# ASHRAFI AND ORS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2013] 6 S.C.R. 148
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-04-11
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 3279-3287 of 2013
- **Bench:** Altamas Kabir, J. Chelameswar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ashrafi-and-ors-v-state-of-haryana-and-ors-29222
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Determination of, on basis of market value of comparable
C
lands - Passage of time between different acquisitions - Held:
On facts, compensation accordingly enhanced from Rs.2801
- per sq. yard to Rs.3251- per sq. yard.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
D
Land in question falling within municipal limits - Deduction
towards development costs - Held: On facts, deduction of 40%
unjustified - Cut of 33113 per cent more realistic.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Land under acquisition already developed to some extent -
E
Held: On facts, cut of 50% on the value is excessive - At best
a standard cut of 113rd would have been sufficient.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Land under acquisition already within developed municipal
F
limits - Held: On facts, cut of 60%, as imposed by the High
Court, inappropriate - Cut of one-third the value would be
appropriate.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Land under acquisition divided into belts - Held: On facts,
G having regard to the potentiality of the acquired lands, the
belting system should not have been resorted to.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Land under acquisition having substantial potential - Sharp
H
148
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STAT.E OF HARYANA
149
in value of lands in recent times - Held: On facts, although,
A
High Court had allowed a yearly increase of 12%, taking 1983
as a base-year, such increase was not commensurate with the
yearly escalation of prices and that was required to be
calculated on a cumulative basis - Compensation directed
to be reassessed by applying the cumulative rate of increase
B
at the rate of 12% per annum with the base year being the
date of the Notification u/s.4 of the Act, together with the
statutory benefits.
Common
question
relating
to
claims
for C
enhancement of compensation in respect of lands
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in several
States, such as, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh,
Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh,
arose for consideration in the present matters.
Since the majority of cases are from the States of
Punjab & Haryana, this Court heard the matters relating
to the State of Haryana before the other matters and for
the said purpose, also selected some specific matters, the
D
decision wherein would also govern the rest.
E
Disposing of all the matters, the Court
HELD:1. In Smt. Ashrafi's case arising out of RFA
No.99 of 1997 decided by the Punjab & Haryana High
Court on 21st May, 2007, along with several other similar
F
appeals, it was agitated on behalf of the appellants that
the compensation fixed by the High Court was on the
lower side in view of the fact that in respect of lands
acquired u11der the same Notification dated 20th August,
1989, the District Court had fixed the market value at G
Rs.328.50 per sq. yard and also at Rs.3371- per sq. yard,
in respect of the lands acquired under a Notification
issued in July, 1987. In Smt. Kamlesh Kumari's case, in
which the facts were the same, as that in Smt. Ashrafi's
case, the Reference Court awarded Rs.3251- per sq. yard.
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A In appeal, the said amount was increased to Rs.280/- per
sq. yard. Even the aforesaid enhancement does not
appear to have reflected the proper valuation of the lands
acquired since soon, thereafter, in 'Pritam Singh's case,
compensation was awarded at Rs.435/- per sq. yard and
B also at the rate of Rs.392.50 per sq. yard in respect of the
lands acquired under Notification dated 5th June, 1992.
The enhancement of the compensation from Rs.280/- per
sq. yard to Rs.435/- per sq. yard and Rs.392.50 per sq.
yard was probably occasioned by the fact that while the
c lands were acquired under the Notification issued in July,
1987, the comparative rate relating to the same property
was Rs.392.50 per sq. yard. In view of the passage of time
between the different acquisit

## Text

_Characters 0–39,638 of 73,482. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39638 for what follows._

A
B
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 148
ASHRAFI AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
{Civil Appeal Nos. 3279-3287 of 2013)
APRIL 11, 2013
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. AND J. CHELAMESWAR, J.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Determination of, on basis of market value of comparable
C
lands - Passage of time between different acquisitions - Held:
On facts, compensation accordingly enhanced from Rs.2801
- per sq. yard to Rs.3251- per sq. yard.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
D
Land in question falling within municipal limits - Deduction
towards development costs - Held: On facts, deduction of 40%
unjustified - Cut of 33113 per cent more realistic.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Land under acquisition already developed to some extent -
E
Held: On facts, cut of 50% on the value is excessive - At best
a standard cut of 113rd would have been sufficient.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Land under acquisition already within developed municipal
F
limits - Held: On facts, cut of 60%, as imposed by the High
Court, inappropriate - Cut of one-third the value would be
appropriate.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Land under acquisition divided into belts - Held: On facts,
G having regard to the potentiality of the acquired lands, the
belting system should not have been resorted to.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.23 - Compensation -
Land under acquisition having substantial potential - Sharp
H
148
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STAT.E OF HARYANA
149
in value of lands in recent times - Held: On facts, although,
A
High Court had allowed a yearly increase of 12%, taking 1983
as a base-year, such increase was not commensurate with the
yearly escalation of prices and that was required to be
calculated on a cumulative basis - Compensation directed
to be reassessed by applying the cumulative rate of increase
B
at the rate of 12% per annum with the base year being the
date of the Notification u/s.4 of the Act, together with the
statutory benefits.
