RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

REPORTABLE                                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1173     OF 2023    (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3585 of 2022) Ravinder Kumar Goel                              .…Appellant(s) Versus The State of Haryana & Ors.               ….  Respondent(s) With   C.A.NO. 1176 OF  2023 @ of SLP (C) No.4837 of 2022) C.A.NO. 1178 OF 2023 @ of SLP (C) No.7772 of 2022) C.A.NO. 1177 OF 2023 @ of SLP (C) No.7455 of 2022) C.A.NOS. 1182­1210   OF 2023@ of SLP(C) Nos.3446­ 3474/2023 @ D.No.11863 of  2022) C.A.NOS. 1179­1181   OF 2023@ of SLP (C) Nos.10577­  79/2022) C.A.NOS. 1174­1175  OF 2023 @ of SLP (C) Nos.9898­ Signature Not Verified 99/2022) Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.02.16 16:15:06 IST Reason: 1 C.A.NOS.  1217­1220 OF 2023 @ of SLP (C) Nos.622­ 625/2023) C.A.NOS.1211­1216 OF 2023@ of SLP (C) Nos.3434­ 3439/2023 @ D.No.14744 of  2022) C.A.NOS.1221­1222 OF 2023@ of SLP(C) Nos.2450­ 2451/2023) J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna,J.          1. The irony in all these cases is that the appellants are land losers who have been divested from their land either fully or in part to construct an Express Highway over such land for the benefit of others to travel fast but the process to compensate them with a just and fair quantum of money instead of being on the fast track, has been tardy.   It is a couple of years short of two decades from the date of the preliminary notification and the   appellants   are   still   litigating   to   receive   what   is rightfully due to them. 2 2. These appeals even otherwise have a chequered history.   The appellants are before this Court for the second   time.     The   lands   which   were   owned   by   the appellants formed a part of the lands that were notified under Section 4 read with Section 17 (2) of the Land Acquisition   Act,   1894   (for   short   ‘Act,   1894’)   by   the Haryana   Government   Industries   Department.     The preliminary notification was issued on 11.01.2005 and the declaration under Section 6 of Act, 1894 was made on 31.05.2005.   The purpose for which the lands were acquired   is   for   the   construction   of   Express   Highway Phase VII connecting National Highway No.1, 10, 8 and 2 in village Sultanpur, Sub­Tehsil Farukh Nagar, Tehsil, and District Gurugram.  The total extent of land notified for the project was 798 Kanals and 2 Marlas of which, the appellants’ lands are also included. 3. The award was passed by the District Revenue Officer­cum­Land Acquisition Collector (for short ‘LAO’), Gurgaon on 10.05.2006. The market value was fixed at Rs.12,50,000/­ per acre for all kinds of lands as per the rates of the lands supplied by the Collector, Gurugram 3 through the letter dated 03.11.2005.   The land losers including   the   appellants   had   sought   reference   under Section 18 of Act, 1894.  The Reference Court, through its judgment dated 27.02.2012, after consideration had enhanced the market value to Rs.43,17,841/­ per acre. The   High   Court   had   an   occasion   to   consider   the correctness   of   the   same   in   appeals   filed   by   both   the parties before it.  The High Court, on consideration, had through its judgment dated 05.02.2016 enhanced the market value to Rs.62,11,700/­ per acre. The land losers as also the State of Haryana were 4. before this Court assailing the common judgment dated 05.02.2016   passed   by   the   High   Court.     This   Court through its judgment dated 25.01.2018 in the case titled as   Surender   Singh   Vs.   State   of   Haryana   &   Ors. (2018)   3   SCC   278,   remanded   all   the   cases   to   the Reference Court and the parties were permitted to lead further   evidence   whereupon   the   Reference   Court   was required to take a fresh decision in the matter. Accordingly,   the   parties   had   tendered   evidence 5. and   exhibited   the   sale   instances   as   exemplars.   The 4 Reference Court on re­appreciation of the evidence and materials available on record has through its judgment and   award   dated   10.01.2020,   determined   the   market value of the acquired lands at Rs.22,00,754/­ per acre. The parties being aggrieved, were before the High Court. The   Haryana   State   Industrial   and   Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (for short ‘HSIIDC’) had assailed the quantum of market value determined as excessive, while the land losers had sought further enhancement   of   the   market   value.     The   High   Court, through   its   common   judgment   dated   07.10.2021   has modified   the   judgment   of   the   Reference   Court   and reduced the market value to Rs.14,52,010/­ per acre. The land losers being aggrieved by the same are before this Court in these appeals seeking enhancement of the market value in respect of the acquired lands. In the above background, we have heard all the 6. learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel   for   the   respondent­HSIIDC   and   perused   the appeal papers. 5 7. The gist of the contention on behalf of the land losers is that the lands which are the subject matter of these appeals are situated in Sultanpur which is within the   urban   agglomeration.   As   such,   though   the   lands were   depicted   as   agricultural   lands,   in   fact,   the   said lands have non­agricultural potential, more particularly the lands are urbanized lands being located within the urban   area.     