Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9207 OF 2012
Manmohan Lal Gupta (Dead) Thru Lrs. .…Appellant(s)
Versus
Market Committee Bhikhi & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
1. The appellant is before this Court assailing the
judgment dated 15.07.2009 of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh, passed in RFA
No.1586/2005. The said appeal was also included in the
common judgment passed by the High Court in RFA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.09.20
17:13:26 IST
Reason:
No.2082/2004 and other analogous appeals. Through the
said judgment the High Court has determined the market
Page 1 of 14
value of the land at Rs.90/ per sq. yard plus the other
statutory benefits. The said determination of market value
amounts to reduction from what has been determined by
the Additional District Judge, Mansa (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Reference Court’). The appellant is therefore
claiming to be aggrieved by the judgment impugned
herein.
The land, in all measuring 31 acres 1 kanal and 4
2.
marlas was notified for acquisition in order to develop the
new grain market. The preliminary notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘L.A.
Act’) was issued on 30.11.1992. In the total extent notified
the land measuring 10 kanals 17 marlas comprised in
khewat/khatauni No.123/221 bearing khasra
No.1207/2/2, situate in Bhikhi, beside the Highway from
Bhatinda to Chandigarh, belonging to the appellant was
also included. After following the due process as provided
under Section 5A of the L.A. Act, the declaration under
Section 6 of the L.A. Act was notified on 24.12.1993. The
Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘LAO’) through the
award dated 15.01.1996 determined the market value of
Page 2 of 14
Nehri land at Rs.45019/ per acre and of Gair mumkin
land at Rs.59378/ per acre, plus statutory benefits.
3. The appellant as also several other similarly placed
land owners being aggrieved by the market value as
determined by the LAO filed their objection and sought
reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. Accordingly,
the consideration for enhancement was referred to the
Reference Court, Mansa. In the proceedings before the
Reference Court, 18 cases including that of the land
belonging to the appellant was taken up for composite
consideration. The evidence that was tendered in the lead
case of Saroj Rani was taken note and a common
determination of the market value was made. In the said
process the Reference Court took into consideration the
sale deed dated 31.05.1995 and also the sale deed dated
03.06.1996 which were marked as Exhibits A1 and A2
as the sale exemplars. In that light having taken into
consideration the location of the property concluded that
the market value had not been appropriately fixed by the
LAO. In the said process the Reference Court also took
into consideration that the lands under the subject
Page 3 of 14
acquisition could be categorised as the land which is
adjacent to the Highway, the lands that are abutting those
lands which are adjacent to the Highway and also the
lands which were situate thereafter. The three categories
were considered as first, second and third lot. Accordingly,
the market value of the land situate in the first lot was
determined at Rs.140/ per sq. yard, the second lot was
determined at Rs.120/ per sq. yard and for the third lot
the market value determined was Rs.100/ per sq. yard.
In addition, the statutory benefits were also ordered to be
paid.
4. The beneficiary of the acquisition, namely, Market
Committee, Bhikhi, District Mansa preferred appeals
before the High Court, among which RFA No.1586/2005
pertained to the appellant herein. In the said appeal the
beneficiary of acquisition had assailed the enhancement of
market value made by the Reference Court. Certain land
owners had also preferred cross appeals seeking further
enhancement of the compensation among which RFA
No.2053/2004 was the appeal filed by the appellants
herein seeking enhancement of the market value.
Page 4 of 14
5. The High Court having clubbed the appeals, on
consideration was of the opinion that the reliance placed
by the Reference Court on the sale deeds which were at
Exhibits A1 and A2 was not justified, inasmuch as, the
said sale deeds were relating to transactions subsequent
to the notification for acquisition. On discarding the said
documents the High Court while taking note of the
remaining documents has opined that the sale deed
marked at Exhibits A17 to A27 relating to the very
properties under acquisition would be the proper
exemplars to be taken into consideration. In that light, the
sale consideration paid under Exhibit A22 was taken as
the basis and on arriving at the price per square yard,
added increase at 12 per cent for every year and also
added an additional sum of Rs.12/ per sq. yard, thereby
arriving at the market value of Rs.90/ per sq. yard. The
High Court also concluded that the classification of the
properties in question into three lots was not appropriate
since all the lands had the road running beside it and had
the same advantages. Hence, the said determined market
value of Rs.90/ per sq. yard was made uniformly
Page 5 of 14
applicable in respect of all the lands which were the
subject matter of the acquisition initiated under the
preliminary notification dated 30.11.1992. The appellant
land losers therefore being aggrieved by the reduction in
market value has filed this appeal.
