Afr High Court · 2025
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43925-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 27-06-2025 Judgment delivered on : 29-08-2025 FAM No. 15 of 2020 1. Prakash Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Nathmal Ji Sharma, aged about 67 years, 2. Mohan S/o Shri Nathmal Ji Sharma, aged about 60 years, 3. Rameshwar S/o Nathmal Ji Sharma, aged about 58 years, 4. Suraj Bai D/o Shri Nathmal Ji Sharma, aged about 55 years, All are resident of Fawara Chowk, Sattibazar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) 5. Dhirendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 48 years, Shri Chainraj Ji Sharma, R/o Anshu Provision Store, Near Fawara Chowk, Satti Bazar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) (Note: Dhirendra Kumar Sharma is legal representative of late Smt. Shanti & late Shri Shyama Bai, since both died therefore not impleaded as party) ... Appellants versus 2 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur, For Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG) 2. Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) .. Respondents FAM No. 16 of 2020 M/s Express Way Properties, through Manager/Partner Lalit Kumar Chopra, aged about 60 years, S/o Manoharchand Chopra, R/o 550, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) versus ... Appellant 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur, For Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG) 2. Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) .. Respondents FAM No. 17 of 2020 Manish Ahluwalia, aged about 35 years, S/o Bharat Bhushan Ahluwalia, aged about 35 years, R/o Tatyapara, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) versus ... Appellant 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur, For Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG) 2. Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) .. Respondents 3 FAM No. 18 of 2020 Ashish Ahluwalia, aged about 47 years, S/o Bharat Bhushan Ahluwalia, aged about 47 years, R/o Tatyapara, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG) versus ... Appellant 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur, For Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG) 2. Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) .. Respondents For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
the basis of rate prescribed in the guidelines. It is well settled principle of law that market value cannot be assessed on the basis of guidelines. The guidelines are the minimum rates prescribed by the office of Registrar and in fact it is not the actual rate of the land and it is only for the purpose of valuation of the stamp duty. Ex.P/1 to P/13 filed by the appellants have not been considered at all by the learned Reference Court whereas the same pertain to the year 2010 and alleged notification was issued in the month of August, 2011. NRDA purchased land @ Rs.35 lacs per hectare through registered sale deed which was produced before the trial Court but the same were not considered. It is well settled that market value has to be determined on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the post notification and guidelines cannot be considered for determining the compensation. Section 23(1) provides that the compensation has to be determined by the reference Court based upon the market value. However, the learned Reference Court based upon post notification i.e. prior to August, 2011 when Section 4(1) 7 notification was published, assessed compensation @ Rs.17 lacs per hectare which is illegal. Learned Court also failed to consider that the land is irrigated land and adjoining the highway/main road with all facility for agricultural activity and without appreciating all these facts the award was passed granting compensation @ Rs.17 lacs per hectare only whereas it should have been at least @ Rs.35 lacs per hectare which is the market value for the irrigated land. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the learned Reference Court committed a grave error in not awarding interest as per Section 34 of the Act. It ought to have first assessed the total compensation as per Section 23 and thereafter on total compensation, interest @ 15% pa ought to have been granted. [ Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Barla Ram Reddy Vs. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 878. 