REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2007
Faridabad Gas Power Project,
NTPC Ltd., etc. ..... Appellants
Versus
Om Prakash & Ors., etc. ..... Respondents
WITH
C.A.No.525/2007, C.A.No.523/2007, C.A.No.520/2007,
C.A.No.518/2007, C.A.No.524/2007, C.A.No.506/2007,
C.A.No.519/2007, C.A.No.522/2007, C.A.No.512/2007,
C.A.No.508/2007, C.A.No.502/2007, C.A.No.507/2007,
C.A.No.504/2007, C.A.No.509/2007, C.A.No.517/2007,
C.A.No.553/2007, C.A.No.554/2007, C.A.No.552/2007,
C.A.No.549/2007, C.A.No.526/2007, C.A.No.551/2007,
C.A.No.510/2007, C.A.No.516/2007, C.A.No.514/2007,
C.A.No.521/2007, C.A.No.515/2007, C.A.No.513/2007,
C.A.No.511/2007, C.A.No.584/2007, C.A.No.582/2007,
C.A.No.583/2007, C.A.No.696/2007, C.A.No.580/2007,
C.A.No.579/2007, C.A.No.574/2007, C.A.No.576/2007,
C.A.No.533/2007, C.A.No.532/2007, C.A.No.527/2007,
C.A.No.529/2007, C.A.No.530/2007, C.A.No.531/2007,
C.A.No.528/2007, C.A.No.571/2007, C.A.No.581/2007,
C.A.No.578/2007, C.A.No.575/2007, C.A.No.500/2007,
C.A.No.572/2007, C.A.No.497/2007, C.A.No.567/2007,
C.A.No.563/2007, C.A.No.565/2007, C.A.No.561/2007,
C.A.No.558/2007, C.A.No.501/2007, C.A.No.494/2007,
C.A.No.564/2007, C.A.No.560/2007, C.A.No.559/2007,
C.A.No.557/2007, C.A.No.556/2007, C.A.No.562/2007,
C.A.No.555/2007, C.A.No.499/2007, C.A.No.536/2007,
C.A.No.537/2007, C.A.No.541/2007, C.A.No.544/2007,
2
C.A.No.546/2007, C.A.No.548/2007, C.A.No.585/2007,
C.A.No.586/2007, C.A.No.587/2007, C.A.No.588/2007,
C.A.No.589/2007, C.A.No.590/2007, C.A.No.591/2007,
C.A.No.592/2007, C.A.No.535/2007, C.A.No.547/2007,
C.A.No.545/2007, C.A.No.656/2007, C.A.No.543/2007,
C.A.No.542/2007, C.A.No.540/2007, C.A.No.539/2007,
C.A.No.871/2007, C.A.No.845/2007, C.A.No.655/2007,
C.A.No.698/2007, C.A.No.569/2007, C.A.No.566/2007,
C.A.No.568/2007, C.A.No.570/2007,
C.A. No.730 of 2009
[arising out of SLP(C) No. 7457/2007],
C. A. No. 731 of 2009
[arising out of SLP(C) No. 7460/2007],
C.A. No.732 of 2009
[arising out of SLP(C)No.7458/2008],
C. A. No. 735 of 2009
[arising out of SLP (C) No.3211/09 [CC 3846/2007
C. A. No.733 of 2009
[arising out of SLP(C) No. 3209/09 [CC 3880/2007],
C. A. No.734 of 2009
[arising out of SLP(C) No. 3210/09 [CC 3893/2007],
C. A. No. 736 of 2009
[arising out of SLP (C)No.11558/2007],
C.A. No.737 of 2009
[arising out of SLP(C)No.9385/2007],
C.A. No.738 of 2009
[arising out of SLP(C)No.9485/2007],
C.A. No.739 of 2009
[arising out of SLP(C)No.7031/2006],
C.A. No.740 of 2009
[arising out of SLP(C)No.7032/2006],
C.A. No.741of 2009
[arising out of SLP(C)No.7033/2006],
C.A. No.742 of 2009
[arising out of SLP(C)No.7008/2006]
JUDGMENT
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
Delay condoned and leave granted in Special Leave
Petitions.
1.1) The appellant-Faridabad Gas Power Project, NTPCL, has
filed Civil Appeal Nos.493, 523, 520, 518, 524, 519, 522, 512,
508, 502, 504, 509, 517, 553, 554, 552, 514, 521, 515, 513,
584, 582, 583, 596, 580, 579, 574, 576, 532, 527, 529, 531,
528, 571, 497, 567, 501, 494, 564, 560, 545, 656, 543, 540,
539, 570 of 2007 and Civil Appeal arising out of S.L. P. [C] No.
