Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
INDER SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/04/1993
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
CITATION:
1993 SCR (3) 371 1993 SCC (3) 240
JT 1993 (3) 653 1993 SCALE (2)667
ACT:
%
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Sections 4, 18, 32-Acquisition of land-Compensation-Payment
of-Potentional value for future development-Comparable sale
transaction-Consideration of-Determination and payment of
compensation-Ordered.
HEADNOTE:
The Respondents acquired some lands for setting up Brick
Kilns. The lands consisted of Abi (cultivated land), Barani
(rainfed land) and ghair munkin (waste land) and the
Collector fixed the compensation @ at Rs. 23,600, Rs. 17,000
and Rs. 12,000 per acre of the respective lands.
On a reference the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to
Rs.33,600 per acre for Abi lands. No enhancement was
allowed in respect of the other categories of land. It
however allowed solatium at 15 % and interest at 6 % p.a. on
the enhanced compensation. On appeal, a Single Judge of the
High Court confirmed the same. These appeals were filed
against the said Judgment of the High Court.
The appellants contended that the acquired lands had the
potential value for residential and commercial purposes and
there was no justification for classification of the lands
and all the lands shall be treated at party in determination
of market value; that in a similar case, the market value
was enhanced to Rs. 75,000 per acre and in view of the fact
that certain mutation entries showed a market value of
similar lands ranging from Rs. 1,16,000 to Rs. 1,60,000, per
acre the appellants claimed for compensation of at least at
Rs. 75,000 per acre.
On behalf of the Respondents it was contended that the
mutation record was not admissible as no one connected with
the sale transactions was examined to prove the documents,
the ground for sales, comparative advantages and their
respective situation; that the lands possessed comparable or
better amenities and whether the lands are very near to the
lands under
372
acquisition. The compensation awarded by the Collector at
the rate of Rs. 15,525 per acre was upheld by the Reference
Court, and this offered’ a reasonable base to fix the market
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
value of the lands under acquisition.
Partly allowing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: 1. Neither the appellants nor the Land Acquisition
Officer had examined witnesses in proof of the sale
transactions referred in the mutation entries. It is
settled law that a claimant is entitled to just and
reasonable compensation under s. 23, To determine the market
value of the lands, it is necessary to examine witnesses to
prove the prevailing prices as on the date of publication of
the notification under s. 4(1). The sale transaction of the
same Lands or sales of lands situated in the neighbourhood
possessed of same or similar advantages would furnish as
evidence of comparable sales. It would be possible to have
reliable evidence when sale transactions are proved by
either the vendor or the vendee and if either of them was
not available, the attesting witness who had personal
knowledge of the transactions is to be examined by producing
either the original sale deed or certified copies thereof as
evidence. Since at the relevant time it was not being
insisted upon, none of the witnesses were called to prove
the sale deeds or to prove the sale transactions. Thus, the
documentary evidence of sale transactions or the mutation
entries on either side are clearly not admissible and
therefore, they cannot be looked into, and are accordingly
excluded from consideration. (375-GH, 376 (H-E)
2. The situation of the lands dearly shows that the lands
are situated very dose to developed Chandigarh planned
city and are very near to Sukha Lake and the railway track.
They are situated within the freezed zone for future
potential development of the city. Though the acquisition
was for establishment of Brick Kilns, by its very nature the
lands may not immediately be capable of being used for
residential or commercial purposes, but certainly possessed
of potential value for future development as residential and
commercial purposes. There is a distinction between the
lands acquired for Motor Market or Mansa Housing Complex on
the one hand and the lands under acquisition on the other
hand, though the lands are Abi lands going by the situation
of the lands, the market value of the land acquired for
motor market do not render any assistance as a comparable
price. This would be of assistance to assess a fair and
reasonable compensation in fixing the market value though an
amount of guess work is involved. This Court is conscious
of the fact that it should not be founded on feats of
imagination hedged with
373
undue emphasis of compulsory deprivation of the possession
of the lands of the appellant. For the exercise of State’s
power of eminent domain statutory solatium is the premium
the State pays. Therefore, the approach should he pragmatic
to recompense the appellants to secure alternative lands or
to invest in profitable business for rehabilitation. It is
seen that the Reference Court awarded a sum of Rs. 33,600
per acre to Abi land. No doubt there is a steady rise in
prices of lands. Considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances, the market value @ Rs. 42,000 per acre would
be just and fair for Abi lands and at Rs. 38,000 per acre
for Barani lands. The market value of ghair munkin land at
Rs. 12,000 per acre awarded by the Civil Court is confirmed.