07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supporting the impugned judgment would submit that pursuant to the requisition made by NRDA vide letter dated 26.5.2011 for acquisition of 95.72 hectares of land for expansion of Raipur Airport, the State Government issued notifications under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 8.8.2011 and it was published in Hari Bhoomi and Nai Duniya newspapers on 13.8.2011 and in the official gazette on 8 26.8.2011. No objection was received under Section 5A. Out of the total land, 2.79 hectares of land was acquired by mutual consent. The remaining 92.93 hectares of land was acquired compulsorily for which Section 6 declaration was issued on 21.10.2011 with newspaper publication on 23.10.2011 and gazette notification on 18.11.2011. It was republished on 24.5.2012 due to correction in Khasra No.770. He would submit that award under Section 11 was passed on 11.6.2012 by the Land Acquisition Officer determining the compensation based on 2011-12 guidelines i.e. Rs.17 lacs per hectare for fallow and unirrigated dhanha land and Rs.18.25 lacs per hectare for irrigated dhanha land. As per the revenue records, 23.14 hectares of land was fallow land, 64.73 hectare was unirrigated and 2.34 hectare was irrigated. 08. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further argued that as per clause 4 of the CG Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, the higher of the average market rate of the preceding three years or the guideline value is to be adopted. Owing to the embargo on sale/purchase, no three years average data was available, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer rightly relied on the guideline value prepared by the Deputy Registrar. The compensation was determined based on 2011-12 guidelines which is appropriate as per Section 23(1) of the Act. The relevant date for assessing market value is the date of issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act i.e. 26.8.2011. The appellants did not submit any documentary proof to establish the nature of their lands or fencing, 9 electrical installations etc either before the Land Acquisition Officer or the Reference Court. 09. So far as 13 sale deeds including those executed by NRDA and the private developers referred to by the appellants are concerned, the learned Reference Court rightly observed that the appellants failed to establish geographical proximity or similarity in features; sale deeds pertained to different khasras and were not contemporaneous with Section 4 notification; sale values vary due to land use, development level, soil quality and location-specific factors and that as per rehabilitation policy, guideline rates suffice where sale exemplars are not applicable. As per Schedule 3 Rule 7 of the Guideline Rules, valuation is per square meter when the parcel is under 500 square meter. All the acquired lands, except Khasra No.98 (0.03 hectare), exceed that size. For Khasra No.98, compensation was correctly calculated @ Rs.430/- per square meter, amounting to Rs.1,87,853 including interest. The findings recorded by learned Reference Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and in consonance with the provisions of the relevant Rules and the Acts. Therefore, the instant appeals being devoid of any substance are liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Tarlochan Singh & another Vs. State of Punjab and others, (1995) 2 SCC 424; Basant Kumar and 10 others Vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 11 SCC 542; and Barla Ram Reddy Vs. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 878. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State duly assisted the Court. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. It is not in dispute in all the four cases that the respondent State and New Raipur Development Authority (NRDA) acquired the lands of the landowners for development of Airport and Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 11.6.2012 in all the cases against which reference was made by the landowners and learned Reference Court by the impugned judgments dated 28.9.2019 and 30.9.2019 confirmed the award dated 11.6.2012 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer holding it to be just and proper. 