7033/06 with regard to village Mujheri; Civil Appeal Nos. 525,
506, 507, 549, 511, 533, 530, 561, 559, 557, 556, 562, 536,
541, 546, 586, 587, 590, 535, of 2007 and Civil Appeal arising
out of S.L. P. [C] Nos.7457, 9485 of 2007, 7032, 7008 of 2006,
7460, 7458, 3846, 3880, 3893, 9385 of 2007 with regard to
village Sihi; Civil Appeal Nos. 551, 510, 578, 565, 555, 499,
589, 592, 547 of 2007, Civil Appeal arising out of S.L. P. [C]
No.11558 of 2007 with regard to village Jhajru; Civil Appeal
Nos.544, 548, 588, 542, 655, 698 of 2007, and Civil Appeal
arising out of S.L.P. [C] No.7031 of 2006 with regard to village
Neemka and Civil Appeal Nos.516, 575, 500, 572, 563, 558,
537, 591 of 2007 with regard to village Pyala.
1.2) Civil Appeal Nos.569, 566 and 568 of 2007 have been
filed by claimants, who are residents of village Mujheri;
whereas Civil Appeal Nos.526, 581, 585, 871, 845 of 2007
have been filed by claimants of village Jhajru for enhancement
of the amounts of compensation.
2. All the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common judgment
and order dated 29.05.2004 passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Regular First Appeal
No.1543 of 2000 and a batch of 146 connected appeals. By
the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the
appeals filed by M/s. Faridabad Gas Power Project, National
Thermal Power Corporation Limited, as well as by the land
owners and confirmed the judgment and decree dated
21.02.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge,
Faridabad, in land references preferred under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since common questions of
facts and law are involved in these cases they were heard
together and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. The brief facts, which led to the filing of these appeals,
are as follows:-
3.1) The State of Haryana issued Notification dated
16.08.1995 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 [for short `the Act’] for acquisition of a track of 319.31
acres of lands in five villages, namely, Mujheri (154.23 acres),
Neemka (67 acres), Sihi (73 acres), Jhajru (24.12 acres) and
Pyala (0.96 acres) situated in Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District
Faridabad, for public purpose, namely, for construction of 400
MW Faridabad Gas Based Power Project with an ultimate
capacity of 1200 MW [a unit of National Thermal Power
Corporation Limited, Government of India Enterprise].
3.2) The Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad [for short
`LAC’] awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per
acre for Chahi land, i.e. about Rs.52/- per sq. yard and
Rs.2,00,000/- per acre, i.e. Rs.42/- per sq. yard for Banjar
Kadim and Gair Mumkin lands falling in the revenue estate of
villages Mujheri, Neemka and Sihi. For the land acquired in
village Jhajru, the LAC awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,57,000/- per acre for Chahi land and Rs.1,50,000/- per
acre for `Gair Mumkin’ land. With regard to the acquisition of
land in village Pyala, the LAC awarded compensation at the
rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for Chahi land. Other statutory
benefits for which the claimants are entitled to were also
awarded to the land owners.
3.3) Being aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the award
passed by the LAC, the claimants preferred reference
applications under Section 18 of the Act. According to the
claimants, they are entitled to the enhancement of
compensation as their land acquired by the State has
potential value for residential or commercial purposes. The
State of Haryana contested the references, inter alia,
contending that the land owners had accepted the
compensation without protest; that the acquired land is
situated in different villages far away from the urban areas of
Faridabad – Ballabgarh towns and did not possess any
potentiality other than being agricultural land.
3.4) Before the reference court (Additional District Judge,
Faridabad), the parties led evidence and raised mainly the
following two issues:-
i) What was the market price of the
acquired land on the date of
publication of notification under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894?
ii) Whether the petitioners are estopped
from filing the petition by their acts
and conduct?
The Additional District Judge vide common judgments
[judgment dated 21.02.2000 in respect of lands in the villages
Mujheri and Sihi and judgment dated 07.03.2000 in regard to
Neemka lands] awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.306/-
per sq. yard equivalent to Rs.14,81,040/- per acre for the land
acquired in villages Mujheri, Neemka and Sihi respectively. In
regard to the lands acquired in village Jhajru situated away
from the lands at Mujheri, Neemka and Sihi, compensation at
the rate of Rs.190/- per sq. yard equivalent to Rs.9,19,600/-
per acre was awarded as per award dated 21.02.2000. For the
land situated in village Pyala, the reference court is said to
have awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per
acre. In answer to the second issue, the reference court
observed that the reference applications preferred by the
claimants under Section 18 of the Act, could be construed as
protest against the award and there was no need for them to
lodge separate protest in writing before accepting the
compensation. The reference court allowed the reference
applications made by the claimants and accordingly,
enhanced the amounts of compensation.
3.5) A batch of appeals under Section 54 of the Act came to
be filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, both by
NTPC praying for reduction of the amount of compensation
awarded by the reference court, and a section of claimants
seeking enhancement of the amounts of compensation for the
acquired land.
