Holding

Exemplars of small plots can be considered with an adequate discount, and the Reference Court correctly ignored unproved exemplars, rendering the High Court's remand order invalid.

Summary

The Meerut Development Authority acquired about 180 acres of land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed its market value at Rs.30 per square yard. The Reference Court, hearing a claim under Section 18, determined a compensation rate of Rs.126 per square yard after considering all relevant factors. The Allahabad High Court set aside this award, holding that the Reference Court improperly relied on exemplars of small plots and ignored exemplars submitted by the acquiring authority, and remanded the case for fresh valuation. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that there is no legal bar to using exemplars of small plots provided an adequate discount is applied, and that the Reference Court was correct in disregarding unproved exemplars of the authority. Consequently, the High Court's order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the High Court to decide the appeals and cross‑appeals on their merits. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court, as the first appellate forum, must re‑appraise the evidence and render a fresh decision.

Issues considered

Whether exemplars of small plots may be considered for valuation of a large tract of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether the Reference Court erred in ignoring exemplars filed by the acquiring authority that were not proved on record.
Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter to the Reference Court for fresh determination of market value.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 4

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationMarket valueExemplarsDiscountReference courtHigh court remandSection 18

Judgment

A RISH! PAL SINGH AND ORS.
v.
MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 24, 2006

B [ARUN KUMAR AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

Acquisition of large tracts of lands-Compensation-Computation of-
C Exemplars of small plots-Consideration cf-Refi.~rence court considering
exemplars ofsmall plots and making adequate discount-Held, in appropriate
cases where other relevant or material evidence is not available, there is no
bar to exemplars of small plots being considered provided adequate discount
is made-Matter remanded to High Court for decision afresh on material
D available on record.

Present appeals were filed challenging the order of the High Court ,..
whereby it set aside the order passed by the reference court under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and remanded the matter on the grounds that
the exemplars relied on by the reference court were ofsmall plots whereas
E in the instant case large tracts of lands were acquired; and that the
exemplars produced on behalf of the acquiring authority were not
considered.

Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the High Court,
the Court
F
HELD: 1.1. There is no bar in law to exemplars of small plots being
considered provided adequate discount is given in this behalf. In an
appropriate case, specially when other relevant or material evidence is not
available, such exemplars can be considered after making adequate
G discount. This is a case in which appropriate exemplars are not available.
The reference court has made adequate discount for taking the exemplars
of smaller plots into consideration. 1511-A-B)

1.2. The reference court has referred to the exemplars of the
acquiring authority but has observed that since they have not been proved
H 508
J

RP. SINGH 1•. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [ARUN KUMAR, J.] 509
on record, they cannot be looked i11to. There is nothing wrong in the A_
reference court ignoring the exemplars said to have been filed by the
acquiring authority. (511-B-CI

2. The appeal before the High Court was the first appeal. It ought
to have examined the impugned judgment and the material on record and
given its findings based on appreciation of evidence. Besides, the cross B
appeals of the land owners are still pending in the High Court. Therefore,
the matter is remanded to the High Court for decision afresh on merits.
~ [512-A(

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1288 of2006. C
From the Final Order dated 21.5.2004 of the Allahabad High Court in
F.A. No. 444 of 2003.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 1289, 1290, 1291 and 1292 of 2006.
D
Sunil Gupta, Vinay Garg, Himanshu Gupta, Prantap Kalra, Mrs. Deepam
Garg, Shivaji M. Jadhav and Jitendra Mohan Sharma for the Appellant.

Sudhir KuJshreshtha, Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Kamlendra Mishra, Pramod
Swarup, B.N. Jha and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARUN KUMAR, J. Leave granted in all these Special Leave Petitions.

These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court
whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the Reference Court passed F
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and remanded the case to the
Reference Court for fresh determination of the market value of the acquired
land.

Briefly, the facts are that a large tract of land was acquired vide a
notification dated 14th August, I 987 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition G
Act. The acquired land falls within the municipal limits of the city of Meerut
(U.P.). The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) noted the potentiality
of the acquired land for purposes of building activity in his award dated 22nd
February, 1990. He however, fixed the market value of the acquired land at
Rs.30/- per square yard. A reference under Section 18 of the Act at the H
510 si:rREME Ull'RT REPORTS [20061 2 S.C.R.