13. The main objection of learned counsel for the appellants is that as per some sale deeds (Ex.P/1 to P/13), the lands were purchased by Demerar Developers Pvt. Ltd. and NRDA and other purchasers which were executed in the year 2010. Exs.P/3C, P/5C, P/7C, P/9C, P/10C, P/12C and P/13C are from same Village Baroud and as per these sale deeds, the learned Reference Court did not appreciate value of their land at the relevant time. 11 14. Learned Reference Court prepared a comparative charge in all the matters i.e. at para 20 in Land Acquisition Case No.26/13, at para 21 in Land Acquisition Case No.25/13, at para 20 in Land Acquisition Case No.47/13 and at para 20 in Land Acquisition Case No.36/13, which is as under: क. प्ቌक(cid:4)र मू(cid:7)ल्य ቇኋ(cid:4)मू दि(cid:12)ाሪ(cid:4)(cid:14)क ्ቚ(cid:12)्ቦ(cid:17) वि(cid:2)ቅኔ(cid:4) ता(cid:6)/पሾኋ(cid:6)दा(cid:6)ता(cid:6) ओमे(cid:4)क्स लि(cid:19)मिमे. (cid:2) अन्य के(cid:4) ता(cid:6)/पሾኋ(cid:6) ्ቇवि(cid:13)ता(cid:6) वि(cid:24)मे(cid:4)रर (cid:24)(cid:4)व्(cid:13)(cid:19)पस(cid:27) ቚኋ(cid:6).लि(cid:19). 10,44,78,880 रु 7.29 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर नकेटे 31.03.2010 ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) 1 स" ओमे(cid:4)क्स लि(cid:19)मिमे. (cid:2) अन्य इन(cid:24)(cid:4)के$र इ%टेरन(cid:4)्ቦन(cid:19) 49,30,000 0.344 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर रु बनरस" 31.03.2010 ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) 2 स" ओमे(cid:4)क्स लि(cid:19)मिमे. (cid:2) अन्य इन(cid:24)(cid:4)के$र इ%टेरन(cid:4)्ቦन(cid:19) 5,05,77,160 रू. 3.529 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर बर(दा(cid:6) 31.03.2010 ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) 3 स" ओमे(cid:4)क्स लि(cid:19)मिमे. (cid:2) अन्य इन(cid:24)(cid:4)के$र इ%टेरन(cid:4)्ቦन(cid:19) 1,17,91,400 रू. 0.823 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर बर(दा(cid:6) 31.03.2010 ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) 4 स" ओमे(cid:4)क्स लि(cid:19)मिमे. (cid:2) अन्य प्(cid:19)(cid:4)न(cid:4)टे अ्ቕ(cid:27) रिरय(cid:19) विब्ቓ लि(cid:19). 6,33,85,300 रू. 4.379 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर बर(दा(cid:6) 03.05.2010 ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) 5 स" ओमे(cid:4)क्स लि(cid:19)मिमे. (cid:2) अन्य ओमे(cid:4)क्स लि(cid:19)मिमे. (cid:2) अन्य रिरचा(cid:6) रिरय(cid:19)के.न ቚኋ(cid:6).लि(cid:19). वि(cid:24)मे(cid:4)रर (cid:24)(cid:4)व्(cid:13)(cid:19)पस(cid:27) ቚኋ(cid:6).लि(cid:19). 2,19,14,370 रू 1.514 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर नकेटे 04.05.2010 ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) 6 स" 3,71,27,980 2.565 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर बर(दा(cid:6) 03.05.2010 ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) 7 स" ओमे(cid:4)क्स लि(cid:19)मिमे. (cid:2) अन्य प्(cid:19)(cid:4)न(cid:4)टे अ्ቕ(cid:27) रिरय(cid:19) विब्ቓ लि(cid:19). 7,27,50,310 5.026 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर बनरस" 03.05.2010 ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) 8 स" ओमे(cid:4)क्स लि(cid:19)मिमे. (cid:2) अन्य इन(cid:24)(cid:4)के$र इ%टेरन(cid:4)्ቦन(cid:19) 22,81,08,580 रु 15.759 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर बर(दा(cid:6) 03.05.2010 ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) 9 स" 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ओमे(cid:4)क्स लि(cid:19)मिमे. (cid:2) अन्य आरआर. रिरय(cid:19)के.न ቚኋ(cid:6).लि(cid:19). 9,06,70,180 रू. 6.264 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर बर(दा(cid:6) 03.05.2010 10 ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) स" 12 11. 12. 13. ओमे(cid:4)क्स लि(cid:19)मिमे. (cid:2) अन्य प्(cid:19)(cid:4)न(cid:4)टे अ्ቕ(cid:27) रिरय(cid:19) विब्ቓ लि(cid:19). 5,05,27,970 रु. 3.507 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर रमेचा%(cid:24)" 17.05.2010 ቦኍ"मेता" जसमे"ता के(र एन.आर.(cid:24)". ए. 83,25,000 3.460 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर रु बर(दा(cid:6) 21.06.2010 (cid:13)रिሰमे4दार िሺस4(cid:13) (cid:13)$र(cid:6) एन.आर.(cid:24)". ए. 79,98,750 3.20 (cid:13)(cid:4)क्टे(cid:4)यर रू बर(दा(cid:6) 24.06.2010 11 12 13 ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) स" ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) स" ቚኋदा्ቦ(cid:27) स" Leaned Reference Court found that the appellants/claimants did not file any document to show that these lands are adjacent to their lands and hence rejected the contention of the appellants that valuation of their lands is to be made at the same rate. In para 23 of the impugned judgment in Land Acquisition Case No.26/2013, the learned Reference Court observed as under: “(23) आ(cid:2)(cid:4)दाके (cid:19)लि(cid:19)ता के6 मे(cid:6)र चा$प़(cid:6) (आ.