3.6) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
having gone through the award of the reference court as well
as other material on record, the High Court by its judgment
dated 29.05.2004 dismissed all the appeals and thereby
confirmed the award made by the reference court. Hence,
these appeals have been preferred by the NTPC and by the
claimants challenging the correctness and validity of the
common judgment and order of the High Court.
4. In the light of the factual situation and having carefully
perused the judgment of the High Court impugned before this
Court, we have heard the learned counsel for all the parties.
5. Mr. S. K. Dhingra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the NTPC, contended that sale deeds produced by the
appellants ought to have been accepted as a piece of best
evidence for determining the market value of the land in
question, but the reference court as well as the High Court,
both have wrongly ignored the said transactions from
consideration merely on the grounds that the instances of sale
portions of the land were made about two years before the
Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in the present
cases and approximately one year after the acquisition of the
land. Reference to the sale deed dated 23.06.1994 (Exhibit
R6) (though the actual date of execution is 23.06.1994) has
been made by the learned counsel vide which Raghbir and
Ram Lal had sold land measuring 1 Kanal and 10 Marlas
situated in village Mujheri to Manoj Goyal (who is one of the
claimants in the present cases) for a consideration of
Rs.40,000/- [about Rs.44.40 per sq. yard]. Copy of another
sale deed dated 30.06.1993 (Exhibit R5) vide which Smt.
Kamla had sold land measuring 1 Kanal 11 Marlas in village
Mujheri in favour of Haria for a sum of Rs.39,000/- [about
Rs.41.58 per sq. yard] was also relied on by Mr. Dhingra to
emphasise his point that the courts below have grossly erred
in ignoring the above-said vital documentary evidence on the
basis of which just compensation could have been determined
and paid to the claimants.
6. It was then urged by Mr. S.K. Dhingra that for
determining the market value of the land in question, the
reference court as well as the High Court have erred in placing
unnecessary reliance on award dated 29.04.1998 (Exhibit P7)
passed by the reference Court fixing the market value of the
land at village Sihi, which was acquired for development of
Sector-II, Faridabad vide preliminary notification dated
23.11.1992 at the rate of Rs.250/- per square yard and later
on enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 291/- per square yard
vide judgment dated 26.08.1999 (Ext. PX) by ignoring the
distance of about 2= kms. between the lands in question and
the land acquired for Sector-II, Faridabad, which is situated
on the western side of Agra Canal. It was also submitted that
in any event determination of the market value of the acquired
lands at the rate of Rs. 306/- per square yard by giving
annual appreciation at the rate of 5% by the courts below for
agricultural land situated in villages Mujheri, Neemka and
Sihi, was entirely speculative based upon unsatisfactory and
unreliable evidence led by the claimants.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
contesting claimants, submitted that the reference court and
the High Court both have rightly rejected the sale transactions
relied on by the NTPC as the said sale instances should not be
relied on as related to sale of stray pieces of land sold by the
sellers for lesser consideration for obvious stamp duty
undervaluation or dire need. It was also contended that sale
deed [Ex. R5] was rightly ignored by the courts below from
consideration for determining the market value of the acquired
land as the same was simply a distress sale executed by a co-
sharer who had only thshare in the entire property. He
submitted that the sale transaction under Ex.R6 dated
23.06.1996 was also rightly rejected as it related to a distress
sale of a share in a land subject to a 99 year lease without
possession. It was also contended that the land acquired for
the NTPC in villages Mujheri, Neemka and Sihi are located
close to Ballabgarh – Tigaon Road and the evidence led by
NTPC itself proved that two gas godowns, six factories, one
farm house and one poultry farm are in existence on the road
side quite adjacent to the acquired land at the time of the
acquisition. It was also contended that land situated in these
villages have great potential for industrial purposes. It was
emphasised that sale deed (Ex. R5) dated 30.06.1993 relied on
by NTPC was executed long prior to the date of Notification
under Section 4 of the Act and did not correctly reflect the
market value of the acquired land as it did not pertain to land
of similar nature and quality. By assuming that Ex. R6 was
executed on 23.06.1996 he contended that Ex. R6 pertained
to a sale subsequent to the preliminary notification of the
lands acquired and, therefore, had no evidentiary value. He
next contended that in the present cases, the reference court
and the High Court both have properly fixed the market value
of the land on the basis of the award dated 29.4.1998 (Ex. P7)
as confirmed by the High Court vide judgment dated
26.08.1999 Ex. PX in R.F.A. No. 3502 of 1998. It was
submitted that there was an arithmetical error in calculation,
as the reference court and the High Court have held that the
claimants were entitled to an increase of 5% per year (that is
15% for 3 years) over Rs.291/- per sq. yard determined for
lands acquired for development of Sector-II, Faridabad, the
actual value ought to have been Rs.334.65, whereas what has
been awarded was only Rs.306/- per sq. yard and, therefore,
there was no question of reducing the compensation so
awarded. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the
question that arises for our consideration is:
“Whether the market value determined by
the reference court and confirmed by the High
Court is correct or there is some error in
determining the compensation?”