6. Dr. Romesh Gautam, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant referred to the appeal papers
including the judgments passed by the Reference Court as
also the High Court. The contention is that the land
belonging to the appellant is situate adjacent to the main
road which had high commercial potential and as such
the determination as made by the Reference Court itself
was on the lower side, which in fact required further
enhancement. In that situation when the Reference Court
had determined the market value of the land at Rs.140/
per sq. yard the same ought not to have been reduced by
the High Court, instead it should have been enhanced. It
is contended that it is common knowledge that the value
of immovable property will always appreciate and in such
situation, appropriate market value was required to be
determined by keeping this aspect in view. The land
Page 6 of 14
belonging to the appellant is Gair mumkin land which was
considered as the land to which higher compensation
than Nehri land was payable, even according to the
determination made by LAO. In such event the market
value now determined by the High Court is on lower side
which calls for interference and if not further
enhancement of the market value from what is determined
by the Reference Court, at least, the award of Reference
Court should be restored.
7. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, learned counsel appearing
for the beneficiaries of the acquisition seeks to justify the
judgment passed by the High Court. It is contended that
as rightly noticed by the High Court the sale exemplars at
Exhibits A1 and A2 relied upon by the Reference Court
related to the sale transactions which were subsequent to
the date of the acquisition notification. The sale
consideration under such documents cannot be the basis
to determine the market value. When there was no other
appropriate exemplar available, the High Court keeping in
view the earlier decisions of this Court has taken into
consideration the very sale deeds under which the land
Page 7 of 14
owners had purchased the lands and has in fact taken
into consideration the appreciation at a higher percentage.
In such event the appellants cannot have any grievance in
this regard. He therefore seeks the dismissal of the above
appeal.
8. In the light of the rival contentions, we have perused
the appeal papers. The nature of consideration made by
the Reference Court would indicate that the Reference
Court has taken into consideration the documents at
Exhibits A1 and A2 as the exemplar sale deeds. The sale
consideration under the said documents at Rs.70,000/
(Rupees seventy thousand only) and Rs.1,44,000/
(Rupees one lakh fortyfour thousand only) was taken
note; keeping in view the extent purchased under the said
sale deeds had worked out the sale consideration at
Rs.400/ per sq. yard. From the said amount reduction
was made for the difference in time gap and the value was
determined at Rs.140/, Rs.120/ and Rs.100/ per sq.
yard in respect of the three lots of the properties which
had been classified and bifurcated by keeping in view the
location of the property from the main road. Though the
Page 8 of 14
formula adopted to determine market value was justified,
the reliance on the said documents at Exhibits A1 and A
2 cannot be sustained since the sale deeds being dated
31.05.1995 and 03.06.1996 had come into existence
much later than 30.11.1992, the date on which the
preliminary notification was issued and the same was
published in the newspapers on 11.12.1992 and
14.12.1992. This Court, in the order dated 13.09.2021
passed in C.A. Nos.38753876 of 2009 has referred to the
turbulent period in Punjab prior to 1992 when the land
value had crashed due to exodus. Since the position had
improved only after 1992 the comparison of land value
subsequent thereto to the value prior thereto would not be
appropriate. Therefore, the sale consideration under the
said documents cannot be the basis to determine the
market value of the property in question, for which the
date of the preliminary notification would be relevant.