स(cid:6).1) न(cid:4) अपन(cid:4) ቚኋवितापर"्ቌण मे: य(cid:13) स्(cid:2)"के(cid:6)र भी" विकेय(cid:6) (cid:13)= विके, उसके(cid:4) ቛኋ(cid:6)र(cid:6) ቚኋस्ता6ता विकेय(cid:4) गय(cid:4) वि(cid:2)ቅኔय वि(cid:2)(cid:19)(cid:4)ख ए(cid:2)% (cid:19)"ज (cid:24)"(cid:24) उसकेB जमे"न स(cid:4) स%ब%मिCता न(cid:13)D (cid:13)=। अताF इन दास्ता(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:4)जG के(cid:4) आC(cid:6)र पर आ(cid:2)(cid:4)दाके केB भीHमिमे के(cid:6) ब(cid:6)ज(cid:6)र मेHल्य विनC(cid:6)(cid:27)रिरता विकेय(cid:6) ज(cid:6)न(cid:6) स%भी(cid:2) न(cid:13)D (cid:13)=। य(cid:13) भी" ध्य(cid:6)न दा(cid:4)न(cid:4) य$ग्य वि(cid:2)षय (cid:13)= विके आ(cid:2)(cid:4)दाके न(cid:4) इन वि(cid:2)ቅኔय पቔኘ$/ (cid:19)"ज(cid:24)"(cid:24) मे: उल्(cid:19)(cid:4)खिखता भीHमिमे के$ उसकेB अቌኌज4ता भीHमिमे के(cid:4) समे"प (cid:13)$न(cid:4) के(cid:4) स%ब%C मे: के$ई दास्ता(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:4)ज" स(cid:6)ቌኚय ቚኋस्ता6ता न(cid:13)D विकेय(cid:6) (cid:13)=। य(cid:13) आ(cid:2)श्यके न(cid:13)D (cid:13)= विके नय(cid:6) र(cid:6)यप6र ्ቌ(cid:4)ቔኘ मे: ቝኌTता सभी" भीHमिमे के(cid:6) ब(cid:6)ज(cid:6)र दार एके (cid:13)" (cid:13)$। अताF आ(cid:2)(cid:4)दाके केB ओर स(cid:4) ቚኋस्ता6ता उपर$क्ता वि(cid:2)केय पቔኘ/ (cid:19)"ज(cid:24)"(cid:24) के(cid:4) आC(cid:6)र पर, उसकेB भीHमिमे के(cid:6) मेHल्य विनC(cid:6)(cid:27)रिरता न(cid:13)D विकेय(cid:6) ज(cid:6) सकेता(cid:6)। अताF आ(cid:2)(cid:4)दाके केB य(cid:13) आपቈኌV भी" मे(cid:6)न्य य$ग्य (cid:13)$न(cid:6) दाቦኌ्ቦ4ता न(cid:13)D (cid:13)$ता(cid:6) (cid:13)=।" Further, in para 26 the learned Reference Court observed thus: “(26) इस ቚኋ(cid:6)(cid:2)C(cid:6)न स(cid:4) य(cid:13) ्ቢ्ቖताय(cid:6) दाቦኌ्ቦ4ता (cid:13)= विके भीHमिमे के(cid:4) अज(cid:27)न (cid:13)$न(cid:4) के(cid:4) पቐኋ(cid:6)ता, उस भीHमिमे के(cid:4) उपय$ग के(cid:4) परिरण(cid:6)मे स(cid:4), अቌኌज4ता भीHमिमे के(cid:4) मेHल्य मे: के$ई (cid:2)[ቍኌ] (cid:13)$ता" (cid:13)=, उस(cid:4) वि(cid:2)चा(cid:6)र मे: न(cid:13)D लि(cid:19)य(cid:6) ज(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:4)ग(cid:6)। आ(cid:2)(cid:4)दाके के(cid:4) ቛኋ(cid:6)र(cid:6) ቚኋस्ता6ता केB गय" आपቈኌV विके उसकेB भीHमिमे के(cid:4) आस- प(cid:6)स आ(cid:2)(cid:6)स"य के.(cid:19)$न" बनन(cid:4) ए(cid:2)% एयरप$टे(cid:27) के(cid:6) वि(cid:2)स्ता(cid:6)र (cid:13)$न(cid:4) के(cid:4) के(cid:6)रण भीHमिमे के(cid:4) मेHल्य मे: (cid:13)$न(cid:4) (cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:19)" (cid:2)[ቍኌ] के(cid:4) आC(cid:6)र पर उस(cid:4) अमिCके मे6आ(cid:2)ज(cid:6) दिदा(cid:19)(cid:6)य(cid:4) ज(cid:6)न(cid:4) 13 के(cid:6) विन(cid:2)(cid:4)दान विकेय(cid:6) गय(cid:6) (cid:13)=, पर%ता6 भीवि(cid:2)ष्यगता (cid:2)[ቍኌ] के$ वि(cid:2)चा(cid:6)र मे: लि(cid:19)य(cid:6) ज(cid:6)न(cid:6) उपर$क्ता ቚኋ(cid:6)(cid:2)C(cid:6)न के(cid:4) प(cid:6)(cid:19)न मे: स%भी(cid:2) न(cid:13)D (cid:13)=। इसलि(cid:19)य(cid:4) आ(cid:2)(cid:4)दाके केB य(cid:13) आपቈኌV भी" अमे(cid:6)न्य केB ज(cid:6)ता" (cid:13)=।" 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Barla Ram Reddy (supra) held in para D.1.1, D.2.2 and D.3 as under: “D.1.1 General Principles 11. Before endeavouring to determine whether this sale exemplar would be the right fit, we must recapitulate the general principles which would steer this adjudication. 12. It is a settled position that computation of compensation for acquisition must be guided by the "market value of the land as on the date of publication of the Section 4 notification". This principle is mandated by Section 23(1) of the 1894 Act. This court has, time and again, interpreted 'market value' to represent 'the price that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller in light of the land's condition and potentiality' (State of Gujarat V. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Vaghela, (1968) 3 SCR 692; Kapil Mehra V. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 262.) 13. Of course, in ordinary circumstances, the best way to identify this price is by considering instances of sale of similar or comparable lands. Such exemplars can serve as a foundation for determining compensation, so long as they fulfil the following requirements: i. The sale exemplar depicts a genuine, open-market transaction; ii. The land covered by the sale deed is in the vicinity of the acquired land; iii. The land covered by the sale deed is similar in nature to the acquired land; and 14 iv. The sale was executed at a time proximate to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 14. Any sale exemplar which is presented to the Court ought to be considered on the touchstone of these requirements, so that the most representative sale instance can be determined. 