Common
question
relating
to
claims
for C
enhancement of compensation in respect of lands
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in several
States, such as, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh,
Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh,
arose for consideration in the present matters.
Since the majority of cases are from the States of
Punjab & Haryana, this Court heard the matters relating
to the State of Haryana before the other matters and for
the said purpose, also selected some specific matters, the
D
decision wherein would also govern the rest.
E
Disposing of all the matters, the Court
HELD:1. In Smt. Ashrafi's case arising out of RFA
No.99 of 1997 decided by the Punjab & Haryana High
Court on 21st May, 2007, along with several other similar
F
appeals, it was agitated on behalf of the appellants that
the compensation fixed by the High Court was on the
lower side in view of the fact that in respect of lands
acquired u11der the same Notification dated 20th August,
1989, the District Court had fixed the market value at G
Rs.328.50 per sq. yard and also at Rs.3371- per sq. yard,
in respect of the lands acquired under a Notification
issued in July, 1987. In Smt. Kamlesh Kumari's case, in
which the facts were the same, as that in Smt. Ashrafi's
case, the Reference Court awarded Rs.3251- per sq. yard.
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A In appeal, the said amount was increased to Rs.280/- per
sq. yard. Even the aforesaid enhancement does not
appear to have reflected the proper valuation of the lands
acquired since soon, thereafter, in 'Pritam Singh's case,
compensation was awarded at Rs.435/- per sq. yard and
B also at the rate of Rs.392.50 per sq. yard in respect of the
lands acquired under Notification dated 5th June, 1992.
The enhancement of the compensation from Rs.280/- per
sq. yard to Rs.435/- per sq. yard and Rs.392.50 per sq.
yard was probably occasioned by the fact that while the
c lands were acquired under the Notification issued in July,
1987, the comparative rate relating to the same property
was Rs.392.50 per sq. yard. In view of the passage of time
between the different acquisitions, a just compensation
would be at the rate of Rs.325/- per sq. yard instead of
0
Rs.280/- per sq. yard. Similar is the case of Smt. Kamlesh
Kumari, where the facts were similar to those in Ashrafi's
case. The just compensation in the lands in Smt. Kamlesh
Kumari's case also deserves to be increased to Rs.325/-
per sq. yard, which had been the amount awarded by the
Reference Court. In Sailak Ram's case, different amounts
E were assessed as compensation in respect of the lands
comprised in village Mewla, Maharajpur, acquired under
the Notification dated 2nd August, 1989. There too the
market rate was assessed at Rs.280/- per sq. yard along
with all statutory benefits under the 1894 Act. The
F compensation in respect of the lands involved has also
to be assessed at Rs.325/- per sq. yard. [Paras 35, 36, 37
& 38] [174-C-H; 175-A-H]
2. In Sucha Singh's case, although the land in
G question fell within the municipal limits, a deduction of
40% was unjustified. On the other hand, a cut of 331/3 per
cent would be more realistic. Accordingly, the
compensation for the said lands, after taking into
consideration the deduction of 331/3 per cent is assessed
H at Rs.7,25,000/- per acre. [Para 39]
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
151
3. As far as the lands within the District of Ambala are
A
concerned, in respect of one set of lands, the Reference
Court assessed the market value of the acquired lands
to be Rs.57,000/- per acre. However, another Reference
Court assessed the market value of the acquired lands
at Rs.3,38,800/- per acre. The claim of the land owners,
B
assessed at Rs.300/- per sq. yard is on the high side but
Rs.110/- per sq. yard, as had been held by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court, is on the low side. On a comparison
of the price of lands sold during 1981, or by adding 12%
per annum on Rs.70/-
per sq. yard on annual c
compounded basis, the value of the lands is assessed
at Rs.180/- per sq. yard on a uniform basis for all lands.
[Para 40] [176-D-G]
4. In the lands covered in Atam Sinqh's case, the
Collector had initially assessed the compensation at the
D
rate of Rs.54.75 per sq. yard. The lands acquired in 1987
were adjacent to the lands acquired subsequently in
1993. The value of the lands in 1989 would be about
Rs.200/- per sq. yard, and the prices had, in fact, doubled
to about Rs.400/- per sq. yard within the next two years,
E
i.e. in 1991. By such standards, the value of the lands
acquired in 1987 should be Rs.100/- per sq. yard. [Para
41] [176-G-H; 177-A-B]
5. In Mukesh Kumar's case, having regard to the
potentiality of the acquired lands, the belting system
should not have been resorted to. Although, the High
Court had allowed a yearly increase of 12%, taking 1983
F
as a base-year, such increase was not commensurate
with the yearly escalation of prices and that was required
G
to be calculated on a cumulative basis. Accordingly, in
Mukesh Kumar's case and the other cases heard along
with the said case, while adding 12% annual increase to
the value of the lands acquired, the same should be done
on a cumulative basis. In Mukesh Kumar's case, the
compensation awarded was at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq.