8. Before considering the evidence and the rival
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we may
refer to the decisions referred to by the parties regarding
determination of the market value.
8.1) In State of M. P. v. Shantabai (Smt.) & Ors. [(1995) Suppl.
2 SCC 28], relied upon by Mr. S.K. Dhingra, learned counsel
for NTPC, this Court observed that fixation of market value by
the Civil Court equivalent with reference to contemporaneous
sale transactions was proper.
8.2) In Shakuntalabai (Smt.) & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
[(1996) 2 SCC 152], it was held that if there is evidence or
admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value
commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel
beyond the boundary of the acquired land is obviated.
Further, when the owner himself has purchased the land
under acquisition few years earlier to the Notification under
Section 4 of the Act, the consideration mentioned in the sale
deed would form the basis to determine the market value and
it is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider
the market value prevailing in the adjacent lands.
8.3) In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, Distt. Badaun
through its Secretary v. Bipin Kumar & Anr. [(2004) 2 SCC 283],
it is held that basic valuation register maintained for stamp
duty purposes cannot be relied upon while determining the
market value of the acquired land and further that
comparable sales method is the best acceptable method for
such determination.
8.4) In V. Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by LRs. v. Land
Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer [(2003) 12 SCC 642],
this Court held that while determining the market value of the
acquired land lying in the interior areas, the sale instances of
the land abutting the National Highway cannot be relied on for
determining the compensation of land which was situated 100
yards from the National Highway.
8.5) In K. S. Shivadevamma & Ors. v. Assistant Commissioner
& LAO & Anr. [(1996) 2 SCC 62; Basavva (Smt.) & Ors. v. Spl.
Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. [(1996) 9 SCC 640 and in
Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 354], this
Court held that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped
land which has potential value for housing or commercial
purposes, deductions between 53% to 33.33% should be
deducted towards the cost of development out of the amount
calculated with reference to market value of developed land.
In some cases where the acquired land is semi-developed or
having road and other facilities, this Court has restricted the
deduction even to 20%, but that is in exceptional
circumstances. In short, the extent of deduction depends
upon the nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for
development of the land so as to make the plots for residential
or commercial purposes and the area required for laying out
roads and other civic amenities.
8.6) In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. & Ors.
[(2005) 12 SCC 1], this Court held:
“25. The best method, as is well-known, would
be the amount which a willing purchaser would
pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any
direct evidence, the court, however, may take
recourse to various other known methods.
Evidences admissible therefor inter alia would be
judgments and awards passed in respect of
acquisitions of lands made in the same village
and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment
and award in the absence of any other evidence
like deed of sale, report of the expert and other
relevant evidence would have only evidentiary
value.
26. Therefore, the contention that as the Union
of India was a party to the said awards would not
by itself be a ground to invoke the principles of
res judicata and/or estoppel. Despite such
awards it may be open to the Union of India to
question the entitlement of the respondent
claimants to the amount of compensation and/
or the statutory limitations in respect thereof. It
would also be open to it to raise other
contentions relying on or on the basis of other
materials brought on record. It was also open to
the appellant to contend that the lands under
acquisition are not similar to the lands in respect
whereof judgments have been delivered. The area
of the land, the nature thereof, advantages and
disadvantages occurring therein amongst others
would be relevant factors for determining the
actual market value of the property although
such judgments/awards, if duly brought on
records, as stated hereinbefore, would be
admissible in evidence.
27. Even if the Union of India had not preferred
any appeal against the said judgment and award;
it would not be estopped and precluded from
raising the said question in a different proceeding
as in a given case it is permissible in law to do
the same keeping in view the larger public
interest.”
This Court reiterated that one of the modes of computing the
market value would be with reference to judgments and
awards passed in respect of acquisitions of similar land
subject to such increase or decrease thereupon as may be
applicable having regard to the accepted principles laid down
therefor. The extent of the land, the nature thereof,
advantages and disadvantages occurring therein amongst
others would be relevant factors for determining the actual
market value of the property. This Court also reiterated that
for the purpose of determining the market value of the
acquired lands on the basis of the comparable sales method,
the land sought to be compared must be similar in potentiality
and nature. It also took note of the fact that the market value
of agricultural lands is lower than that of the land suitable for
commercial purposes. This Court also cautioned that the
enormity of financial implication of enhancement in view of
the size of the land acquired for a particular project should be
kept in mind.
8.7) In Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally village,
Nizamabad District, A. P. v. Nookala Rajamallu & Ors.
[(2003) 12 SCC 334 (para 9)], it was observed:
“It can be broadly stated that the element
of speculation is reduced to a minimum if
the underlying principles of fixation of
market value with reference to
comparable sales are made:
i) when sale is within a reasonable time of
the date of notification under Section 4
(1);
ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;
iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the
land adjacent to the land acquired; and
iv) it should possess similar advantages.”