15. Sale instances, however, cannot guide us to the market value of the land with exactitude. In some cases, direct examples of sale of comparable land may not be available, while in other cases, there may be relevant distinguishing features between the sale exemplar and the acquired land. In such cases, Courts adopt the process of guesstimation to apply, the evidence and arrive at an equitable price for the acquired land. (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Harnand Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1691.) D.2.2 Set C Exhibits 34. The Set C Exhibits comprise seven sale deeds, which were executed between 11.02.2004 and 04.02.2005. Parcels of land in Survey Nos. 187-202 in Narsingi village were purchased by M/s Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd., at rates ranging from INR 20,00,000 to 31,00,000 per acre. 36. The lands sold in these exhibits are adjoining the acquired lands. In fact, parts of these Survey Nos. were also acquired through the same Section 4 notifications. Unlike the Set B Exhibits, these lands are on the same side of the Express Highway. Most importantly, these sale deeds are the only exhibited sale instances which took place prior to the publication of the Section 4 notifications, with a time gap of not more than 26 months. Keeping in view the above considerations, we are of the opinion that these sale exhibits would be the only reliable foundation to determine the market value of the acquired lands. 15 37. Before dealing with the rest of the sale deeds, it is clear that Ex.A6 depicts a substantially lower sale price for lands at effectively the same time as Ex.Al and Ex.A2. It, therefore, follows that Ex.A6 must have been a distress sale, motivated by some extraneous factors, and it is, thus, liable to be discarded. 38. This Court has, on various occasions, held that among multiple reliable sale instances, the exemplar which depicts the highest market value ought to be used. The exception to this general rule is that an average of the rates can be taken when they are within a narrow margin. {Kapil Mehra (supra) [18-20]; Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432; Himmat Singh Vs. State of MP, (2013) 16 SCC 392} 39. In the present appeals, the six remaining sale exemplars depict rates within the range of INR 30,00,000 - 31,00,000 per acre. This may preliminarily appear to be narrow enough to invoke the exception to the 'highest sale exemplar' rule. However, this perspective fails when we take into account the details of these sale instances. Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A7, and Ex.A8, which are at the lower end of the range, were executed a considerable amount of time after Ex. Al and Ex.A2, which are at the high end of the range. To counter this anomaly and after accounting for rise in value due to efflux of time, Ex.Al and Ex.A2 depict a substantially higher value compared to the other exhibits. We are, accordingly, satisfied that these two instances should be the foundation for computation of market value of the acquired lands. D.3 Issue III: Computing the Market Value 42. As has already been held, the market value of the acquired lands at the time of the acquisition would be based on the sale instances in Ex.Al and Ex.A2. It has not missed our attention that 16 these sale deeds were executed in early 2004, almost two years before the publication of the Section 4 notifications. Due to passage of time, the value of the land would have increased during this period. So, we would also need to escalate the rates in the exemplars to meet the rise in prices over time. The escalation, of course, cannot be decided with exactitude, and some level of guesstimation has to be incorporated within our reasoning. {New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Harnand Singh (supra)} 43. Ordinarily, this Court has applied an escalation of 10-12% per year to account for the time gap {Himmat Singh v. State of M.P., (2014) 14 SCC 466; Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2015) 15 SCC 200}. At this stage, we must take note of the submission on behalf of the landowners that there was rapid development in the area during this period. Concomitantly, there must have also been a steep rise in the price of land. We find force in this argument of the learned Counsel. The area in acquisition is close to the municipal limits of Hyderabad city and witnessed setting up offices of major multinational IT and financial sector organisations, even prior to the acquisition. The acquired lands are also admittedly close to the Hyderabad Airport. As such, even if the land may not be within the municipal limits of Hyderabad city, the area must be treated as an extension of the metropolitan area. It follows, then, that the escalation for each year must also be higher. The concept