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A yard along with all statutory benefits, as provided under
Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Having discarded the belting system which has been
resorted to, the compensation as awarded at the rate of
Rs.235/- per sq. yard, has to be reassessed by applying
B the cumulative rate of increase at the rate of 12% per
annum with the base year being the date of thQ
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
together with the statutory benefits. The stand taken on
behalf of the State of Haryana, regarding the amount of
c escalation fixed at 12% being improper, does not appeal
having regard to the potentiality of the lands acquired and
the sharp increase in the value of the lands in recent
times. The valuation of the compensation of the acquired
land at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq. yard by the High Court,
0
appears to have been influenced by the compensation
already assessed in Atam Prakash's case, where the
market value of the land acquired in Sectors 9 and 11 was
assessed at Rs.235/- per sq. yard. The said lands were
far away from the lands involved in the present set of
cases and, accordingly, the rate of compensation for the
E lands under consideration should be definitely higher
than awarded in respect of the lands covered in Atam
Prakash's case. Accordingly, the compensation assessed
in respect of the lands covered by these cases is reassessed by applying the cumulative rate of interest,
F taking the date of Notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act as the base year for such calculation at
Rs.325/- per sq. yard. The said valuation will also be
applicable in Mahabir & Anr. vs. State of Harvana & Anr.
[SLP(C)No.1512 of 2007], Sarwan Singh & Anr. vs. State
G of Harvana & Anr. [SLP(C)Nos.20144-20150 of 2007] and
State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Partap Singh & Anr.
[SLP(C)No.21597 of 2006]. As far as the lands in village
Patti Mehar, Saunda and Jandli in Ambala District and
forming the subject matter in Surinder Kumar's case
H [SLP(C)Nos.16372-16404 of 2008], in Manohar Lal
ASHRAFI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
153
Khurana's case and in other cases falling in the same
A
category are concerned, the compensation will be at the
above rate on a uniform basis. [Para 42] [177-B-H; 178A-E]
6. There is yet another set of lands forming the
8
subject matter of the appeals arising out of Special Leave
Petition (C) Nos.33637-33638 of 2011, filed by Manohar
Singh and others, which are situated in Hansi, District
Hisar. In the said cases, the High Court had assessed the
compensation payable for the acquired lands at the rate
C
of Rs.805/- per sq. yard along with the statutory sums
available under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition
. Act and solatium on the market value under Section 23(2)
thereof. The High Court was justified in taking into
consideration the size of the plots, which were exhibited
for the purposes of comparison with the size of the plots
D
acquired, but this Court is unable to uphold the cut of
60%, which has been imposed by the High Court, since
the acquired lands are already within developed
municipal limits. In these cases also, a cut of one-third
the value would be appropriate as in the other cases.
E
Accordingly, the valuation arrived at by the High Court
is modified and it is directed that the amount of
compensation be re-assessed upon imposing a cut of
331/3 per cent while re-assessing the value of the land.
In regard to the amount of deduction effected in respect
F
of the various properties, the general cut imposed is at a
flat rate of 40%, which is not warranted on account of the
fact that the lands in question have lost their character
and potentiality as agricultural lands and have more or
less been converted into lands which were ready for use
G
for the purpose of construction. Taking factors which
determine deduction towards development cost, such as
location and potentiality, into account, a deduction of
3~1/3 per cent would be reasonable on account of the
passage of time and the all round development in the
H
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A area which has made it impossible for the lands to retain
their original character. Accordingly, it is directed that
except where provided otherwise, wherever a deduction
of 40% had been made, the same should be altered to
331 /3 per cent and. the compensation awarded is to be
B modified accordingly. [Paras 43, 44, 45, 46 & 47) [178-FH; 179-A-H]
7. In regard to the 157.20 acres of land situated in
Fatehabad, District Hlsar, Haryana, acquired for utilisation
and development of'residential and commercial purposes
C in Sector-3, Fatehabad, the Collector had awarded
compensation at a unlform rate of Rs. 1 ,81 ,200/- per acre
along with statutory, benefits. The Reference Court
determined the compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.
206/- per sq. yard. The High Court modified the said award
D and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 260/- per sq.
yard for the land acquiryd up to the depth of 100 meters
abutting National Highway No. 10. The value of the rest
of the acquired land was maintained at Rs. 206/- per sq.
yard. The area in question being already developed to
E some extent, a cut of 50% on the value is excessive.
Resorting to the belting system by the High Court was
improper and at best a standard cut of 1/3rd would have
been sufficient to balance the smallness of the exhibits
produced. On a comparative basis, the price of lands in
F the area in 1991 was on an average of about Rs. 420/- per
sq. yard. Given the sharp rise in land prices, the value, it
is stated, would have doubled to about Rs. 800/- per sq.
yard by 1993. Even if one has to apply the formula of 12%
increase, the valuation of the lands in question in 1993
G would be approximately Rs. 527/- per sq. yard. Imposing
a deduction of 1/3rd, valuation comes to about Rs. 350/-
per sq. yard, which would be the proper compensation
for the lands covered in the case of Mukesh and other
connected matters. [Para 48) [180-A-G]
H
State of Haryana vs. Gurbax Singh (Dead) By LRs. & Anr.
