Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2015 DIGILAW 520 (SC)

Sachin v. State of Haryana

2015-03-31

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MADAN B.LOKUR

body2015
ORDER : Leave granted. 2. This batch of appeals arises out of a common judgment and order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a batch of Regular First Appeals. 3. By a Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 29.01.2003, the State Government acquired land in five villages which are as follows: (i) Village Khandsa (ii) Village Narsingpur (iii) Village Mohammadpur Jharsa (iv) Village Harsaru (v) Village Garauli Khurd 4. All these villages are located in Tehsil and District Gurgaon, Haryana. 5. Thereafter, on 28.01.2004, a declaration was issued by the State Government under Section 6 of the Act after considering the objections raised. 6. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award on 27.01.2006 and the compensation awarded by him for the compulsory acquisition of the land of the land owners is as follows: 1. Khandsa Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre 2. Narsingpur Rs. 15,00,000/- per acre 3. Mohammadpur Jharsa Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre 4. Harsaru Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre 5. Garauli Khurd Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre 7. Not satisfied by the compensation so awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners preferred a Reference to the Additional District Judge, Land Acquisition Court and on 17.05.2012, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation as follows: 1. Khandsa Rs. 40,95,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 35% 2. Narsingpur Rs. 40,95,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 35% 3. Mohammadpur Jharsa Rs. 31,50,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 50% 4. Harsaru Rs. 31,50,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 50% 5. Garauli Khurd Rs. 31,50,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 50% 8. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners preferred Regular First Appeals before the High Court. By its impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2014 the High Court awarded compensation as follows: 1. Khandsa Rs. 68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 15% 2. Narsingpur Rs. 68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 15% 3. Mohammadpur Jharsa Rs. 68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 15% 4. Harsaru Rs. 68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 40% 5. Garauli Khurd Rs. 68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 40% 9. It may be mentioned that the High Court had also enhanced the market price of the land to Rs. Mohammadpur Jharsa Rs. 68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 15% 4. Harsaru Rs. 68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 40% 5. Garauli Khurd Rs. 68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 40% 9. It may be mentioned that the High Court had also enhanced the market price of the land to Rs. 68,00,000/- per acre based on the average price of land mentioned in the sale deeds produced before the Land Acquisition Collector. As regards the cut imposed by the High Court, the reason given was as follows: "Now the question is as to whether same should be awarded as the amount of compensation or some cut is required to be applied. A perusal of the site plans (Ex. R15 in LAC No. 139 of 2008) and mark 'X' taken on record show that the land pertaining to the aforesaid three sale deeds (Ex. P1, Ex. P3 and Ex. P4 in LAC No. 139 of 2008) is not pertaining to sale of developed plots by any agency where normally plotable area is about 50% and substantial amount is spent on development. The cut is applied keeping in view the aforesaid facts. Still the fact remains that the land pertaining to all the three sale deeds had approached roads as the land of sale deed (Ex. P1 in LAC No. 139 of 2008) was abutting the main road, whereas the land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex.P3 in LAC No. 139 of 2008) was abutting some rasta left out in unplanned area. Meaning thereby the level of cut, which is imposed where the sale transaction of a developed plot is to be relied upon, cannot be applied in the case in hand. Further, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the landowners that even for the land, which is released from acquisition but forming part of the developed area, the owners of the released land are required to pay fee for change of land use and external development charges. However, still as the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds is located on the main road or close to the main road and assessment of large chunk of land is required to be made and further if no other facilities were available, still it had connectivity with road, some reasonable cut is required to be applied. However, still as the land pertaining to the aforesaid sale deeds is located on the main road or close to the main road and assessment of large chunk of land is required to be made and further if no other facilities were available, still it had connectivity with road, some reasonable cut is required to be applied. In my opinion, cut of 15% would be reasonable in the case in hand. After applying the same, the value of the acquired land would come out to Rs.57,08,000/- per acre. Another question which arises is as to whether entire chunk of land deserves to be assessed at the same rate or there have to be some different rates for different areas considering the location. From the site plans mark 'X' taken on record and Ex. R3 (LAC No. 929 of 2008), it is evident that the land pertaining to the revenue estates of villages Khandsa, Narsingpur and Mohammadpur Jharsa is located close to NH8 or the area of Sector 37, Gurgaon, which had already developed, and also the area where lot of industrial activities had already started, as is evident from release of 188.43 acres of land either at the stage of objections under Section 5-A of the Act or by the High Powered Committee and further release of 12.52 acres of land by Council of Ministers. It is also evident from the site plan that 125.41 acres of land is under litigation, major part of which is located in the acquired land. Hence, in my opinion, value of the land pertaining to revenue estates of villages Khandsa, Narsingpur and Mohammadpur Jharsa deserve to be assessed at that rate. As the land pertaining to revenue estates of villages Harsaru and Garauli Khurd is located far off from NH8, it cannot be awarded the same amount of compensation. For assessment thereof, considering its distance from NH8 and city, in my opinion, cut of 40% would be reasonable. After applying the same, the value of land pertaining to the revenue estates of village Harsaru and Garauli Khurd is assessed @ Rs.40,80,000/- per acre." 10. We may observe that notice has been issued in these appeals limited to the question of the cut that has been imposed by the High Court. 11. We have heard arguments led by Mr. Pinaki Misra, learned senior counsel for the land owners. We may observe that notice has been issued in these appeals limited to the question of the cut that has been imposed by the High Court. 11. We have heard arguments led by Mr. Pinaki Misra, learned senior counsel for the land owners. Other learned counsels also advanced their submissions in support of the lead counsel. We have also heard Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned AAG for the State of Haryana. 12. We have been shown several maps pertaining to the area under consideration. We have also considered the reasons given by the High Court for making the cut as mentioned above. 13. There is no doubt that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, some cut is necessary for the reasons that have been given by the High Court. However, having considered the entire material on record, we are of the opinion that the cut made by the High Court appears to be quite reasonable for villages Khandsa, Narsingpur and Mohammadpur Jharsa. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in this regard and we endorse and uphold the view of the High Court and find it unnecessary to repeat the reasons. 14. As far as the other two villages are concerned namely Harsaru and Garauli Khurd, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the cut of 40% imposed by the High Court is slightly on the higher side and therefore we reduce it to 30%. It is ordered accordingly. 15. We also make it clear that to ensure that the land owners are not put to any inconvenience, the following directions are necessary to be passed as have been passed in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh and Others [ (2010) 11 SCC 175 ]: (i) The Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib Tahsildar, who shall get in touch with all the landowners and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation. (ii) The officers concerned shall also instruct the landowners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the landowners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (ii) The officers concerned shall also instruct the landowners and/or their legal representatives to open savings bank account in case they already do not have such account. (iii) The bank account numbers of the landowners should be given to the Land Acquisition Collector within three months. (iv) The Land Acquisition Collector shall deposit the cheques of compensation in the bank accounts of the landowners. 16. The appeals are disposed of on the above terms.