of higher escalation in metropolitan areas was also accepted by this Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patelia (2008) 14 SCC 745 (13). Considering all circumstances, we are of the opinion that a compounding escalation at the rate of 20% for each year would be just and equitable to account for the rise in prices over time. 17 44. Applying 20% compounding escalation for 2004 and 2005 to the base rate of INR 31,00,000 per acre, we find that the market value of the acquired lands at the time of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act would be INR 44,64,000 per acre.” 16. In the present case also, it is clear from the chart prepared by the learned Reference Court that some sale deeds are related to same village which are as under: Sr. Ex. Parties between Khasra No. Sale Rate Sale Village Date of No No. Sale Deed of Land Rate of Execution executed Land Per Hectare 1. A-3 Omax Limited and 140 5,05,77,16 1,43,31,8 Baroud 31.03.2010 others and Indecore 0/- for 67.4 International 3.529 hectare 2. A-4 Omax Limited and 68,69,70,71, 1,17,91,40 1,43,27,3 Baroud 31.03.2010 others and Indecore 72/1,72/2,76 0/- for 39/- International 0.823 hectare 3. A-5 Omax Limited and 2/1,2/2,3/1,3/ 6,33,85,30 1,44,74,8 Baroud 03.05.2010 others and Planate 3,¾,4,5/1,9/1 0/- for 34.4 Earth Real Build ,19/2, 21/1, 4.379 Ltd. 21/2,31, 33/2 hectare 4. A-7 Omax Limited and 93/1,93/2,94/ 3,71,27,98 1,44,74,8 Baroud 03.05.2010 others and Dimerar 1,94/3,94/4, 0/- for 46/- Developers 94/5,95/1 2.565 hectare 5. A-9 Omax Limited and 32/1,33/4, 22,81,08,5 1,44,74,8 Baroud 03.05.2010 others and Indecore 37,38/2,39/1, 80/- for 13.1 International 39/3,39/4, 15.759 40/1, 40/2, 18 40/3, 41, hectare 43/1, 43/2, 44/1, 44/2, 45/1, 45/2, 46/1,47,50, 51,64/1,64/2, 77/1,77/2, 77/3,79,80, 81,82,83,84, 85/1,85/2, 85/5,86,87, 91/1,91/3,92/ 1,92/2 6. A-10 Omax Limited and 168, 169/2, 9,06,70,18 1,44,74,8 Baroud others and RR 170/2, 172/2, 0/- for 05.2 Realcon 172/3, 178/1, d6.264 180, 183, hectare 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 194, 196, 197, 202/1, 202/2, 204, 205/2 7. A-12 Smt. Jasmeet Kaur 1231, 1230, 83,25,000/ 24,06,06 Baroud 21.06.2010 and NRDA 1393, 1433, - for 3.460 9.36 1438, 1502/1 hectare 8. A-13 Harmindarsingh 1207, 1226, 79,98,750/ 24,99,60 Baroud 24.06.2010 Hora and NRDA 1426, 1421, for 3.20 9.38 1490, 1491, hectare 1549, 1420, 1402, 1403, 1445, 1467, 2059, 1389, 1451 19 It is, thus, clear from the above chart that all these sale deeds related to same village Baroud and the same were executed in the year 2010. As per these sale deeds, the sale rate of land per hectare is different i.e. ranging from 24,06,069 to 1,44,74,846/-. The main objection of the respondents is that at the relevant point of time, sale was banned, so these sale deeds are not relevant for open market value. However, it is clear from Ex.A/12 and A/13 that that NRDA itself was a purchaser in these sale deeds and the same were executed on 21.6.2010 and 24.6.2010 @ Rs.24,06,069.36 and Rs.24,99,609.38 respectively. Learned Reference Court found that the appellants did not file any document which could show that their lands are adjacent to these lands but it is clear from all these sale deeds that Exs. A/3, A/4, A/5, A/7, A/9, A/10, A/12 & A/13 are from same village Baroud and in sale deeds Ex.A/12 & A/13, NRDA itself is a purchaser. 17. As per guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the best way to identify this price is by considering instances of sale of similar or comparable lands, and the sale was executed at a time proximate to the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that any sale exemplar which is presented to the Court ought to be considered on the touchstone of these requirements so that the most representative sale instance can be determined. 20 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the sale deeds referred to above, in particular sale deeds of Ex.A/12 & A/13, we decide the sale rate of land @ Rs.25 lacs per hectare in all these cases. In addition thereto, the appellants/landowners are held entitled to additional amount @ 12% pa and solatium @ 30% as part of the compensation, as well as interest on the entire compensation @ 9% pa for the first year after taking over of possession, and 15% pa for the period thereafter till the amount is paid to the landowners or deposited with the Court. The compensation amount shall be paid to the appellants along with all statutory entitlements and interest within six months from the date of passing of this judgment. 19.