8.8) In Panna Lal Ghosh & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector &
Ors. [(2004) 1 SCC 467), this Court said that the most reliable
way to determine the value is to rely on the instances of sale
portions of the same land as has been acquired or adjacent
lands made shortly before or after the Section 4 Notification.
8.9) In the case of Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust,
Bhopal [(1989) 2 SCC 329], in a case under the Madhya
Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960, this Court has
held that the rates paid for small parcels of land do not
provide a useful guide for determining the market value of the
land acquired. While determining the market value of the
land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so
that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the
acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner.
8.10) In Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased) through his Heirs
and LRs. and Others v. State of Gujarat [(1989) 4 SCC 250], this
Court held that the market value of a property for purposes of
Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is the price at which
the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing,
but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length. Prices
fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and
potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about
the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and,
indeed the best evidences of market value. Nelson Fernandes
& Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa & Ors.
[(2007) 9 SCC 447] is the ratio to similar effect.
8.11) In Ranjit Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh
[(1992) 4 SCC 659], this Court held that the market value of
lands acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification could
not have been freezed at the same market value fixed for
similar lands acquired under a previous notification after
lapse of period of one year and the general increase of land
prices during that period, higher market value say about 10%
per year should be awarded. In Delhi Development Authority v.
Bali Ram Sharma & Ors. [(2004) 6 SCC 533], it is held that in
cases where the purpose of acquisition was the same but the
notification under Section 4(1) was issued on a subsequent
date, obviously there would be escalation of prices in regard to
those lands. Hence, it would be just and appropriate to give
an annual increase of 10% in the market value in respect of
the lands which were acquired by a subsequent notification.
In The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. [JT 2008 (9) SC 480], it is
held that increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas
was about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding
increase in rural areas would at best be around half of it, that
is about 5% to 7.5% per annum, in the absence of evidence of
sudden spurts or fall in prices.
8.12) In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of
Gujarat [(2005) 4 SCC 789], it is reiterated that the relevant
factors for the determination of compensation are 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-`-vis the land under
acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive
factors are (i) smallness of size (ii) proximity to a road; (iii)
frontage on a road; (iv) nearness to developed area; (v) regular
shape, (vi) level vis-`-vis land under acquisition and (vii)
special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it
may have some very special advantage and the negative
factors are: (i) largeness of area; (ii) situation in the interior at
a distance from the road; (iii) narrow strip of land with very
small frontage compared to depth; (iv) lower level requiring the
depressed portion to be filled up; (v) remoteness from
developed locality and (vi) some special disadvantageous
factors which would deter a purchaser.
8.13) In ONGC Limited v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & Ors.
[(2005) 6 SCC 454], it is held that instances of sale in respect
of the similar land situated in the same village and/or
neighbouring villages can be taken as guiding factors for
determination of market value. In Union of India v. Harinder
Pal Singh & Ors. [(2005) 12 SCC 564], this Court observed
that in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the
market value of the acquired land in a village which was
acquired at the same time as the lands in other villages, was
considered to be correct comparative unit for determination of
the market value of the acquired lands. On the other hand in
Kanwar Singh v. Union of India [(1998) 8 SCC 136], this Court
cautioned that transactions of neighbouring village are not
reliable where the situation and potentialities of lands in the
two villages were different.
8.14) We will now examine the correctness and legality of the
judgment of the High Court affirming the decision of the
reference court, in the light of the well-settled principles and
the evidence led by the parties in these cases.
Re: lands at Mujheri, Sihi and Neemka
9. In support of their claims, the claimants led evidence
both oral and documentary. The documents relied on
included the Site Plan (Ex. P1); Aks-Shajra of village Mujheri
(Ex. P2); latest Development Plan (Master Plan) (Ex. P3);
Receipt (Ex. P4), copy of sale deed dated 07.01.1994 (Ex. P6)
vide which Ramlal sold land measuring 100 sq. yards in
favour of M/s. Assemblies of God for Rs. 33,000/-; copy of
judgment dated 29.04.1998 (Ex. P7) passed by the Additional
District Judge, Faridabad in LAC Case No. 185/97 titled Ved
Prakash and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. and connected
cases whereby and whereunder compensation was awarded at
the rate of Rs. 250/- per square yard in respect of the land
acquired by the State of Haryana vide Notification dated
23.11.1992 for development of Sector-II, Faridabad; Copy of
judgment dated 07.08.1997 delivered by Additional District
Judge, Faridabad in LAC Case No. 607/97 (Ex. P8) titled Tek
Singh v. LAC and other connected cases whereby
compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 392.50 per sq.
yard in respect of the land acquired vide notification dated
05.06.1992 and dated 04.06.1993 for development of Sector
20-B Faridabad; copy of judgment dated 27.10.1997 (Ex. P9)
passed by Additional District Judge in LAC Case No.282/97
titled Nathan Singh v. LAC and other connected cases
awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 435/- per square
yard in respect of the land acquired vide notification dated
07.04.1996 for green belt of West of Delhi-Mathura Road,
Sector-12, Faridabad.
