Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.17651767 OF 2022
Jai Parkash Etc Etc ..Appellant (S)
VERSUS
Union Territory, Chandigarh Etc Etc ..Respondent (S)
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.17681791 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.17921804 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.18051806 of 2022
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of
Signature Not Verified
appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2022.03.10
17:13:19 IST
Reason:
and order.
1
2. The relevant facts which are necessary for determination of
the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:
2.1 In all these cases a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 19.03.1999 by
which the Chandigarh Administration sought to acquire
30.78 acres of land situated in Village Hallo Majra,
Hadbast No.219 and 32.92 acres of land situated in Village
Behlana, Hadbast No.231, Union Territory, Chandigarh,
for use by Defence Security Forces. That a notification
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
issued on 23.03.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer
declared the award dated 18.01.2000 and assessed the
market value of the acquired lands of both the villages @
Rs.6,87,837/ per acre. That on reference, the learned
Reference Court determined and enhanced the market
value of the acquired lands of both the villages @
Rs.9,65,000/ per acre. The judgment and award passed
by the Reference Court determining the market value of
the lands @ Rs.9,65,000/ per acre was the subject matter
of appeals before the High Court.
2
2.2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that before the
Reference Court, the original claimants – appellants herein
relied upon the sale deeds produced and exhibited as P43,
P44 and P73 and P74. However, the learned Reference
Court rejected the said sale transactions on the ground
that the said sale transactions are pertaining to small
plots. Therefore, the learned Reference Court discarded the
same. Before the High Court also the original claimants
heavily relied upon the sale instances at exhibit P43, P44
and P73 and P74. By the impugned common impugned
judgment and order, the High Court has held that the
Reference Court ought to have considered the sale
transactions exhibit P73 and P74 and ought to have
determined the market value of the lands acquired, after
adopting some reasonable cut. After taking the average
price of both the sale deeds – exhibit P73 and P74, the
High Court determined the average price of Rs.22,57,000/
per acre. That thereafter after giving a cut of 50%, the High
Court has determined the market value of the acquired
3
lands at Rs.11,28,580/ (round off to Rs.11,30,000/) per
acre.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in
respective appeals, determining/assessing the market
value of the lands acquired at Rs.11,30,000/ per acre, the
original claimants have preferred the present appeals.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respective parties at length.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the High Court
has relied upon the sale instances exhibit P73 and P74
against which no appeals have been preferred by the
Chandigarh Administration. Therefore, the findings
recorded by the High Court that the sale instances i.e.
exhibit P73 and P74 can be best exemplars and which
can be considered for determining and assessing the
market value of the lands acquired, has attained finality.
5. Now the next question which would arise for consideration,
would be, whether in the facts and circumstances of the
4
case, the High Court is justified in applying a deduction of
50% while determining/assessing market price?
5.1 It is to noted that as such nothing has been discussed by
the High Court while applying a deduction of 50%.
Therefore, in the normal course the appeals are required to
be remanded to the High Court for applying the proper cut.
However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties have prayed and requested to make the
appropriate percentage of deduction by this Court instead
of remanding the matters to the High Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and considering the location of the lands
acquired and that part of the acquired land abuts the
National Highway No. 21 and at the same time, the sale
instances exhibit P73 & P74 pertain to comparatively
smaller plots as compared to the acquired lands (in all
approximately 63.70 acres of lands) a reasonable
percentage of deduction is required to be made while
determining/assessing the market price.
5
7. Looking to the location and the purpose for which the
lands have been acquired, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if a
deduction of 40 % is applied instead of 50% as applied by
the High Court, it will meet the end of justice and it can be
said to be a fair market value for the acquired lands.
Therefore, if a deduction of 40% is applied, it will come to
Rs.13,54,200/ per acre. The present appeals are required
to be allowed in part to the aforesaid extent.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all
these present appeals are allowed in part. The impugned
judgments and orders passed by the High Court in
respective Regular First Appeals are hereby modified to the
extent of awarding Rs.13,54,200/ per acre towards
compensation for the acquired lands (instead of
Rs.11,30,000/ per acre as assessed and awarded by the
High Court). The land owners shall also be entitled to all
the statutory benefits available under the Act on the
enhanced amount of compensation. However, it is
observed that so far as the appellants in Civil Appeal
6
Nos.18051806 of 2022, arising out of the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court in RFA
No.1253 of 2004, is concerned, they shall not be entitled to
any interest on 1033 days’ delay on the enhanced amount
of compensation but solatium is payable on the enhanced
amount of compensation for the period of delay i.e., for the
period of 1033 days in filing the Special Leave Petition
before this Court. All these appeals are partly allowed to
the aforesaid extent. In view of the above there shall be no
order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi,
March 10, 2022.
7