Arguments
: Mr. Sourabh Sharma and Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocates. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ C A V Judgment Per Rajani Dubey, J Since all these appeals have been preferred against the judgments dated 30.9.2019 and 28.9.2019 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court”) in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 25/2013, 26/2013, 47/2013 and 36/2013, whereby the reference has been dismissed and the order dated 11.6.2012 of the Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur passed in Land Acquisition Case No.27/A-82 Year 2010-11 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act has been affirmed, they are being disposed of by 4 this common judgment. FA No. 15 of 2020 02. Facts of the case, in brief, necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the land of the appellants/applicants situated at Village- Baroud, PHN 72/15, RNM Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil-Arang, Distt. Raipur bearing Khasra Nos. 98, 147, 150, 152, 364, 365, 366, 1208, 1228, 1260, 1265, 1288 & 1287, area 0.03, 0.36, 0.71, 0.65, 0.07, 0.1, 4.44, 0.8, 0.24, 3.05, 0.28, 0.36 & 5.58 hectare respectively was acquired by the respondent authorities for development of Airport in Naya Raipur and as per award dated 11.6.2012 compensation @ Rs.17 lacs per hectare was awarded to them. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants moved an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) before the Collector. Learned Reference Court vide impugned judgment dated 30.9.2019 dismissed the said reference. FA No. 16 of 2020 03. In this case, land of the appellant situated at Village-Baroud, PHN 72/15, RNM Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil-Arang, Distt. Raipur bearing Khasra Nos. 1283/1, 1283/2 and 1283/3 area 2.00, 2.00 and 4.34 hectare respectively was acquired by the respondent authorities for development of Airport in Naya Raipur and the Land Acquisition Officer by the award dated 11.6.2012 awarded compensation @ Rs.17 lacs 5 per hectare to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant filed an application u/s 18 of the Act before the Collector and the learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment dated 28.9.2019 dismissed the reference. FA No. 17 of 2020 04. In this case, the land of the appellant situated at Village-Baroud, PHN 72/15, RNM Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur bearing Khasra Nos. 1276, 1277, 1278 and 1280 area 0.94, 1.79, 1.01 and 1.35 hectare was acquired by the respondent authorities for development Airport in Naya Raipur and as per award dated 11.6.2012 he was awarded compensation in lieu of acquisition of his land @ Rs.17 lacs per hectare. It was challenged by the appellant by moving an application u/s 18 of the Act. However, the learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment 28.9.2019 dismissed the reference. FA No. 18 of 2020 05. In the present case also, land of the appellant situated at Village Baroud, PHN 72/15, RNM Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur bearing Khasra Nos. 1262, 1279 and 1282, area 0.14, 2.33 and 4.02 hectare was acquired by the respondent authorities for development of Airport in Naya Raipur and the Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 11.6.2012 awarded compensation @ Rs.17 lacs per hectare which was challenged by the appellant by moving an application u/s 18 of the Act. 6 However, learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment dated 28.9.2019 dismissed the reference. 06. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the impugned judgments passed by learned Reference Court are perverse, contrary to the facts and evidence on record and as such liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court erred in law while passing the award on
Decision
In the result, the impugned judgments of the learned Reference Court are hereby set aside and the appeals stand allowed to the above extent. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Sd/ (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Khan