raises two points for appropriate
  determination of market value, (one) the land acquired has
G better potential being located in the urban area and (two) the
  annual increase of 1983 must be given. We are not persuaded
  by Mr. Dua's arguments. Coming to the second point first, it
  may be immediately stated that annual increase for a fraction
  of a year would not be ordinarily just for determination of the
H market value. As regards the first point raised by Mr. Dua,
  RANJIT SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA &                   359
            ORS. [R.M. LODHA, CJI.]
suffice it to say that land under acquisition is a large tract of    A
land and except that the subject land happens to fall in the
municipal area, there is not much difference in the potentiality
of the land acquired under the notification of 05.07 .1982 and
the subject lands. Having regard to all these aspects, we are
satisfied that market value of the land acquired under the           B
notification dated 10.02.1983 must have parity with the market
value of the land acquired under the notification of 05.07.1982.

      14. Consequently, the market value of the land under the
notification dated 04.06.1980 is fixed at Rs.58.45 per square        C
yard, Rs.66.21 per square yard for the land under notification
dated 13.03.1981, Rs.76.21 for the land acquired under the
notifications dated 22.06.1982, 05.07.1982 and 10.02.1983.
We, accordingly, enhance the compensation awarded by the
High Court to the above extent.
                                                                     D
      15. The appellants who have approached this Court
beyond one year of the impugned judgment shall not be entitled
to any interest for the period of delay. The appellants shall be
entitled to statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation.
The differential amount shall be paid by the respondents to the      E
appellants within two months from the date of receipt of the
judgment of this Court.

     16. The appeals are allowed as above with no order as
to costs.
                                                                     F
    17. Civil Appeal Nos.7660 of 2012 and 7662 of 2012 are
detagged from this group of matters.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                          Appeals disposed of.