The appellants are entitled to solatium and interest on the
inhanced market value at 15 per cent and 6 per cent
respectively from the date of taking possession till the
date of payment as the award and the order of the Civil
Court are prior to the periods mentioned in the Amendment
Act 1984 came into force,. (376G,H, 371 A-F))
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 335-
342/1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.8.1981 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Regular First Appeal Nos. 2605,
2604,2606,2610,306,308, 10 and 11 of 1980.
D.V. Sehgal, L.R. Singh and Yunus Malik for the Appellants.
Ranjit Kumar and G.K. Bansal (NP) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. RAMASWAMY. J.: By Notification published in the
Haryana State Gazette on October 12,1976, under section4(1)
of Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 for short ’the Act’, the
respondent Union Territory of Chandigarh acquired a total
extent of 70.09 acres of land situated in Manimajra near
Chandigarh for a public purpose, namely, to set up Brick
Kilns therein. The lands comprised in different Khasra
numbers within H.B. No. 375, out of which 63.09 acres are
Abi cultivated lands, the rest are Barani (rainfed land)
and, ghair munkin (waste land) bouldars, trenches etc. By
award dated January II, 1977, the Collector fixed a sum of
Rs. 23,600 as market value of Abi, Rs. 17,000 per acre to
Barani and Rs. 12,000 to Ghair Munkin lands. On reference
under- s. 18, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to
Rs. 33,600 per acre to Abi lands and no enhancement to other
categories with solatium at 15 per cent and interest at 6
percent per annum on the
374
enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession
till date of payment. On appeal the learned Single Judge in
R.F.A. No. 2605 of 1980 etc, by judgment dated August 18,
1981 confirmed the same. Thus these appeals by special
leave. As common questions of law arise for decision, they
are disposed of by common judgment.
Appellants’ contentions is that the acquired lands possessed
of potential value for residential and commercial purposes
and there is no justification for classification of the
lands and all the lands are entitled to parity to determine
the market value. By notification dated June 30, 1976 in
the same village under the same H.B. No. 375, 54.37 acres
were acquired for construction of Motor Market Complex. The
Collector and the Civil Court awarded the same market values
as were fixed in these appeals but the learned Single judge
denied parity of market value to these lands while enhancing
the market value at Rs. 75,000 per acre to the similar lands
in belting No. 2 and awarded @Rs. 3, 72,200 to the lands
abutting the main road upto a depth of 140 feet in other
case. Therein the Single Judge relied upon Ex. P28 of the
year 1972 in which 17 marlas of land was sold @Rs. 75,000
per acre, Having relied upon the same and having enhanced
the market value, the same yardstick should have been
applied in awarding market value to the lands under
acquisition. The learned counsel also placed strong
reliance on 6 mutation entries which would show that the
market value of the lands ranges between Rs. 1,16,000 to
1,60,000 per acre and -the appellants, therefore, are
entitled to compensation at least @ Rs. 75,000 as claimed by
them. He also contended that having found that the lands
are possessed of potential value being similar to the lands
in other appeal, the appellants are entitled to parity in
determination of the market value as well. The Haryana
Govt, acquired by notification dated January 8,1971 vast
extent of lands in Judian Village for Mansa Housing and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
Commercial Complex and thereunder Abi/irrigated lands were
awarded at a sum of Rs. 28,800 per acre which was confirmed
by the High Court. After five years the notification was
issued on October 12, 1976, the Court should have taken note
of steady rise in prices and have suitably enhanced the
market value. Since no one was appearing for the
respondent, we sent for Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the previous
standing counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh and
requested him to assist the court. Accordingly he has
meticulously analysed the entire evidence and rendered
valuable assistance. He contended that the lands are
situated beyond railway line on North-West and 1/2 k.m. to
the motor market on the other side of the road. The lands
are nearer to Sukhna Choe (lake) at a distance of one
furlong. The mutation record is not admissible as none,
connected with the sale transactions, were examined to prove
the documents; the grounds for sales, comparative advantages
and their respective situation. The motor market is
situated in a developed area on the Eastern side of the
road and the lands in these cases are
375
located away from those lands. Shri Ranjit also contended
that lands in Judian Village for Mansa Housing and
Commercial Complex were nearer to abadi possessing better
amenities and they do not afford any comparable grounds. He
contended that the lands for canalisation of Sukhna Choe was
acquired by notification dated March 21, 1972 and the
Reference Court upheld the award of the Collector at Rs.
