MANOJ KUMAR ETC. ETC v. STATE OF HARYANA ETC. ETC & Ors.

From the impugned final Judgment and Order dated 24.02.2016 F passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA No.3984 of2014, RFA No.3983 of2014, RFA No.3873 of2014, RFA No.4219 of2014, RFA No.4218 of2014, RFA No.4216 of2014, RFA No.8173 of 2014, RFA No.4217 of 2014, RFA No.3863 of 2014, RFA No.3864 of2014 respectively WITH C.A. No. 13198, C.A. Nos. 13146-13184, C.A. Nos. 13143-13145 C.A. No.13201, C.A. No.13266-13269, C.A. No.13142, C.A. Nos.13257-13265, C.A. Nos.13199-13200, C.A. No.13185 C.A. No.13197, C.A. No.13194, C.A. No.13196, C.A. No.13193, G H MANOJ KUMAR ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1001 C.A. No.13195, C.A. Nos.13186-13192, C.A. Nos.13211-13222, A C.A. Nos.13224-13230, C.A. Nos.13202-13210, C.A. No.13223, C.A. Nos.13231-13238, C.A. No.13239-13256, C.A. No.13272, C.A. Nos.13270-13271, C.A. No.13273, C.A. Nos.13296-13299, C.A. Nos.13274-13295, C.A. Nos.14539-14556, C.A. Nos.14569-14598 of 2017. Mahabir Singh, Manjeet Singh, Sr. Advs., Ms.Swati Jindal; Nikhil · Jain, Robin Dutt, Yash Pal Dhingra, Yadav Narender Singh, Manoj. Swamp, Akshat Goel, Dushyant Tiwari, Mukul Kumar, Himanshu Gupta . (for Anil Kumar Tandale), Dr.Monika Gusain, Abhinaash Jain, Ashok Kumar, Ms.Surabhi Lata (for M.P. Shorawala), Rajat Sharma, Dinesh Verma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Aditya Singh, Shish Pal Laler, Sonit C Sinhmar, Devesh Kumar Tripathi, Gopal Singh, Siddharth Mittal, Tarjit ·Singh, Rajat Rathee (for Mr.Suhass Ratna Joshi), Ms.Preeti Singh, Advs. with them for the appearing parties. . B The following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER D

Heard.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted. E

The appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana as well as by the land owners questioning the determination of compensation by the High Court by its judgment and order dated 24.2.2016. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') had been issued on 30th May 2005 for the land admeasuring 561.38 acres, the Notification under Section 6 of the Act F confined the area to 444.71 acres. However, the Award was passed ·with respect to the area admeasuring 354.50 acres. The Revenue Estate, Jagadhri of village Jaroda, Guiab Nagar and village Bhatauli had been acquired for the purpose of developing Sectors 22, 23 and 24 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Jagadhari. G

The Land Acquisition Collector vide its Awards of dated 16.7.2007 determined the compensation at Rs.24,00,000/-per acre for the prime land, Rs.20,00,000/- per acre for the area within municipal limits and Rs. I 0,00,000/- per acre for the remaining land. H A

A reference had been made under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court, ignoring the belting system, vide its Awards including the one dated 10.02.2014 enhanced the market value of the acquired land, at the uniform rate of Rs.1560/- per square meter.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid determination made by the B Reference Court, the State of Haryana filed the appeals seeking a reduction of the amount whereas the landowners filed the appeals for enhancement of compensation. The appeals preferred by the State were dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 22.9.2014 whereas the appeals preferred by the landowners have been allowed by the impugned judgment. C

The High Court has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.3609 per square meter, rounded off to Rs.3610 per square meter after adding 15% annual increase on the cumulative basis for six years i.e. Rs.1,46,09 ,000 per acre. The High Court has passed the judgment on the basis of another award following it in a blind manner i.e. Swaran D Singh .v. State of Haryana and another, in that in the year 1999 the land had been acquired it was situated just across the road in front of the acquired land, in which this Court did not interfere and the special leave petition was dismissed in limine. It has also been observed that the cut had been applied by the High Court while deciding the relied upon case E of Swaran Singh (supra) in as much as exemplar relied upon of the year 1997 appreciation had not been given up to 1999.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana urged that the High Court has erred in law in relying upon the decision of Swaran Singh (supra). In the evidence recorded by the Reference Court F parties have filed various sale deeds with respect to the same area executed before the date of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. In Swaran Singh s case, reliance has been placed on another judgment in CA No.476/2004 the transaction which had been relied upon was a transaction of 10.6.1997 between the Power Grid Corporation and the HUDA, where under the price had been paid for the plot in area G 8000 sq. meters, sold@ Rs.1560/- per square meter. Thus, the learned counsel urged that for development, certain deductions were required to be made. In the said case, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 28.4. I 999. Thus, the compensation determined is highly excessive and deserves to be suitably reduced. H MANOJ KUMAR ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1003

Per contra, learned senior counsel Shri Mahabir Singh and A Shri Manoj Swarup, appearing on behalf of the landowners prayed for enhancement of the compensation. The compensation awarded by the High Court is on the lower side. The High Court, in Swaran Singh's case, had applied the cut while not giving increase for two years i.e. w.ef 1997 to 1999, on relied upon comparable transaction. B

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the methodology adopted by the High Court for determining the compensation could not be said to be appropriate and in accordance with the settled proposition of law by a catena of decisions of this Court. It was incumbent upon the High Court to take into consideration various transactions that were on record, entered into before C the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act.

The High Court has also erred in law in not deducting the amount towards the development of exemplar sale of 1997. When the ·large area had been acquired. The two kind of deductions have to be made one for development and in case of exemplar transaction is a D small area, the reduction is required to be made to arrive at the value of large tract.

In Major General Kapi/ Mehra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr.[(2015) 2 SC 262] this Court has considered various decisions regarding deduction to be made for development and if exemplar is small E developed plots how its value is to be worked out for large areas and observed:- "33. In Haryana State Agricultural Market Board vs. Krishan Kumar. (2011) 15 SCC 297, it was held as under: F "10. It is now well settled that if the value of small developed plots should be the basis, appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the area to be used for roads, drains, and common facilities like a park, open space, etc. Thereafter, further deduction will have to be made towards the cost of development, that is, the cost of leveling the land, cost of laying G roads and drains, and the cost of drawing electrical, water and sewer lines. "

3.5. Reiterating the rule of one-third deduction towards development, in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mul/a H vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2012) 7 SCC 595, this Court in paragraph 19 held as under:- "19. In fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally approved deduction of I/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. In Kasturi vs. State of Haryana (2003) I SCC 354) the Court held: (SCC pp. 359-60, para 7) "7 ... It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, n01mally I/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the al.quired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for road and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes.

A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making constmction; maybe the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it !s so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough, particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of ,ne land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character or a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc.

However, in cases of some land where there MANOJ KUMAR ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1005 are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, A it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, B may be in some cases it is more than I/3rd and in some cases less than l /3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an ':lrea having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a C building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose. "