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
155
(2008) 11 SCC 65: 2008 (11) SCC 65; Union of India vs.
A
Harinder Pal Singh (2005) 12 SCC 564: 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR
669; Genera/ Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008) 14
SCC 7 45: 2008 (11) SCR 927; Udho Dass Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 51: 2010 (8) SCR 900;
B
Genera/ Manager, 011 and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745: 2008 (11)
SCR 927; Charan Dass Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and
Urban Development Authority (2010) 13 SCC 398: 2009 (14)
SCR 163; Haridwar Development Authority Vs. Raghubir C
Singh & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 581: 2010 (2) SCR 201; Kasturi
& Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354: 2002 (4)
Suppl. SCR 117; Subh Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana &
Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 444: 2009 (15) SCR 287; Kanta Devi &
Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2008) 15 SCC 201: 2008
(10) SCR 367; Kasturi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1
D
SCC 354: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 117 and Saibanna (Dead)
by Lrs. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition
Officer (2009) 9 SCC 409: 2009 (13) SCR 401 - cited.
Case Law Reference:
2008 111) sec 65
cited
Para 10
2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 669 cited
Para 10
2008 (11) SCR 927
cited
Para 19
2010 (8) SCR 900
cited
Para 21
2008 (11) SCR 927
cited
Para 22
2009 (14) SCR 163
cited
Para 27
2010 (2 ) SCR 201
cited
Para 27
2002 (4). Suppl. SCR 117 cited
Para 27
2009 (15) SCR
cited
Para 30
2008 (10) SCR 367
cited
Para 30
E
F
G
H
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 117 cited
Para 32
B
c
2009 (13) SCR 401
cited
Para 33
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
3279-3287 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.05.2007 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second
Appeal Nos. 99of1997, 2574 of2000, 1426, 1, 1423, 1394,
1424 of 1997, 2428 of 1996 & 1422 of 1997.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 3288-3299, 3300-3319, 3320, 3321-3323, 33243325, 3326-3330, 3331-3333, 3334-3337, 3338-3340, 3341,
3342-3344, 3345, 3346-334 7' 3348-3349, 3350-3351, 3352
0 of 2013, 8719 of 2010, 3353-3433, 3434-3450, 3451-3452,
3453, 3454-3455, 3456-3458, 3459-3488, 3489-3495, 34963516, 3517-3521, 3522-3523, 3524, 3525-3532, 3533, 3534,
3535-3576, 3577, 3578-3595, 3596, 3597, 3598-3602, 3603,
3604-3610, 3611, 3612, 3613, 3614, 361'5. 3616, 3617, 3618,
E 3619,3620, 3621, 3622,3623, 3624,3625~626,3627, 3628,
3629,3630, 3631, 3632, 3633,3634,3635, 3636, 3637, 3638,
3639,3640,3641,3642, 3643,3644,3645,3646, 3647,3648,
3649,3650, 3651,3652, 3653,3654,3655, 3656, 3657.3658,
3659, 3660, 3361, 3662, 3663-3677, 3678,3679, 3680, 3681,
F 3682,3683,3684,3685,3686,3687,3688,3689,3690,3691,
3692, 3693, 3694,3695, 3696,3697, 3698,3699,3700, 37013704, 3705, 3706-3738, 3844-3852, 3740, 3741, 3742, 37433762, 3763-3783, 3784-3787, 3788 of2013, 319-352 of2011,
8654-8661, 8642-8645 of 2010, 423-424, 418 419 of 2011,
8637, 8638, 8646-8653 of 2010, 354-411, 412-417 of 2011,
G 3789-3792, 3793-3800, 3801-3804, 3805-3806 of 2013,
3388-3389,5206, 5208, 5209,5210, 5211, 5212, 5213, 5214,
5207, 5215, 5216, 7179-7182 of 2011, 3807-3808, 38533854, 3810-3817, 3818-3819, 3820-3821, 3822-3823, 38243825, 3826-3827, 3828-3829, 3830-3831, 3832-3833, 3834H 3835 & 3836-3837 of 2013.
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
157
Manjit Singh, AAG, Somvir Singh Deswal, Satbir Singh
A
Pillania, Shree Pal Singh, Dr. Kailash Chand, Dr. Sushi!
Balwada, R.D. Upadhyay, C.K. Sucharita, C.S.N. Mohan Rao,
Ashok K. Mahajan, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Jay Kishor Singh,
Jasmer Chand, Rajat Sharma, Dinesh Verma, R.V.