15,525 for Abi lands which was confirmed by the High Court.
The location being very near to the lands under requisition,
they offer reasonable base to fix market value.
Notification was issued under s.6 of the Punjab New Capital
(Perefery) Control Act, 1952, freezing development of the
lands situated within a radious of 10 miles from Chandigarh
boundary for any residential and commercial purposes.
Therefore, they are not possessed of any potential value.
The learned Judge on the same day decided both the cases
upholding the award of the Civil Court in these cases while
enhancing the market value in motor market cases relied on
by the appellants. He was aware of the location and
differential value between two types of land. Therefore,
he was not inclined to enhance the market value of the land
under acquisition.
The first question that arises for consideration is whether
the High Court has committed any legal error in affirming
the market value determined by the Reference Court. The
Dist, Judge, Chandigarh in L.P.J. No. 105/70 and batch,
found that the total extent of the land acquired is 70.09
acres, 560 Kanal 15 mawla, out of which 63.91 (51 i Kanal) 6
Marla are Abi land and 4.22 (33 Kanal 15 Marla) is Barani
land and the rest are Ghair Munkin lands. It is admitted by
the witnesses that the acquired land is nearer to the
railway track and also situated at a distance of 1- 1/2 k.m.
from timber and motor market. They are situated in wide
area with the population of about 3000-3500. There are
about 200 shops situated in Manimazra town. The acquired
land is towards north-western side of Manimazra. The
railway line is 2 to 3 furlong from Manimaira on the
northwestern side. They are also situated near the boundary
of Chandigarh and one furlong from Sukhna Choe. It was also
admitted that part of the land is situated in Sector 26.
Thus it could be seen that the lands are situated very near
to Chandigarh.
Neither the appellants nor the Land Acquisition Officer had
examined witnesses in proof of the sale transactions
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
referred in mutation entries Ex. P4 to P8 on behalf of the
appellants and R1 and R2 on behalf of the respondent. It is
settled law that claimant is entitled to just and reasonable
compensation and under s. 23 to determine the market value
of the lands the prevailing prices as on the date of the
publication of the notification under s. 4(1), the sale
transaction of the same lands or sales of lands situated in
the neighbourhood would furnish as evidence of comparable
sales. The price which a hypothetical willing vendor might
reasonably expects to obtain from a willing purchaser would
form the basis to fix the market
376
value. It would be possible to have reliable evidence when
sale transactions are proved by either the vendor or the
vendee and if either of them was not available, the
attesting witness who had personal knowledge of the
transaction is to be examined by producing either the
original sale deed or certified copies thereof as evidence.
