Ravinder Kumar Goel vs The State of Haryana & Ors.

HELD : 1.1 The Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector at the first instance while passing the award dated 10.05.2006 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. When the parties were before this Court in the first round of litigation, 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 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 instant round has merely relied on the circular providing for the floor rates despite other evidence being available on record. Such determination is thus, not justified. From the records, it is pointed out that 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. [Para 9][922-F-H; 923-A-B]

1.2. 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. The Reference Court kept in view 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 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. [Paras 10, 11][923C, F-H; 924-A]

1.3. From the judgment of the Reference Court it is noted that the sale exemplars which were relied upon by the respondent -HSIIDC 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 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. [Para 12][924-BC]

1.4. 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 the Court 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. 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. The sale instances of smaller extents cannot be ignored. The sale exemplars for smaller extent can be relied upon subject to appropriate deduction being provided towards development charges. [Para 13][924-D-F]

1.5 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 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. While approving the procedure for placing reliance on the sale deeds of earlier sale transactions as exemplars, this Court has 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. If the said 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 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. [Paras 14, 15][924-G-H; 925-A-E]

1.6. 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 non-cultivation 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 non-agricultural 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. There can be no strait jacket formula that when the sale deeds for the sale of 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. [Para 16][925-E-H]

1.7. The lands in issue are within the boundaries of the Municipal Corporation. 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 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 would stand justified. [Para 17][926B-C]

1.8. If that be the position, from the documents which were relied upon by the appellants- land 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 s. 4, read with 17 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, 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 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. [Para 18][926-D-F]

1.9. The land 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 two -way 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 that the sale exemplar for a smaller extent is being relied on for the reasons noted, 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 instant case would be Rs.25,20,000/-per acre, which would be payable with all statutory benefits as compensation for the lands acquired. [Para 21][927-G-H; 928-A-B]

1.10. 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 appellants contended 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 whereas the respondents opposed such a request. Having considered this aspect of the matter, 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. 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. It cannot be lost 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 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, the balance is directed to be refunded, back in three half-yearly 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 respondent-HSIIDC would be entitled to recover the same, including the right to make recovery as arrears of land revenue. [Paras 22, 23][928-C-H; 929-A]

1.11. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside. The judgment passed by the Additional District Judge in LAC Case No. 1426 and connected references is restored and modified. 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. [Para 24][929-B-C]

Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 278 : [2018] 1 SCR 581; State of Gujarat vs. Kakhot SinghJi VajesinghJi Vaghela [1968] 3 SCR 692; Atma Singh (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 568 : [2007] (12) SCR 1120; C.R. Nagaraja Shetty (2) vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and Anr. (2009)

11 SCC 75 : [2009] 2 SCR 1092; Piyara Singh & Anr. vs.State of Haryana & Ors. Etc. (2017) 2 SCALE 323; JAG Mahender & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Dated 21.09.2017 Civil Appeal No.15702/2017 arising out of SLP (C) No.16063 of 2016; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board & Anr. vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 297; Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 595 – referred to.