Kameshwaran, Shivaji M. Jadhav, C.D. Singh, N. Annapoorani,
B
Manoj Swarup, Ankit Swarup, A.V. Palli, Rekha Palli, Atul
Sharma, Anupam Raina, A.P. Mohanty, K.K. Mohan, Prem
Malhotra, Anis Ahmed Khan, Ajay Kumar, Temple Law Firm,
Rohit Kumar Singh, Vineet Bhagat, Vivek Gupta, Naresh
Bakshi, Sharmila Upadhyay, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Tarjit c
Singh, Anil Anti!, Naresh Bakshi, Samir Ali Khan, G.N. Reddy,
Nitin Kumar Thakur, Govind Goel, Dr. Monika Gusain, Sanjay
Kumar Yadav, Ankit Goel, Rahul Pandey, S.L. Aneja, Yash Pal
Dhingra, Kuldip Singh, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Mohan Lal
Sharma, Anubha Agarwal, Manjusha Wadhwa, P.O. Sharma
0
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. 1. All these matters involve a
common question relating to claims for enhancement of
E
compensation in respect of lands acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as "the 1894 Act",
in several States, such as, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh,
Andhra Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. In some
of the Special Leave Petitions, leave has already been granted
F
and they have been listed as Civil Appeals. Leave is also
granted in all other Special Leave Petitions which are being
heard together in this batch of matters.
2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken up the
batch matters State-wise. The major number of cases are from
G
the States of Punjab and Haryana and, accordingly, it was
decided to take up the said matters first. We have, therefore,
heard the matters relating to the State of Haryana before the
other matters and for the said purpose, we have also selected
H
158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A some specific matters, the decision wherein would also govern
the rest. Since in the State of Haryana, the lands acquired were
from different districts, such as Faridabad, Ambala, Fatehabad,
Hisar, Sonepat and Kurukshetra and under different
Notifications published under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, we
B took up the individual cases of Ashrafi and Others vs. State of
Haryana & Ors. Others, being SLP(C)Nos.24704-24712 of
2007, relating to the Notification dated 2nd August, 2009, and
Sailak Ram (D) Tr. LRs. & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,
being SLP(C)No.28686 of 2010, relating to the Notification
c dated 7th September, 1992, in respect of the lands situated in
Faridabad. In addition, we also took up SLP(C)No.18588 of
2006 filed by the State of Haryana against Surinder Kumar and
Others, in respect of the Notification dated 26th May, 1981,
relating to the lands situated within the District of Ambala.
D Another matter relating to the District of Ambala, namely, State
of Harvana vs. Manohar Lal Khurana, being SLP(C)No.11527
of 2007, relating to the Notification dated 2nd February, 1989,
was also taken up separately. As far as the lands relating to 1,
the District of Hisar are concerned, the Special Leave Petition
filed by the State of Haryana against Partap Singh and Another,
E being SLP(C) No.21597 of 2006, relating to the Notification
dated 21st March, 1991, was taken up for separate hearing as
also some of the cases involving lands in Sonepat, Kurukshetra
Districts, in respect of the Notifications published under Section
4 of the 1894 Act, dated 20th April, 1982 and 17th September,
F 1993, respectively.
3. Some of the Special Leave Petitions (now Appeals)
have been filed by the State of Haryana, which is equally
aggrieved by the enhancement of the compensation assessed
G in reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. As would be
evident shortly, the High Court almost on a uniform basis
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq. yard
notwithstanding the type of land involved. Although a distinction
had been made between "chahi" lands, "pahar gair mumkin"
H lands and "gair mumkin" lands while assessing compensation,
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
159
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
ultimately, a uniform rate was awarded in respect of the different
A
types of lands which had been acquired. Different reasons have
been given by the High Court in arriving at the uniform figure
of Rs.235/- per sq. yard, but what is important is that ultimately
by applying different methods, the compensation worked out
to be same.
B
4. 1!1 the case of Smt. Ashrafi & Ors., arising out of RFA
No.99of1997 decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court
on 21st May, 2007, along with several other similar appeals,
lands measuring 184.66 acres in village Mewla, Maharajpur,
District Faridabad, were acquired for the development of Sector
C
45 in Faridabad. Notification was published under Section 4
of the 1894 Act on 2nd August, 1989. The Land Acquisition
Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/-
per acre for chahi lands and Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for other
lands. On a reference made by the land owners to the learned
D
District Judge, Faridabad, under Section 18 of the 1894 Act,
the Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs.45/- per sq.
yard against which the parties moved the High Court in First
Appeal.
5. One of the other cases which was taken up separately
was that of Smt. Kamlesh Kumari vs. State of Haryana & Anr.,
being SLP(C)No.28613-28642 of 2010, wherein 486.61 acres
of land in village Mewla, Maharajpur, were also acquired.
E
6. Coming back to the decision in Ashrafi's case, the High
F
Court fixed the compensation at Rs.220/- per sq. yard in respect
of the lands situated in village Mewla, Maharajpur, acquired for
the purpose of establishing Sector 45, Faridabad.