In   that   view,   it   is   contended   that   the market   value   cannot   be   determined   by   either considering the land as agricultural land or by applying the   yardstick   which   is   applicable   to   large   tracts   of agricultural   land.     It   is   contended   that   though   the composite notification to acquire the lands consists of 798 Kanals 2 Marlas of land, insofar as the appellants are concerned, they are land owners of small extent of lands which were to be used as urban land for purposes other than agriculture, and therefore, the market value as determined by the High Court on applying the floor rates fixed by the Government, would not be justified.  It is   their   further   contention   that   on   the   matter   being remanded  to  the   Reference  Court,  evidence   had   been 6 adduced wherein sale exemplars were relied on.   It is contended that the Reference Court having taken into consideration all aspects of the matter had in fact rightly relied   on   the   sale   deed   dated   07.12.2004   which   was marked   as   Ex.PX.     Having   done   so,   the   only   error committed by the Reference Court is to deduct 35 per cent   of   the   value   towards   development   charges inasmuch   as   in   the   instant   case,   the   question   of deducting development charges would not be justified as the   entire   acquired   land   has   been   utilized   for   the purpose of constructing roads.   Hence it is contended that the entire amount, being the sale consideration in the said sale deed dated 07.12.2004 is to be reckoned and  the   same   be   determined   as   the   market   value   to quantify the compensation. 8. The gist of the contention put forth by the learned counsel for  the  beneficiary  of  the  acquisition,  namely HSIIDC is that the Reference Court was not justified in placing   reliance   on   the   document   at   Ex.PX,   dated 07.12.2004.  The said document related to the purchase of a small extent as compared to the vast extent of 798 7 Kanals 2 Marlas of land which was acquired.  Hence it does not represent the true value of the acquired lands. It is the further contention that on the other hand, the HSIIDC had relied on, as many as nine sale exemplars between the period 23.07.2004 and 25.11.2005 wherein the larger extent of agricultural land had been sold and the value per acre in all the said instances is lesser than the floor rate which had been taken into consideration. Though the LAO had determined the market value at Rs.12,50,000/­   based   on   the   same,   the   High   Court taking into consideration that there was time gap, has adopted   the   same   and   added   the   escalation   for   the period between the date of the circular indicating the floor   rates   and   the   date   of   the   notification.     It   is contended   that   the   High   Court   having   thus assigned   appropriate reasons has determined the market value and   awarded   just   compensation.   Therefore,   the judgment   does   not   call   for   interference,   is   the submission. 9. In the light of the rival contentions, keeping in view that the only question herein is to determine the 8 appropriate   market   value   for   the   acquired   lands,   the well­settled   yardsticks   are   to   be   kept   in   view   and   a decision is to be taken as to whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the manner of consideration made by the Reference Court and as to whether the High Court was correct in adopting the amount as indicated in the circular providing for the floor rates for fixing the market value in the teeth of the other documents which were available on record.  In this regard, it is noted that the LAO at the first instance while passing the award dated 10.05.2006 has in fact, kept in view the circular dated 03.11.2005 issued by the Collector providing for the   floor   rates   at   Rs.12,50,000/­   per   acre   and   has, accordingly, determined the compensation.  As narrated earlier, when the parties were before this Court in the first   round   of   litigation   in   the   case   titled   Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.  (supra), this Court having   taken  note   of   the   governing   factors   as   to   the determination of market value had remanded the matter for fresh consideration though the circular relating to the floor rates was also available to the benefit of this 9 Court to be noticed and applied if need be.  In that view, in the light of the said circular, without relying on the same,   this   Court   had   directed   that   the   evidence   be tendered by the parties before the Reference Court so as to make such evidence the basis for fresh determination to be made. Despite the same, the High Court in the present   round   has   merely   relied   on   the   circular providing for the floor rates despite other evidence being available on record. Such determination is therefore not justified.   From the records, it is pointed out that as contended on behalf of the parties, the sale exemplars were brought on record to aid the Court to determine the market value, the consideration of which was required to be made to arrive at an appropriate market value. 10. While adverting to this aspect of the matter what is necessary  to  be  noted  is  that  the  Reference  Court before appreciating the evidence, has kept in view the parameters laid down by this Court while considering a reference   for   the   purpose   of   determining   the   market value   of   the   acquired   lands   to   arrive   at   the   just compensation.     