10. In rebuttal, NTPC and the State examined ten witnesses
and tendered in evidence Development Plan of Faridabad –
Ballabgarh Controlled Area (Ex. R1); award of Land
Acquisition Collector (Ex. R2); copy of payment of
compensation (Ex. R3); copy of sale deed dated 30.06.1993
(Ex. R5) vide which Smt. Kamla sold 1 kanal 11 marlas land in
favour of Haria for a sum of Rs. 39,000/-; copy of sale deed
(Exhibit R6) dated 23.6.1996 vide which Raghuvir and Ramlal
sons of Lal Singh sold land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas in
favour of Manoj Goyal for Rs. 40,000/-; copy of mutation of
sales for the year 1992-93 (Ex. R7) and a copy of Site
(Development) Plan (Ex. R-8).
11. The reference court as well as the High Court have
considered the entire oral and documentary evidence on
record and concluded that the sale deed [Ex. P6] dated
07.01.1994 on which reliance has been placed by the
claimants cannot be considered as a comparable instance to
determine the market value of large extent of the acquired
land as the document Ex. P6 pertained to a small piece of land
measuring only 100 sq. yards in the developed area of village
Sihi which was sold by Ramlal in favour of M/s Assemblies of
God, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 33, 000/-. We find no fault in
the finding of the courts below in rejecting the sale deed (Ex.
P6) on the well-reasoned ground. The copy of the mutation
entries of sales transaction effected in the year 1992-93
cannot be accepted as admissible evidence for determining the
market value of the land acquired. The sale deed dated
30.06.1993 (Ex. R5) has been rightly rejected by the reference
court and the High Court because the said sale deed was
executed about two years prior to the preliminary notification
issued in the present cases and the said sale is nothing but a
distress sale made by a co-owner who had only one-eighth
share in the land. Sale deed dated 23.06.1996 (Ex. R6) is also
rightly rejected as it relates to a share in a land, which was
given on lease for a period of 99 years without possession.
Exhibits P1, P2, P3 and R1 would merely reflect the location of
the land acquired and Exhibit P3 and Exhibit R1 are the
Development Plans for Faridabad – Ballabgarh Controlled Area
issued from the office of the MCF, Faridabad.
12) It is not in dispute that 154.23 acres of acquired land in
village Mujheri was adjacent to Sector-II, Faridabad, for which
preliminary notification was issued on 23.11.1992 and by
award dated 29.04.1998 (Ex. P7), the reference court awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/- per square yard. Being
aggrieved thereto, the claimants and the Government of
Haryana both preferred Regular First Appeals before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court vide Judgment
dated 26.8.1999 allowed Regular First Appeal No. 3502/1998
of the claimants titled Ved Prakash & Anr. v. State of Haryana
and enhanced the market value to Rs. 291/- per square yard.
A copy of the judgment dated 26.08.1999 [Ex. PX] of the High
Court was placed on record of the reference court in the
present proceedings, which was not objected to and disputed
by the NTPC. The reference court relying on the said
judgment of the High Court came to the conclusion that the
land in question was similar in quality and by adding 5%
increase, the market value of the acquired land is enhanced
from Rs.250/- per square yard to Rs.291/- per square yard.
The High Court has also observed that by all standards there
existed similarity of location and potential value of the land
acquired by NTPC and the land for Sector-II, Faridabad which
was utilized for urbanization.
13. It is the evidence of Mohinder Singh-claimant [P.W. 4]
that the boundaries of villages Mujheri and Sihi adjoin the
boundaries of lands situated in villages Okhla and
Muharajpur. He stated that at the time of publication of
Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present cases,
the market value of the land was approximately Rs. 1,200/- to
Rs. 1,500/- per square yard. There is pucca road from
Ballabgarh to village Tigaon which is extended upto village
Manjhawali and the land situated at village Mujheri adjoins
the land situated at Ballabgarh-Tigaon Road. It is his
evidence that the potential value of the land falling within the
vicinity of village Mujheri and village Sihi are the same. This
witness has given speculative market value of the land
without any basis. Therefore, his evidence in regard to the
market value of the land does not lead us to believe that the
market value of the acquired land was approximately
Rs.1,200/- to Rs.1,500/- per square yard. The evidence of
this witness mainly deals with the location of the acquired
land.
14. R.W. 4 – Dharambir Singh, Deed Writer, District Court,
Faridabad is the subscriber of original sale deed Exhibit R5.
