Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Acquisition of large chunk of land measuring around 520 acres 02 Kanals and
13.5 Marlas situated in 15 villages – Compensation determined at uniform rate applicable to entire acquired land – On appeals by land owners for seeking further enhancement and by the State seeking restoration of order of LAO, held: High Court erred in determining one flat market rate of the acquired land without considering the potentiality and the quality of acquired land situated in each village, its nature and the basis, the market rate of the land situated in each village prior to the date of acquisition or its near proximity, the size of the land, the actual distance of each village qua any other nearby big developed city, town or areas – Fair market value of acquired land cannot be decided in isolation on the basis of only one factor – Matter remanded to reference court for fresh adjudication – Since matter is remanded for fresh adjudication, landowners are held entitled to refund of court fee paid by them – Court Fees Act, 1870 – s.13.
Disposing of the appeals and remanding the matter to Reference Court, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the impugned judgment, the High Court essentially based its decision or, proceeded to decide the appeals by making the decision of this Court in Pran Sukh case to be the basis to examine the question as to whether the rate of acquired land fixed by the LAO and Reference Court was fair or not. The High Court, however, noticed from the facts involved in the case of Pran Sukh that the land situated in one village-Kasan along with its some adjoining villages was acquired on 15.11.1994 by the State and this Court determined the compensation payable to the landowners of Kasan village at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/per acre. The High Court felt that Rs.20,000,00/- per acre should be taken as the base price for determining the rate of acquired land in question. The High Court perhaps did this after having noticed that some part of the acquired land in these appeals was situated in Kasan village and, therefore, took the rate of Kasan village land as basis for determining the rate of acquired land also. The High Court accordingly gave annual increase of 8% to Rs.20,00,000/- and worked out the rate at Rs.62,11,700/- per acre for the entire acquired land in question by applying one uniform rate. [Paras 31 to 33] [590-C-G]
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v. Pran Sukh & Others (2010) 11 SCC 175 – referred to.
1.2 The approach of the High Court in the facts of these cases does not appear to be right inasmuch as the High Court failed to take into consideration that the acquired land, in these cases, was a huge chunk of land measuring around 520 acres, 2 kanals and 13.5.marlas. Second, the entire acquired land was not situated in village Kasan but it was spread over in 15 villages. Third, there was no evidence to show much less any finding of the High Court as to what was the actual distance among the 15 villages against one another, the location, situation/area of each village, whether any development had taken place and, if so, its type, nature and when it took place in any of these villages, the potentiality and the quality of the acquired land situated in each village, its nature and the basis, the market rate of the land situated in each village prior to the date of acquisition or in its near proximity, whether small piece of land or preferably big chunk of land, the actual distance of each village qua any other nearby big developed city, town or a place, whether any activity is being carried on in the nearby areas, their details. Fourth, whether the acquired land in the case of Pran Sukh in village Kasan and the acquired land in question are similar in nature or different and, if so, how and on what basis, their total distance etc. These were the issues which had material bearing while determining the rate of the acquired land in question. [Paras 34 to 36] [590-G-H; 591A-D]
1.3 The High Court, in the absence of any evidence on any of these issues, could not have determined one flat market rate of the acquired land in question by applying one isolated rate of one land situated in one village Kasan and adding 8% annual increase from 1994 in such rate and made it applicable to the entire lands situated in 15 different villages. It is only when the evidence had been adduced by the parties to the lis on these issues, the Court would have been in a position to apply its mind objectively as to which method should be applied for determination of the rate, i.e., whether belting system or flat rate system or different rates for different lands depending upon the quality of land situated in different villages etc. [Paras 37, 38] [591-E-F]
2. The fair market value of the acquired land cannot be decided in isolation on the basis of only one factor. There are several other factors, which govern the determination of the rate. These factors need to be proved with sufficient evidence. The Courts have made sincere endeavor to determine the fair market rate of the acquired land and while determining has taken into account all relevant aspects of the case. It is the duty of the landowners and the State to adduce proper and sufficient evidence to enable the Courts to arrive at a reasonable and fair market rate of the acquired land prevalent on the date of acquisition. [Para 39] [591-G-H; 592-A]
3. Both the parties failed to adduce sufficient evidence on several material issues, as a result, both the Courts below did not record any finding on any of the material issues arising in the case. The fair market rate of the acquired land can be determined for want of sufficient evidence. The Reference Court will accordingly decide the rate of land as prevalent on the date of acquisition on the merits. [Paras 41, 42 and 44] [592-C-D, F]
4. Since these cases are remanded to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law, the appellants (landowners) are entitled to get back the amount of court fee paid by each appellant (landowner) on his appeal memo before the High Court as also before this Court as provided under Section 13 of the Court Fees Act. The Registry is accordingly directed to issue necessary certificate of refund of Court Fee amount, if paid by any of the landowner on his memo of appeal in the High Court and in this Court under the Court Fees Act to enable the landowners to claim the refund of the court fee amount from the concerned State Treasury. [Paras 46, 47] [592-H; 593A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.