Since   the   sale   exemplars   had   been 10 placed by the rival parties before the Reference Court, in order to take the same into consideration, the Reference Court has in fact taken note of the decision of this Court in   State of Gujarat vs. Kakhot SinghJi VajesinghJi Vaghela  (1968) 3 SCR 692.  This Court had enunciated the   principle   that   the   price   agreed   between   a   willing seller and a willing purchaser   would be the price which is generally prevailing in the market in respect of the lands having similar advantages which can be the basis to determine the market value of acquired lands if such sale instances are brought on record.   Further,   the   Reference   Court   had   also   kept   in 11. view the decision of this Court in   Atma Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr. (2008)   2   SCC   568   wherein   it   is   held   that   the   sale instances of small pieces of land cannot be ignored while determining the compensation for a large extent of land acquired.  The rule of deduction on development charges would not be uniformly applicable was also taken into consideration.   It is in that light, the Reference Court 11 has placed reliance  on  the  document at Ex.PX  dated 07.12.2004 relied upon by the land losers.   Under the said   document,   an   extent   of   5   Marlas   was   sold   in Sultanpur i.e. the area which is the subject matter of these   appeals,   for   the   sale   consideration   of Rs.1,05,000/­ which would amount to Rs.33,60,000/­ per   acre.     On   reckoning   the   said   value   of   land,   the Reference   Court   deducted   35   per   cent   of   the   same towards development charges and thereafter added the escalation for   35 days being the difference   of the period between the date of the said sale deed and the date of the preliminary notification.  It is on the said basis that the market value of Rs. 22,00,754/­ per acre was arrived at by the Reference Court. 12.   From the judgment of the Reference Court it is noted that the sale exemplars which were relied upon by the   respondent­HSIIDC   at   Ex.R5/R12,   Ex.R6,   Ex.R9, Ex.R13 to Ex.R16 were discarded since they depict the market value of the land which is lower than the amount awarded by the Collector.   To that extent, the reason assigned by the Reference Court is not justified.   The 12 documents would have to be taken into consideration, to decide as to whether the lands are comparable and, on the   determination,   if   the   conclusion   is   that   they   are comparable but the market value depicted is lesser than what is awarded by the SLAO and if there is no other document to indicate a higher market value, it would be open for the Reference Court to confirm the award of the LAO being more beneficial to the land losers.  Therefore, since we have already indicated that 13. the High Court was not justified in merely relying on the circular fixing the floor rates when other evidence was available on the record pursuant to the remand made, it is   necessary   for   us   to   take   note   as   to   whether   the Reference Court had committed an error in not relying on   the   sale   exemplars   produced   by   the   respondents without analysing the comparability.  The position of law is   well   settled   that   when   large   extent   of   lands   are acquired   and   if   the   sale   exemplar,   also   for   the   large extent is available on record it would be safer to rely on the same if they are comparable transactions.  However, as   already   noted   above,   this   Court   in   Atma   Singh 13 (supra) has also held that the sale instances of smaller   extents   cannot   be   ignored.     Further,   this   Court   has reiterated   in   many   cases   that   the   sale   exemplars   for smaller extent can be relied upon subject to appropriate deduction being provided towards development charges.   14. In   the   instant   case,   though   the   acquisition Notification dated 11.01.2005 was issued in respect of the large extent of lands measuring 798 Kanals and 2 Marlas,     the   extent   of   lands   which   were   owned   by majority of land losers is a small extent. In fact, the details   indicated   in   the   judgment   dated   10.01.2020 passed by the Reference Court has referred to about 69 appellants who were before it.  Therefore, the extent to which each of the appellants is claiming compensation is a smaller extent.  In that background, if the documents relied on by the respondents at Ex.R5 to R16 are noted, the largest extent sold is under Ex.R16 being 32 Kanals and   16   Marlas,   while   the   least   being   under   Ex.R8 measuring 3 Kanals and 8 Marlas.  We have referred to this aspect of the matter to indicate that while approving the procedure for placing reliance on the sale deeds of 14 earlier   sale   transactions   as   exemplars,   this   Court starting from the case of   Kakhot SinghJi Vajesinghji   (supra)   and   several   other   cases   has Vaghela emphasized that the basis for the same is that the value under   such   exemplars   would   represent   the   sale consideration agreed upon between a willing seller and a willing purchaser and therefore would represent the true market value.  15. If   the   above­referred   concept   is   kept   in perspective, one cannot loose sight of the fact that when large   extent   of   agricultural   land   is   sold   under   a document and if the land is to be used for agricultural purpose, the price agreed thereto would be based on the nature of the land and the purpose for which it is put to use.  