In cross-examination this witness admitted that village
Mujheri is situated on Ballabgarh-Tigaon Road. He also
admitted that the acquired land of village Mujheri adjoins the
land of village Sihi, a part of which has also been acquired for
the purpose of NTPC and out of the vast track of lands, some
area was earlier acquired for development of Sector-II,
Faridabad. He stated that many factories are in existence in
the village. There exists a water treatment plant just opposite
to the acquired land in village Mujheri and on the opposite
side of village Mujheri, a vast track of land falling in village
Neemka has been acquired by HUDA for the purpose of
establishment of big industries. According to him, at the time
of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the value of
the acquired land was Rs. 900/- to Rs. 1,000/- per square
yard. R.W. 6 – Bisham Singh, at the relevant time was posted
as Patwari in Land Acquisition Collector’s Office, Faridabad.
He has placed on record two awards of the reference court
passed in LAC Case No. 607/1997 and LAC Case No.
282/1997. In cross-examination, he admitted that he has
seen the land acquired in village Mujheri and the land earlier
acquired for development of Sector-II, Faridabad. He stated
that Agra Canal falls between land at village Mujheri and land
in Sector-II, Faridabad and the land acquired at village
Mujheri is situated on Ballabgarh – Tigaon Road. R.W. 7 –
Ashok Kumar Patwari, village Mujheri, Tehsil Ballabgarh
stated that lands of villages Sihi and Mujheri are situated on
Ballabgarh-Tigaon Road and there exists a disposal tank just
opposite to the acquired land across the Ballabgarh – Tigaon
Road which is located in Mirjapur. He deposed that near the
acquired land at village Mujheri, there are three or four
factories in existence, besides gas godowns etc. and the abadi
of village Sihi has extended upto Agra Canal near Sector-II
and Sector-III, Faridabad. He admitted that the value of the
land near Sectors-II and III, Faridabad are not less than Rs.
1000/- per square yard and the value of lands at village
Mujheri and village Sihi could not be assessed less than Rs.
500/- to Rs. 600/- per sq. yard during the years 1996 to
1999. It is the evidence of R.W. 8 – Mohanlal, Field Kanungo
posted at Ballabgarh that in terms of the order of the
Tehsildar, he demarcated the acquired land at the time of
acquisition. He stated that on the western side of the lands,
there are agricultural lands of village Sihi and on the eastern
side of the acquired lands there is a track of agricultural lands
of the land owners of villages Neemka, Navada, Tigaon and
Mujheri respectively. He admitted that abadi of Ballabgarh
has extended upto Sector-II, Faridabad and after Sector-II
there exists Agra Canal and farther thereto village Sihi is
situated. He also stated that two small factories are in
existence apart from gas godowns adjoining to village Mujheri
and the land acquired for NTPC adjoins Ballabgarh-Tigaon
Road. He further stated that the land in question acquired at
villages Mujheri, Neemka and Sihi were of the same quality
and potentiality.
15. The evidences led by both sides shows that the relied
upon judgment relates to acquisition of lands for development
of Sector-II, Faridabad, situated on the western side of Agra
canal and the lands acquired for NTPC, which are subject-
matter of these appeals, are situated on the eastern side of the
Agra canal. The evidence also discloses that the areas of
villages Mujheri and Sihi on the western side of the Agra canal
are far better developed and are close to urban areas. On the
other hand, the lands on the eastern side of the Agra canal
acquired for NTPC were undeveloped and purely agricultural
in nature. The evidence also shows that the distance between
the two lands separated by the Agra canal may vary from 1 km
to 2.5 km.
16. The evidence of RW.7-Ashok Kumar, Patwari Halqa
Mujheri, Tehsil Ballabgarh, clearly establishes that the
acquired land was agricultural land which was surrounded by
left out agricultural lands of the owners. His statement finds
corroboration with RW-8-Mohan Lal, Field Kanungo, who also
deposed that on the western side of acquired land there exists
large area of agricultural land situated at village Sihi and on
the eastern side there are agricultural lands of villages
Neemka, Mujheri, Navada and Tigoan and on the northern
side there is a Tigaon Road and agricultural lands of village
Neemka and on the southern side there are agricultural lands
at village Mujheri. It has come in the evidence of PW-1 Satya
Prakash Mittal, Draftsman in Civil Court Premises, Faridabad
that `abadi’ of village Sihi falls on the western side of Agra
Canal whereas the acquired lands were situated to the east of
Agra Canal at a distance of 1 km on eastern side of Agra
Canal.
17. On an independent scrutiny of the above-referred to
entire evidence placed on record, it is proved that the entire
chunk of acquired land was purely agricultural in quality and
of lesser potentiality. The lands acquired for Sector-II,
Faridabad, as per notification dated 23.11.1992 were situated
in a better developed area with greater potentiality than the
lands acquired for NTPC.
