Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1762 OF 2022
Pramina Devi (Dead) Thr. LRs. …Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1761 OF 2022
Mohan Prasad Singh & Anr. …Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Jharkhand …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments
and orders passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi dated
28.03.2019 passed in First Appeal Nos. 40 of 2007 and 41 of 2007, the
original appellants – claimants – landowners have preferred the present
appeals.
2. That the land of the respective appellants situated in Village
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2022.03.10
17:13:49 IST
Reason:
Gulabjhari, District Palamau (Jharkhand) were acquired under the
1
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
“Act, 1894”) for public purpose. A notification under Section 4 of the Act,
1894 was published on 01.10.1980. That the Land Acquisition Officer
awarded Rs. 180/- per decimal. At the instance of the original
landowners references were made to the District Court under Section 18
of the Act, 1894. Before the Reference Court, the claimants heavily
relied upon the Sale Deed registered between the years 1977 to 1979,
which were marked as Exh.2, Exh.2/a, Exh.2/b and Exh.2/c. The
Reference Court discarded all the aforesaid sale deeds and dismissed
the respective references observing that the valuation of the acquired
land has been rightly determined and upheld the awards passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgments and awards
passed by the Reference Court, the original claimants preferred the
present appeals before the High Court being First Appeal Nos. 40 of
2007 and 41 of 2007. By the impugned judgment and order, the High
Court has observed that the Sale deed Dated 12.02.1979 (Exh.2/a) has
to be considered for determination of the market value as the same is in
a close proximity in time to the date of notification dated 01.10.1980. By
observing so, the High Court has disposed of the appeals and modified
the judgments and awards passed by the Reference Court to the extent
that the compensation is to be assessed and paid on the basis of the
2
Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 (Exh.2/a) and not on the basis of the Sale
Deed dated 29.12.1976 (Exh.2/c). However, while passing the final
order, the High Court has not assessed and/or determined the actual
market value and/or compensation to be payable to the landowners.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgments
and orders passed by the High Court, the original landowners – original
claimants have preferred the present appeals.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties at length. We have also gone through and considered the
impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court. From the
impugned judgment and orders passed by the High Court, it can be seen
that after holding that Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 (Exh.2/a) has to be
considered for determination of the compensation with respect to the
acquired land, there is no further discussion on the area of the land sold
by Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979. The High Court has also not discussed
at all the sale consideration for which the Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979
was executed. The High Court has also not noted what was the sale
consideration so far as the Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 (Exh.2/a) is
concerned. The High court has also not discussed what was the
location of the land so far as the Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 is
concerned. The only observation made by the High Court is that as the
Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 is more proximate in time to the date of
3
notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1894, i.e., 01.10.1980 as
compared to the Sale Deed dated 29.12.1976, therefore, the Sale Deed
dated 12.02.1979 is more appropriate to be considered for the purpose
of ascertaining the market value of the property on the date of the
notification dated 01.10.1980. It is to be noted that there is no detailed
discussion by the High Court by taking into account the relevant factors
which are required to be taken into consideration while ascertaining the
market price as observed and held by this Court in the case of Viluben
Jhalejar Contractor Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 in
paragraph 20, which reads as under:-
20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained
with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has
to be identified having regard to the proximity from time
angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For
determining the market value of the land under
acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having
regard to various positive and negative factors vis-à-vis
the land under acquisition by placing the two in
juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as
under:
Positive factors Negative factors
( i ) smallness of size ( i ) largeness of area
( ii ) proximity to a road ( ii ) situation in the
interior at a distance
from the road
( iii ) frontage on a road ( iii ) narrow strip of land
with very small frontage
compared to depth
4
( iv ) nearness to
developed area
( iv ) lower level requiring
the depressed portion to
be filled up
( v ) regular shape ( v ) remoteness from
developed locality
( vi ) level vis-à-vis land
under acquisition
( vi ) some special
disadvantageous
factors which would
deter a purchaser
( vii ) special value for an
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it
may have some very
special advantage
4. It is also required to be noted that there was a time gap of one
year and eight months between the Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 and
the Section 4 notification. Therefore, if ultimately, it is found that both are
absolutely comparable, in that case, even suitable price rise at the rate
of 12% per annum may also have to be considered. However, the High
Court has mechanically held that the claimants shall be entitled to the
compensation considering the price/sale consideration mentioned in the
Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979. While considering the sale deed/sale
exemplar, the proximity in time to the date of sale deed and to the date
of notification under Section 4 may be a relevant factor but at the same
time, other factors, as observed hereinabove are also required to be
taken into consideration while determining the actual market price of the
acquired land.
5
5. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that there is no clarity on the
actual market price and while passing the final order, the High Court has
not stated the exact market value and/or the amount of compensation to
be paid. There is no actual assessment and/or determination of market
value and/or the compensation. How on such a vague order, a decree
can be drawn and how such an order is executable? The judgment must
have a clarity on the exact relief that is granted by the Court so that it
may not create further complication and/or difficulty in the execution.
Every litigant must know what actual relief he has received from the
Court. But the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
lacks total clarity.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Jharkhand
at Ranchi dated 28.03.2019 passed in First Appeal Nos. 40 of 2007 and
41 of 2007 are hereby quashed and set aside and the appeals are
remitted to the High Court to consider and decide the appeals afresh in
accordance with law and on merits and after considering the relevant
factors while considering the Sale Deed dated 12.02.1979 as a sale
exemplar and thereafter to decide and determine the exact market value
and the compensation to be paid to the original claimants. For the
6
aforesaid purpose, the appeals before the High court are ordered to be
restored to the file of the High Court. The High Court shall make all
endeavors to finally decide and dispose of the appeals on remand at the
earliest and preferably within a period of six months from the date of the
receipt of the present order.
Both the appeals are accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
MARCH 10, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
7