7. It was sought to be urged that the compensation
G
assessed was extremely low in comparison to the
compensation awarded in respect of the lands acquired in the
same area and under the same Notification under Section 4
of the 1894 Act. It was urged that the learned Single Judge in
H
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A the High Court had wrongly assessed compensation at Rs.220/
- per sq. yard, when in respect of the lands acquired under the
same Notification dated 28th August, 1989, the learned District
Judge had fixed the market value at Rs.328.50 per sq. yard and
also at Rs.337/- per sq. yard, in respect of the lands acquired
8
under a Notification issued in July, 1987.
8. In Smt. Kam/esh Kumari's case, it was urged by Mr.
J.L. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, that while the Collector
had awarded Rs.1,96,000/- per acre in respect of the acquired
lands, the Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.325/- per
C sq. yard, which would be equivalent to Rs.15, 73,000/- per acre.
The High Court, however, reduced the rate from Rs.325/- per
sq. yard to Rs.90/- per sq. yard, which would be equivalent to
approximately Rs.4,35,000/- per acre. Letters Patent Appeals
filed against the said decision of the learned Single Judge were
D dismissed and the matter ultimately came up to this Court in
Civil Appeal No. 9808 of 2003, and the case was remanded
to the Reference Court for a fresh determination. After remand,
the Reference Court, by its Order dated 12th January, 2008,
assessed the compensation at Rs.238/- per sq. yard. In appeal,
E after considering the decision of a learned Single Judge of the
same Court in Sailak Ram's case, referred to hereinabove, the
learned Judge determined the compensation at Rs.280/- per
sq. yard. In fact, it was pointed out by Mr. Gupta that in Sailak
Ram's case, different amounts were awarded as compensation
F in respect of lands comprised in village Mewla, Maharajpur,
acquired under the Notification dated 2nd August, 1989. It was
finally held that the market rate for the acquired properties
would be Rs.280/- per sq. yard, along with all statutory benefits,
as per the provisions of the 1894 Act.
G
H
9. Mr. Gupta urged that even the enhancement made by
the High Court was not adequate in view of the compensation
awarded in other cases, in respect of the lands comprised in
the same village. It was highlighted that in Pritam Singh's case,
compensation had been awarded at the rate of Rs.435/- per
ASHRAFI AN9 ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
161
[ALJAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
sq. yard. Even in the case of lands situated in village Ajronda
A
acquired under Notification dated 5th June, 1992, for the
development of Sector 20-B, Faridabad, compensation had
been awarded at Rs,392.50 per sq. yard. Mr. Gupta submitted
that, in such circumstances, the compensation should have
been assessed, if ndt at the said rate, at least at a figure near
B
about the said rate. Mr. Gupta submitted that in yet another
case regarding land.s acquired from the same village by
Notification dated 30th July, 1987, for constructing a link road
from Delhi-Mathura road to Sector 46, Faridabad,
compensation awardEld was at the rate of Rs.337.20 per sq. c
yard.
10. Mr. Gupta lastly referred to the decision of this Court
in State of Haryana vs. Gurbax Singh (Dead) By LRs. & Anr.
[(2008) 11 SCC 65], in which the decision of this Court in
another case, vir,_, Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh
D
[(2005) 12 SCC 504] was referred to and quoted. In paragraph
15 thereof, it was indicated that the entire area was in a stage
of development and the different villages were capable of being
developed in the same manner, as lands situated elsewhere.
Mr. Gupta submitted that in the said decision, an enhancement
E
of compensation by adding 12% per annum for a period of two
years, was duly accepted by this Court. It was, therefore,
submitted that the compensation awarded by the High Court
was required to be revised in parity with the compensation
awarded in respect of the other lands comprised in the same
F
village, in line with the observations made by this Court in Sailak
Ram's case and also in Smt. Kamlesh Kumari's case.
11. One of the other sets of cases, viz., Sucha Singh &
Ors. vs. Collector, Land Acquisition & Ors., being
G
SLP(C}Nos.1678-1697 of 2010, were taken up separately, at
the instance of Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned Advocate, appearing
for the Appellants-Claimants. According to Mr. Kapoor, the
submissions made on behalf of the Appellant, Sucha Singh,
would also cover SLP(C)Nos.13529-13549 of 2011, Surjit
H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A Kaur & Ors. vs. Collector, Land Acquisition and Colonisation
& Ors., SLP(C)Nos. 15508-15511 of 2011, Joginder Singh &
Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., and SLP(C) .. CC
2620 of 2011, Mehar Singh (D) Tr. LRs. & Ors. vs. Collector,
Land Acquisition and Colonisation Department.
B
12. Mr. Kapoor contended that the Notification under
Section 4 was issued on 10th February, 1984, for acquisition
of 79 acres and 5 kanals of land in village Talwandi Bhai,
District Ferozepur, for the purpose of construction of a new grain
C market. In respect of such acquisition, the Land Acquisition
Collector awarded compensation to the land owners at the rate
of Rs.40,000/- per acre, which was enhanced by the Reference
Court to Rs.4,60,0001- up to 1 killa and to Rs.4,00,000/- beyond
one killa. On appeal to the High Court, the amounts were
reduced. Special Leave Petitions were, thereafter, filed against
D the said Order in this Court. While issuing notice on 5th January,
2010, confined to the question of deduction, this Court directed
stay of recovery of the amounts already paid by way of
compensation to the Petitioners therein.