In cases, where the large extent of agricultural land belonging   to   a   single   owner   is   acquired,   it   would   no doubt be safe to rely on such sale exemplars of large extents, more particularly, in circumstances where the land which is classified as agricultural land is also used for  agricultural  purposes.     In such  circumstances,   to 15 arrive at the market value depending on the nature of the  cultivation,   the   capitalisation   method   by   applying the multiplier to the crop pattern and price derived can be   adopted   and   the   market   value   be   determined   or determine the market value based on such sale deeds which are comparable exemplars.   16. However, the difficulty arises when a person holds a   smaller   extent   of   land   which   is   classified   as agricultural land but would have lost its character due to non­cultivation and urbanization when such land is more  eminent and  fit to be used for non­agricultural purposes.  It is in that circumstance, such land though classified as agricultural will have to be treated as a land having non­agricultural potential more particularly for urban use.  In that light, in appropriate cases depending on the location and the extent of land held by each of the land losers who is a part of the same acquisition, is required to be kept in view, while applying the yardstick to reckon the appropriate exemplar and arrive at the ultimate conclusion. Therefore, there can be no strait jacket formula that when the sale deeds for the sale of 16 large extent are available and large extent of lands are acquired that alone should be reckoned as the exemplar. What   is   material   is   its   comparability,   which   would depend on case to case basis and that is for the Court to analyze based on the evidence available on record. 17. If the above­noted criteria is kept in perspective, in   the   instant   case   as   already   noted   and   also demonstrated to us at the time of hearing with reference to   the   final   development   plan   of   Gurgaon­Manesar Urban Complex 2031 AD,  the lands in issue are within the boundaries of the Municipal Corporation. Further, the very award dated 10.05.2006 passed by the LAO records   that   no   crops   are   standing   on   the   land. Therefore, in that circumstance when smaller extent of land  is  available, the  same would be used for urban development   and   not   for   agricultural   purpose.   Hence relying on Ex. R5 to R16 which are sale deeds of a large extent of agricultural land, would not be justified unless there   was   further   evidence   brought   on   record   to demonstrate that the nature of the lands sold under the said sale deeds and the lands notified are comparable to 17 each other. In that view, though the reason assigned by the Reference Court is not appropriate on that aspect, the ultimate conclusion to eschew the said documents will stand justified. 18. If that be the position, from the documents which were relied upon by the appellants­land losers, the most appropriate   document   to   be   relied   upon   was   Ex.PX dated 07.12.2004 since it was earlier to the notification dated 11.01.2005 under Section 4, read with 17 of Act, 1894 and in close proximity thereto, which has been rightly done by the Reference Court.  Since small extents of   land   belonging   to   the   land   losers,   having   non­ agricultural potential in an urban area was notified for acquisition,   the   said   sale   exemplar   dated   07.12.2004 can be considered as comparable. The Reference Court was, therefore, justified in reckoning the same.   Since the two  dates  are  in close  proximity,  in our  opinion, further addition of the escalation value for 35 days was not justified.  The escalation of that nature is normally to   be   taken   if   there   are   no   documents   within   close proximity to the date of notification and a document of 18 the larger time gap is the only available document to be taken into consideration, in which case, the escalation for a longer time gap is required to be given. 19.   Having arrived at the above conclusion, the next aspect which engages our attention is with regard to the appropriate deduction towards development charges and as   to   whether   the   Reference   Court   was   justified   in deducting 35 per cent of the value from the market value arrived at based on the document at Ex.PX.  The learned counsel for the appellants contend that the acquisition in the instant case is for construction of the road and as such, the deduction was not necessary to be made.  The decision in  C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) vs. Special Land Acquisition   Officer   and   Estate   Officer   and   Anr. (2009) 11 SCC 75 is relied on to contend that in the said case   where   the   land   was   acquired   for   widening   the national highway, this Court has held that there is no question of any further development, and as such the deduction on account of development charges will not be justified.    The  decision in   Piyara Singh & Anr. vs. 19 State of Haryana & Ors. Etc.   (2017) 2 SCALE 323, also a decision where this Court held that the deduction of 40 per cent as made in the said case when the land acquired was roughly 1 kanal to 1 acre per person which ultimately   totals up to 305 acres which was acquired, is not justified is relied upon.   20. Having bestowed our attention to that aspect of the matter, we are of the opinion that in the instant case, the said decisions relied upon by learned counsel for  the   appellants   would   not  be   of   any   assistance   to them since they are rendered entirely based on the fact situation  arising  therein.     