9. In that view, we are of the opinion that the High
Court was justified in discarding the sale exemplars at
Exhibits A1 and A2. Further the High Court having
taken into consideration the nature and location of the
Page 9 of 14
property was also of the opinion that the classification
made by the Reference Court as first, second and third lot
was not justified. When the different items of property in
the different survey number were acquired for the same
purpose of establishing the market yard and as observed
by the High Court since all the lands had the road passing
beside it, a common determination of the market value
was the appropriate course. In that view, the said
observation of the High Court is justified. In that
background, the determination of the market value which
would be applicable to all the lands which were the
subject matter of the acquisition was to be made when the
various land owners had also filed their appeals. The
determination of the common market value which is
applicable to all the lands as made by the High Court is
justified.
10. In that regard to arrive at the appropriate market
value, the High Court having discarded the documents at
Exhibits A1 and A2 had taken note of the remaining
documents. In order to rely upon Exhibits A17 to A24 as
also Exhibit A27 i.e., the sale deeds under which the
Page 10 of 14
properties were purchased by the land owners the High
Court has referred to the decision of this Court in The
Dollar Company, Madras vs. Collector of Madras
(1975) 2 SCC 730 and in V. Subrahmanya Rao vs. Land
(2004) 10 SCC 640. The said
Acquisition Officer
decisions have been extracted in detail and noted. It is to
be noted that such sale exemplars of the very property in
question would in a normal circumstance be appropriate if
the sale instance is closer to the period of acquisition. In
the case which was referred by the High Court the sale
instances were around ten months prior to the
notification. Be that as it may, in the absence of such sale
instances which were closer to the date of the notification
in the instant case, the High Court has taken guidance
from the decisions of this Court in
Shakuntalabai (Smt.)
and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra (1996) 2 SCC 152
and
Om Prakash (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. vs. Union of
India & Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 627 whereunder this Court
had indicated the percentage of appreciation to be
considered per year when earlier sale instances are taken
Page 11 of 14
into consideration and the acquisition notification is of a
subsequent date.
11. It is in that light, the High Court, from the
documents at Exhibits A17 to A27 has taken the
document at Exhibit A22 i.e., a sale deed dated
04.06.1981 whereunder the price paid for the extent of 1
kanal and 9 marlas at Rs.25,000/ (Rupees twentyfive
thousand only) as the basis. On taking the said price into
consideration, the amount was worked to Rs.1,31,931/
(Rupees one lakh thirtyone thousand nine hundred and
thirtyone only) per acre, which on being divided would
work out to Rs.34/ per sq. yard. To the said amount the
High Court has added 12 percent appreciation per year
from 1981 to 1992 and arrived at the market value at
Rs.78/ per sq. yard. An additional value of Rs.12/ per
sq. yard was added as escalation by taking note that the
reference to Exhibits A1 and A2 would indicate that
there was steep increase of the prices in Punjab after the
situation had improved. Therefore, the total market value
was arrived at Rs.90/ per sq. yard, in addition to which
the statutory benefits were also ordered. The
Page 12 of 14
consideration as made by the High Court is in accordance
with law, which would not call for interference. The
method followed would indicate that the contentions
raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant
would stand answered since the location of the property,
the potentiality of the property and appreciation of the
value has been kept in perspective while determining the
market value with reference to the date of notification.
In addition to the above, it is also brought to our
12.
notice that one other land owner, namely, Shri Sudesh
Kumar whose appeal bearing RFA No.2092/2004 was also
considered under the same common judgment dated
15.07.2009 impugned herein was before this Court in
SLP(C) No.15535/2010 assailing the very impugned
judgment. This Court by the order dated 29.04.2011 has
dismissed the special leave petition in limine. Further,
though the appeal filed by the appellants herein in RFA
No.2053/2004 (O&M) against the very judgment passed by
the Reference Court dated 20.02.2004 was pending before
the High Court without being tagged with RFA
No.1586/2005 filed by the Market Committee against the
Page 13 of 14
same judgment of the Reference Court, the said RFA
No.2053/2004 has however subsequently been dismissed
by the High Court on 25.05.2015.
13. Therefore, having noted all the above aspects of the
matter we see no reason to interfere with the impugned
judgment dated 15.07.2009 passed by the High Court in
RFA No.1586/2005. Accordingly, the above appeal being
devoid of merit stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
……………………….J.
(M.R. SHAH)
……………………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
September 20, 2021
Page 14 of 14