18. On the facts and circumstances of the matters before us
and difference in quality and potentiality of the lands
acquired, we are of the view that the market value of the
acquired lands for NTPC when compared to the lands acquired
for Sector-II, Faridabad, should be reduced by at least one-
fifth (20%). The value of Sector-II lands had been determined
at Rs.291/- per square yard with reference to a preliminary
notification issued on 23.11.1992. As on 16.08.1995 (date of
preliminary notification in regard to the acquired lands), the
market value of lands acquired for Sector-II was Rs.291/- plus
a cumulative increase of 7.5% per year for three years, which
works out to be Rs.361.50p. per square yard. If 20% is
deducted from the said market value on account of lesser
potential value and quality of the acquired land and the
distance between the two areas, the market value of the
acquired land would be Rs.289/- per square yard. We,
accordingly, hold that the market value for the acquired
agricultural lands situated at Mujheri, Sihi and Neemka
should be Rs.289/- per square yard.
Re : Lands at Jhajru
19. The LAC awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,57,000/- for Chahi lands and Rs.1,50,000/- for Gair
Mumkin and Banjar Kadim lands. The reference court
increased it to Rs.190/- per square yard (Rs.9,19,600/- per
acre). The lands at village Jhajru are far away from the
acquired lands of villages Mujheri, Sihi and Neemka. Lands at
village Jhajru were also agricultural lands situated beyond
Sectors 58 & 59 of Faridabad Town. The reference court
relied upon the market value of Rs.155/- per square yard as
determined in respect of an acquisition of land on 10.06.1988
for Sector-59. As the acquisition for NTPC was in 1995, it
determined the market value as Rs.190/- per square yard, by
providing an increase of Rs.5/- per year.
20. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that at
least the market value of the acquired land ought to have been
determined at the rate of Rs.425/- per square yard awarded
for acquisition of land for Sector-59 by notification dated
10.07.1995 and covered by award of the reference court in
LAC No.26 of 14.08.2003 decided on 31.03.2004.
Alternatively, it was submitted that yearly increase should
have been calculated at the rate of 10% per annum for 7 years
over the market value of Rs.155/- per square yard and
increase awarded in these cases at the rate of Rs.5/- per year
is at a lower rate and wholly unjustified.
21. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that
the reference court should have worked out the market value
of the acquired land by calculating an increase at least at the
cumulative rate of 7.5% per annum for 7 years to arrive at the
market value as determined in the year 1995 and then it
ought to have deducted 20% in that value as the acquired
lands were farther away from Sector-59. Thus, we determine
the market value for the Jhajru lands at Rs.205/- per square
yard (that is 80% of Rs.155/- increased by 7.5% for 7 years).
Re : Land at Pyala:
22. A small track of 0.96 acres of land was acquired in
village Pyala. This village is located in the close vicinity of
Sector-59, Faridabad. The Collector awarded compensation
for the acquired land in this village at the rate of
Rs.1,50,000/- per acre irrespective of the quality of land. The
reference court vide Award dated 21.02.2000 enhanced the
compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. The
NTPC in support of its case has produced copies of Mutation
of Sale (Exs. R2 and R4) pertaining to the period 1992 to 1995
for determining the market value of the acquired land in this
village. Exs. R1 and R7 are the final development plans for
Faridabad-Ballabhgarh Controlled Area which show the exact
location of the acquired land. As per Aks Shajra (Ex. R3), the
acquired land was situated at a distance of 2 to 3 Kilometres
from Delhi-Mathura Road. It has come in the evidence of
Hukam Singh, who at that time was posted as Patwari at
village Pyala, that the acquired land was surrounded by
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Indian Oil
Corporation, etc. He also admitted that the land was acquired
by NTPC for commercial purposes. The reference court and
the High Court both have not found any tangible evidence led
by NTPC to rebut the claim of the claimants. In that view of
the matter, we do not find any manifest error or perversity in
the judgment of the reference court fixing the market value of
the acquired land at Rs.3,00,000/- per acre which has been
confirmed by the High Court.
23. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of as
follows:-
i ) The Civil Appeals filed by the NTPC in regard to the
lands acquired at villages Mujheri, Sihi and Neemka
are allowed in part and as a result thereof the market
value of the lands acquired is reduced from Rs.306/-
per square yard to Rs.289/- per square yard.
ii) The appeals filed by claimants-land owners for
enhancement of compensation in regard to acquisition
of lands of villages Mujheri, Sihi and Neemka are
dismissed.
ii i) In regard to the lands at village Jhajru, the appeals of
NTPC are dismissed and the appeals of the land-
owners of Jhajru are allowed in part and the market
value is increased from Rs.190/- to Rs.205/- per
square yard.
iv ) In regard to lands at village Pyala, the appeals are
dismissed and the compensation determined is
confirmed.
v ) The solatium, additional amount and interest awarded
by the reference court and confirmed by the High
Court are left in tact.
vi ) Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
………………………………….J.
(R. V. RAVEENDRAN)
………………………………….J.
(LOKESHWAR SINGH
PANTA)
New Delhi,
February 05, 2009.