Under s. 5 1A of the Act as amended in 1984 the certified
copies have been permitted to be brought on record as
evidence of sale transaction recorded therein. The
examination of the witnesses is to find that the sale
transactions are bonafide and genuine transactions between
willing vendor and willing vendee as reasonable prudent men
and the price mentioned is not throw away price at arms
length or depressed sales or brought into existence to
inflate market value-,of the lands under acquisition and the
sales are accommodating one. Equally it must be brought on
record the comparative nature of the lands covered under the
sale deed and the acquired lands whether adjacent or actual
distance or possessed of similar advantages and whether
transactions themselves are genuine and bonafide trans-
actions. This proposition of law, since settled law, in
fairness, has not been disputed across the bar. The
contention is that at the relevant time it was not being
insisted upon. Therefore, none of the witnesses were called
to prove the sale deeds or to prove the sale transactions.
Therefore , when evidence of potential value is available,
the same could be considered. We find merit in the
contention. At one time we thought of remanding the cases
but we find that it would be needless prologation and the
complexion on ground by now would have been completely
changed. In view of the above settled legal position and
the circumstances, the documentary evidence of sale
transactions or in the mutation entries on either side are
clearly not admissible and therefore, they cannot be looked
into, and are accordingly excluded from consideration.
The only question, therefore, is whether the lands are
possessed of potential value and whether the same treatment
could be meted out to Abi and Barani lands. Ghair Munkin
land stands on a different footing and, therefore, they
cannot be equated with the Abi and Barani lands. The
situation of the lands as extracted here in before clearly
shows that the lands are situated very close to developed
Chandigarh planned city and are very near to Sukhna Lake and
are also nearer to railway track. They are situated within
the freezed zone for future potential development of the
city. Thereby, it is clear that though the acquisition was
for establishment of Brick Kilns, by its very nature may
not immediately be capable of being used for residential or
commercial purposes, but certainly possessed of potential
value for future development as residential and commercial
purposes. Then what would be the reasonable market value
prevailing as on the date of notification. As rightly
contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar that there is a distinction
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
between the lands acquired for motor market or Mansa Housing
Complex on one hand and the lands under acquisition on the
other hand, though the lands are Abi
377
lands. The acquired lands are situated on the western side
of Manimazra Panchkula road and the motor market was
situated on the other side of the road. Therefore, the
market value of the land acquired for motor market do not
tender any assistance as comparable prices. Obviously for
that reason the same learned Single Judge while deciding
both the appeals on the same day declined to enhance the
market value to these lands while he awarded to lands in 2nd
belt at Rs. 75,000 per acre. We have no information whether
any appeal was filed against that judgment. But certainly
the facts of these cases would assist us to assess a fair
and reasonable compensation in fixing the market value
though an amount of guess work is involved. We are conscious
of the fact that it should not be founded on feats of
imagination hedged with undue emphasis of compulsory
deprivation of the possession of the land of the appellants,
for the exercise of State’s power of eminent domain,
statutory solatium is the premium the state pays.
Therefore, the approach should be pragmatic to recompense
the appellants to secure alternative lands or to invest in
profitable business for rehabilitation. It is seen that the
Reference Court awarded a sum of Rs.33,600 per acre to Abi
land. There is a steady rise in prices as reflected in the
judgment in the other appeals relied on by the learned
counsel for appellants. The High Court also recorded
a.finding in that behalf in those appeals. The lands are
situated in the same H.B. No. 375, though at different
places and distance having future potential development.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances we
find that market value @ Rs. 42,000 per acre would be just
and fair. This value should be for Abi and for Barani lands
at Rs. 38,000 per acre and the market value to ghair munkin
land at Rs. 12,000 per acre awarded by the Civil Court is
confirmed. The appellants are entitle to Solatium and
interest on the enhanced market value at 15 per cent and 6
per cent respectively from the date of taking possession
till the date of payment as the award and the order of the
Civil Court are prior to the periods mentioned in the
Amendment Act 1984 came into force. In the circumstances
parties are directed to bear their own costs.
G.N.
Appeals Partly allowed.
378