Land Acquisition: Comparable sale – Land acquired under s.28 of Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – Market value should be based on the sale instances, which are proximate to both the date of notification under s.28 of the Act and to the land sought to be acquired – Sale instances four years later than the publication of s.28 – Cannot be taken into consideration in terms of s.24 of Land Acquisition Act – Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – s.28 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.24.
Land Acquisition: Market value of land – Determination of – Held: Potentiality of the acquired land is one of the primary factors to be taken into consideration to determine market value of land – The question whether a land has potential value or not primarily depends upon its condition, situation, use to which it is put or its reasonable capability of being put and also its proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas/institutions – The existing amenities like water, electricity as well as the possibility of their further extension, for instance whether near about town is developing or has prospects of development have to be taken into consideration – It also depends upon the connectivity and the overall development of the area – Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – s.28.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The land forming the subject matter of the present appeals was acquired in pursuance of notification under Section 28 of the Act published on 26.6.1982. Therefore, firstly, the attempt to determine the market value should be based on the sale instances, which are proximate to both the date of notification under Section 28 of the Act and to the land sought to be acquired. The land owners have relied upon seven sale instances in respect of villages of which the land was acquired. Out of such seven sale instances, two are almost four years later than the publication of notification under Section 28 of the Act, and thus cannot be taken into consideration in terms of the Section
24 of the LA Act. [Para 28][768-G; 769-A-B]
2. The potentiality of the acquired land is one of the primary factors to be taken into consideration to determine the market value of the land. Potentiality refers to the capacity or possibility for changing or developing into the state of actuality. The market value of a property has to be determined while having due regard to its existing conditions with all the existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not primarily depends upon its condition, situation, use to which it is put or its reasonable capability of being put and also its proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas/institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity as well as the possibility of their further extension, for instance whether near about town is developing or has prospects of development have to be taken into consideration. It also depends upon the connectivity and the overall development of the area. The record in the present matter does not suggest that there were large scale development activities. The evidence is rather of sale of small areas. There is nothing on record as to when the industrial units were set up and what was the cost of land. Furthermore, there are no sale instances of land situated in Village Makanpur prior to date of notification i.e. 26.6.1982. The sale instances produced by the land owners pertain to Village Sahibabad and Jhandapur which are at a distance of about 3.5 kms from Delhi border. [Paras 29, 30][769-C-F]
3. The sale instances of a smaller area have to be considered while keeping in view the principle that where a large area is the subject matter of acquisition, suitable deduction is required to be made as no prudent purchaser would purchase large extent of land on the basis of sale of a small extent in the open market. The Court thus has to consider whether the willing vendee would offer the rate at which the trial court proposes to determine the compensation. This Court has even provided for 50% deduction for development charges on the price mentioned in the sale deed. [Para 31][770-B-C]
Jagdish Chandra & Ors. v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, NOIDA & Anr. First Appeal No.
744 of 2001 decided on 14.12.2007 – referred to.
4. In Pradeep Kumar, after remand, the High Court awarded Rs.297/- per square yard as the compensation in pursuance of notification dated 15.3.1988 of the land situated in Village Makanpur (Sr. No. 2 in the above table) for the benefit of Noida. This Court in Narendra awarded compensation of Rs.297/- per square yard for the land acquired in Village Makanpur in pursuance of the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act published on 12.9.1986 (Sr. No. 2 in the above table). Such land is in the area of Noida on the southern side of the National Highway. [Para 38][773-G-H]
5. The other villages, subject matter of acquisition i.e. Arthla, Jhandapur, Prahladgarhi, Mahiuddin-Re-Kanawani and Sahibabad are farther away from the National Highway than the land situated in Village Makanpur. Since the Special Land Acquisition Collector as well as the Reference Court has determined uniform compensation for the entire land acquired, therefore, the compensation awarded of land situated in Village Makanpur on the basis of notification 4-5 years later is not a reasonable yardstick for determining compensation of over 1100 acres of land in the other villages. There is no judicial precedent in respect of land situated in other five villages which are subject matter of the acquisition in the present group of appeals. The orders passed by this Court relied upon are either subsequent to the notification in question and/or for the acquisition for the purpose of planned development of Noida. [Para 39][774-A-C]
6. A compensation of Rs. 297/- per square yard was awarded for land acquired for the purpose of GDA vide notification dated 28.2.1987 and 16.8.1988 (Sr. No. 4 & 5 in the above table). The said acquisition was five years after the acquisition in question. The development activity initiated vide notification dated 26.6.1982 would be relevant to determine the market value on account of acquisition by virtue of the subsequent notification, but time gap of more than five years will not entail the same amount of compensation in respect of the land acquired five years earlier. [Para 40][774-D-E]
7. In respect of land situated on northern side of National Highway, the land was acquired vide notifications dated 28.2.1987 and 12.9.1986 in the case of Narendra and Kashi;and on 16.8.1988 in the case of Jai Prakash. Whereas, on the southern side of National Highway for the benefit of Noida, the land of Village Makanpur became subject matter of acquisition vide notification dated 10.3.1988 in the case of Pradeep Kumar and on 15.3.1988 in the case of Charan Kaur. [Para 42][774-G-H]
8. For the land situated on the northern side of the National Highway for the benefit of the Parishad, the acquisition has attained finality with the dismissal of SLP (Civil) No. 4636 of 2016 on 28.3.2016. The compensation assessed in the other aforementioned cases is subsequent to the date of notification, therefore, none of the orders are determinative of the amount of compensation. Hence, the market value as determined by the High Court cannot be sustained either on the basis of the sale deeds, or on the strength of judicial orders. There is no justification of enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court i.e. Rs.120/- per square yard. [Para 43] [775-A-B]
U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Jawahar Lal & Ors. First Appeal No. 56 of 2005 decided on 21.7.2015; Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash First Appeal No. 827 of 2000 decided on 28.10.2015; Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam LKVikas Parishad & Anr. First Appeal No. 552 of 2001 decided on 16.12.2015; Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam VikasParishad & Anr. First Appeal No. 412 of 2001 decided on 1.3.2016; Narendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 10429-10430 of 2017 decided on
11.09.2017; Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. (2016) 6 SCC 308; Smt. Tribeni Devi & Ors. v. Collector of Ranchi and Vice Versa (1972) 1 SCC 480 : [1972] 3 SCR 208; Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. v. Narottambhai Morarbhai & Anr., (1996) 11 SCC 159 : [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 199; Land Acquisition Officer v. B. Vijender Reddy & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 669; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 : [2005] 3 SCR 542; General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008) 14 SCC 745 : [2008] 11 SCR 927; Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 568 : [2007] 12 SCR 1120; Revenue Divisional Officer-cumLand Acquisition Officer v. Shaik Azam Saheb & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 395 : [2009] 1 SCR 289; Mohammad Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition Officer (2009) 14 SCC
367 : [2009] 5 SCR 864l; Himmat Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2013) 16 SCC 392 – referred to.
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.