A instance of the claimants was decided by the learned District Judge. Meerut
vide judgment dated 23rd November. 200:!. The claimants were claiming
r
compensation at the rate of Rs.270/- per square yard. The District Judge
however. determined the rate of compensation as Rs.126/- per square yard
besides the statutory benefits. Both the parties i.e. the claimants as well as the
respondent, Meerut Development Authority appealed against the said judgment
B of the Reference Court in the High Court of Allahabad. The appeals filed by
the Meerut Development Authority were decided by the impugned order
which is similar in all the five appeals before us. The cross appeals of the
claimants are said to be still pending in the High Court. ...
C Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no reason for
the High Court to remand the matter to the Reference Court for fresh
determination of the market value of the land specially in view of the fact
that the learned District Judge while decidirg the rderence under Section 18
of the Act had taken into consideration all relevant factors and after full
discussion had arrived at the figure of Rs. 126/- per sq.yard. Neither party
D sought any opportunity to lead fresh or fo'1h~r evidence. According to the
learned counsel, the High Court ought to have decided the case on the basis
of material already on record and the High Court being the appellate court "
was required to reappraise the evidence and decide the matter accordingly.
More so if in pursuance of the impugned Jrder the reference Court was to
E make fresh determination, the parties would have right of appeal to the High
Court against such an order. In order to avoid this extra burden on the parties
as well as on the court, it would have been more appropriate that the High
Court should have decided the matter itself rather than remand it to the
Reference Court. We may note here that before th is Court also neither party
expressed any desire to lead further evidence. The case had to be decided
F simply on basis of material already on record.

On merits the learned counsel submits with reference to the impugned
judgment of the High Court that only two reasons have been given by the
High Court for setting aside the order of the Reference Court and remanding
the case back to it. First reason is that exem Jlars relied upon by the Reference
G Court are of small plots of land whereas the acquisition is of a large tracts
of land i.e. about 180 acres. The second reason given in the impugned judgment
for remand is that exemplars filed by the acquiring authority i.e. appellants
before us, were not considered by the Refrrence Court. The learned counsel
for the appellants has taken us through the judgment of the Refere~e Court
H to show that both the reasons given by the High Court in its impugned order
RP SINGH 1•. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [ARUN KUMAR, J] 51 J

are factually incorrect. With respect to the first reason, that is, exemplars of A
-r small plots have been taken into consideration by the Reference Court, in the
first instance our attention was invited to some judgments of this Court to
urge that there is no absolute bar to exemplars of small plots being considered
provided adequate discount is given in this behalf. Thus there is no bar in law
to exemplars of small plots being considered. In an appropriate case, specially
when other relevant or material evidence is not available, such exemplars can
B
be considered after making adequate discount. This is a case in which
appropriate exemplars are not available. The Reference Court has made
adequate discount for taking the exemplars of smaller plots into consideration.
It appears that the attention of the High Court was not drawn to this part of
the judgment of the Reference Court which has resulted in the High Court c
completely overlooking the relevant discussion in the judgment of the
Reference Court.

Regarding the second point that exemplars of the appellant before us
were not taken into consideration, again, the High Court is factually wrong
and this mistake appears to have resulted from the fact that the judgment of D
the Reference Court was not properly brought to the notice of the High
Court. The Reference Court has referred to the exemplars of the acquiring
--\
authority but has observed that since they have not been proved on record,
they cannot be looked into. The learned counsel for 'the acquiring authority
was unable to say that this observation of the Reference Court was factually
E
_incorrect nor he could show that t!le exemplars filed by his client had been
proved on record. In fact we requested him to show these exemplars to us.
He completely ignored our request. Therefore, we find nothing wrong in the
Reference Court ignoring the exemplars said to have been filed by the acquiring
authority.
F
From the above, it is clear that the High Court judgment was passed in
___..\,.
a mechanical manner without properly appreciating the judgment of the
Reference Court. The appeal before the H,igh Court was the first appeal and
the High Court, in our view, ought to have examined the impugned judgment
and the material on record before setting it aside. Both the reasons given for
setting aside the judgment of the Reference Court are factually incorrect. G

The learned counsel for the appellant strongly urged before us that we
f should decide the appeals on merits specially in view of the fact that long
i' delay has already taken place and the land owners are being deprived of the
compensation due to them on account of compulsory acquisition of their
H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] 2 S.C.R.

A land. However keeping in view the fact that '.he cross appeals of the land
owners are still pending in the High Court and the High Court being the r
Court of first appeal in such matters wl1ich ought to give its findings based
on appreciation of evidence, we are persuaded to remand the matter to the
High Court for decision on merits. The impugn·ed judgment of the High court
B setting aside the order of the Reference Court is hereby quashed. The High
court will hear and decide these appea:.s as w1:1l as the cross appeals of the
claimants afresh in accordance with the law as early as possible. Any
observation made in this judgment need not influence the judgment of the
High Court on merits. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.

C R.P. Appeals allowed.