In  fact,   this   Court  in   JAG Mahender   &   Anr.   Vs.   State   of   Haryana   &   Ors. through   the   order   dated   21.09.2017   in   Civil   Appeal No.15702/2017 arising out of SLP (C) No.16063 of 2016 and connected appeals had taken into consideration the entire   perspective   relating   to   the   deduction   of development   charges   with   reference   to   the   earlier decisions of this Court in  Haryana State Agricultural Market   Board   &   Anr.   vs.   Krishan   Kumar   &   Ors. 20 (2011) 15 SCC 297 and in   Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.   (2012) 7 SCC 595 wherein on taking note of the nature of development that would be required in the acquired lands and also the rd general rule of deduction of 1/3   of the market value towards development cost except in cases where there is no   development   required,   this   Court   had   ultimately arrived at the conclusion that deduction of 25 per cent would be justified.   In that background, in the instant facts, the land 21. acquired is for the construction of a new Expressway which would require not just laying of the roads but also providing   several   amenities   through   the   highway   and also   creation   of   service   roads,   flyovers,   underpass   to townships across such highway.  Land is also to be left as a divider to bifurcate the two­way roads. Therefore, it would not be justified in saying that no development cost at all would be incurred.  Hence, taking all aspects into   consideration   and   also   taking   into   consideration 21 that the sale exemplar for a smaller extent is being relied on   for   the   reasons   noted   above,   in   the   facts   and circumstance arising herein, it would be appropriate to reckon the deduction towards development cost at 25 per cent of the value taken into consideration under the document Ex. PX dated 07.12.2004.  Therefore, from the amount of Rs.33,60,000/­ which is the value therein, a sum   of   Rs.8,40,000/­   being   25   per   cent   is   to   be deducted.  Hence the market value to be determined in the   present   case   would   be   Rs.25,20,000/­   per   acre, which   shall   be   payable   with   all  statutory   benefits   as compensation for the lands acquired.   22.  Before we part with this matter, one other aspect which   was   brought   to   our   notice   is   that   in   the   first round of the case, a higher rate of compensation was determined and before the judgment was set aside and remanded, in some of the cases the execution was levied and the amount was paid to the land losers.  In view of the determination of the compensation at a lower rate in the present round of proceedings, the excess amount is being   recovered   by   the   respondents.     The   learned 22 counsel   for   the   appellants   contend   that   if   this   Court determines the market value at a lesser rate than what has been paid to some of the appellants, such of those land losers who have received the amount, be protected against recovery.   Learned counsel for the respondents would   vehemently   oppose   such   a   request.     Having considered this aspect of the matter, we are clear in our mind   that  it  would   not  be  possible  for  this   Court  to create two sets of land losers who are otherwise similarly placed, in respect of the same acquisition process after having determined the market value at a particular rate which is applicable to all of them.   23. Therefore, it is needless to mention that if any excess amount has been received by any of the land losers than the extent of the compensation determined herein, the excess amount, in any event, is recoverable. We   cannot   also   lose   sight   of   the   fact   that   such   a situation   has   arisen   due   to   the   earlier   orders   of   the Court determining the compensation. Though it is not a mistake of the Court, it has led to the present situation due   to   the   act   of   the   Court.   It   would   therefore   be 23 appropriate   to   invoke   the   principle   of   ‘ actus   curiae neminem   gravabit ’   so   that   both   parties   are   not prejudiced to the extent possible. Taking note that the amount   which   has   been   received   will   be   invested   or utilised, to enable repayment after making arrangement, we direct that the balance to be refunded, shall be paid back in three half­yearly instalments, free of interest. However, if the amount is not refunded within the time period as provided above, the same shall thereafter carry interest at 9% p.a. and the respondent­HSIIDC would be entitled to recover the same, including the right to make recovery as arrears of land revenue.  24. In the result, we pass the following order; (i) The judgment dated 07.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh   in   RFA   No.421/2021,   RFA No.848/2021   and   connected   appeals, impugned herein, is set aside. (ii) The judgment dated 10.01.2020 passed by the   Additional   District   Judge,   Gurugram 24 (Reference Court) in LAC Case No. 1426 and connected   references   is   restored   and modified. (iii) In modification, it is ordered that the market value of the acquired land is Rs.25,20,000/­ per   acre.   The   same   shall   be   payable   with statutory   benefits   and   the   costs   incurred throughout by the appellants.  (iv) The appeals are accordingly, allowed in part.   Pending applications, if any, stand disposed (v) of. ……………………….J.                                               (A.S. BOPANNA) ……………………….J.                                             (HIMA KOHLI) New Delhi; February 15, 2023 25