E
13. Mr. Kapoor contended that having regard to certain
plots which were auctioned by the Municipal Committee before
acquiring the lands in question, the average rate in respect of
various plots was Rs.30,000/- per maria and Rs.6,00,0001- per
kanal, which would mean that the value of the land would be
F
Rs.48,00,0001- per acre. Mr. Kapoor submitted that, since apart
from the above, sale deeds are also a reliable indicator of the
land value in a particular area, if the market value is not taken
at Rs.48,00,000/- per acre, the value of sale transactions during
the same period could also be taken into consideration in
G determining the compensation. According to Mr. Kapoor, the
High Court took the average value of such transactions for the
period 19th September, 1980 up to 3rd June, 1983. The
average sale price was found to be Rs.6,23,997/- per acre,
which would, therefore, be the market value of the land during
the period in question. An added increase of 12% per annum
H
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
163
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
would give a figure of Rs.7,82,746/- per acre. Accordingly, on
A
the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act,
i.e., 10th February, 1984, the market value of the land would
be Rs.7,82,746/- per acre, even if the auction price of
Rs.48,00,000/- per acre is not taken into consideration. Mr.
Kapoor submitted that the lands in question fell within the
B
Municipal limits of Talwandi Bhai and no development would
be required since the lands had been acquired for constructing
a new grain market only. Hence, a deduction of 40% was
unjustified in the circumstances. Mr. Kapoor, therefore, prayed
that even if the final figure of the market value, as determined c
by the High Court, i.e., Rs.6,23,997/-, is taken into
consideration, then also by adding 12% per annum to the said
figure, the compensation would amount to Rs.7,82,746/- per
acre.
14. In one of the other matters, Surinder Kumar vs. State
D
of Haryana, being SLP(C) Nos.16372-16404 of 2008, 250.51
acres of land situated in village Patti Mehar, Saunda and Jandli
in Ambala District, covered by Notification dated 26th May,
1981, were intended to be acquired for development and
utilisation of residential areas for an Urban Estate in Ambala.
E
Three Awards were made by the Land Acquisition Collector.
When Award No. 4 was pronounced on 27th June, 1984, the
market value of the acquired lands was assessed at Rs.
52,000/- per acre, thereafter, two further awards were
pronounced wherein some other chahi lands were assessed · F
at Rs.34,500/- per acre, barani land was assessed at
Rs.27,520/- P.er acre and banjar and gair mumkin land was
assessed at Rs.13,760/- per acre. On reference, the Reference
Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to
Rs.57,000/- per acre. Subsequently, however, another G
Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired
lands at Rs.3,38,800/- per acre. Being dissatisfied with the
orders of the Reference Courts, the parties approached the High
Court. The State of Haryana also filed appeals relating to the
judgment of 6th May, 1992. In the appeals filed by the claiman~. H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A
they claimed that the acquired land was liable to be assessed
at Rs.300/- per sq. yard. The Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court accepted the contention of the land owners
and directed that they would be entitled to the market rate at
Rs.110/- per sq. yard for the acquired land, together with all
B statutory benefits, as per the amended provisions of the Act.
The appeals filed by the State of Haryana were dismissed.
15. Appearing for the Appellants, Ms. lndu Malhotra,
learned Senior Advocate, submitted that though the
C compensation was enhanced by the Division Bench from
Rs.70/- per sq. yard to Rs.110/- per sq. yard, there was no
basis for fixing the value at the said rate. Ms. Malhotra urged
that the said rate was fixed despite the fact that a Conveyance
of the year 1973 i.e. earlier than the date of acquisition
(26.5.1981), had been produced by the Appellants. Apart from
D the above, Sale Deeds of 1981 were also produced which
showed the value of the lands to be Rs.209-213/- per sq. yard.
Ms. Malhotra urged that it would be evident from the above that
the High Court has erred in fixing the rate of compensation at
Rs.110/- per sq. yard, without any basis whatsoever, when Sale
E
Deeds of even previous years and years contemporaneous to
the acquisition, indicated a much higher valuation in respect of
the acquired lands. Ms. Malhotra submitted that the valuation
of the acquired lands was liable to be enhanced in a miJnner
which was commensurate with the value of the lands, as would
F
be evident from the various Sale Deeds produced on behalf
of the Appellants.
16. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned Advocate, appeared in
several of the matters relating to acquisition of the lands in
G Hisar, covered by various Notifications issued under Section
4 of the 1894 Act. Mr. Swarup, firstly, referred to the case of
Atam Singh & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., being
SLP(C)Nos.33337-33340 of 2010, involving lands measuring
112 kanals and 12 marlas situated in village Basti Bhiwan,
; H Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hisar, notified for acquisition for
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
165
[ALTAMAS KABIR. CJI.)
establishing new fruit, vegetable and fodder market, under
A
Section 4 of the aforesaid Act. Mr. Swarup also referred to the
case of Sarwan Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr., being
SLP(C)Nos.20144-20150 of 2007, involving lands measuring
429.75 acres of land, which is the subject matter of a
Notification dated 21.03.1991, under Section 4 of the above
B
Act for the development of a part of Sectors 11, 13, 15, 16 and
17, Hisar, Haryana. Reference was also made to the case of
Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors., being
SLP(C)No.19668 of 2006, involving lands measuring 227.44
acres in Hisar, which was the subject matter of Notification c
dated 20.08.1992, under Section 4 of the above Act for use
as a residential sector by Haryana Urban Development
Authority (HUDA). Mr. Swarup, lastly, referred to the case of
Mukesh vs. State of Haryana & Anr., .being Civil Appeal Nos.
319-352 of 2011, involving lands measuring 157 .20 acres
D
situated in Fatehabad, District Hisar, under Notification dated
21.07.1993, also for residential and commercial purposes in
Sector 3, Fatehabad.
17. In Atam Singh's case, Mr. Swarup, pointed out that the
lands had been notified on 15.10.1987 for establishing a new
E
fruit, vegetable and fodder market and that initially
compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.54.75 per sq.
yard. Mr. Swarup pointed out that the land acquired in 1987 is
adjacent to the land acquired subsequently in 1993. It was urged
that the R~ference Court had in its judgment found the
F
potentiality of the suit land to be high having regard to the
various developments, which had occurred in the said area and
also for future development relating to a proposal for a truck
union and auto market. Certain contemporaneous private sales,
for the purpose: of comparison, had been filed, which were
G
accepted by th·~ High Court, which had been held to be
genuine, from vJrich it would appear that there has been a
steady increase_:in the valuation of the lands and the chart
indicates that t~ price of land in tile year 1989 was about
Rs.200/- per sq. ward. The chart also demonstrates that two
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A years later, the prices had doubled to about Rs.400/- per sq.
yard. Taking the same to be a yardstick, Mr. Swarup submitted
that the value of the land acquired in 1987 should be taken as
the comparative unit and that the value of the land acquired in
1987 should, therefore, be assessed a!Rs.100/- per sq. yard.
B
18. Mr. Swarup pointed out that the, decision in Atam
Singh's case was thereafter followed by the High C9urt in the
case of Sarwan Singh & Anr., being SLP(C)Nos.20144-20150
of 2007. As indicated hereinbefore, the said matter involved
C acquisition of 429.75 acres of lands similar to the lands
acquired in Atam Singh's case. However, for the purpose of
assessing the value of the land, the methodology followed was
to add 12% annually towards the value of the lands for a period
of six years, which is also one of the methods for arriving at a
valuation taking a base year and, thereafter, computing the
D annual increase of the value at the accepted rate of 12% per
annum.
19. The question which was raised was whether the same
should be on the basis of a flat rate annually or by adding to
E the value at the rate of 12% per annum at a flat rate from the
date of notification till the award. In these matters, a connected
question arose as to whether instead of flat rate the interest
should be added cumulatively, which, according to Mr. Swarup,
had been considered and decided in the affirmative by this Court
F in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation L,imited
vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. [(2008) 14 SCC 745].
Mr. Swarup, therefore, urged that the compensation assessed
at Rs.2351- per sq. yard on the basis of an annual increase of
12% was inadequate and the yearly escalation is required to
G be calculated on a cumulative basis.
20. In the case filed by Mukesh Kumar, being
SLP(C)No.19668 of 2007, relating to acquisition of 227 .44
acres under Notification dated 20.08.1992, Mr. Swarup pointed
out that the decision had been arrived at on the reasoning in
H Sarwan Singh's case (supra) and Atam Singh's case, referred
ASHRAF! AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA
167
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]
to hereinabove. Mr. Swarup urged that in Sarwan Singh's case,
A
the High Court considered the location of the acquired lands
and upon observing that they were situated next to prominent
localities to the north of the acquired lands, it had no hesitation
in arriving at the conclusion that the entire acquired land fell
within the municipal limits of the District of Hisar with substantial
B
potential for its development for residential and commercial
purposes. Even the Division Bench in appeal, while rejecting
the submissions made on behalf of the State, observed that
having regard to the nature of the development of the
surrounding areas, it would be improper to resort to the belting c
system and to award one set of compensation for the entire
land.
21. Mr. Swarup then urged that in the case of Udho Dass
Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(2010) 12 SCC 51], this Court
had the occasion to observe that although, in the 1894 Act
D
provision has been made for the payment of solatium, interest
and an additional amount, the same had not kept pace with the
astronomical rise in land prices in many parts of India, and
most certainly in North India, and the compensation awarded
could not fully compensate for the acquisition of the land. This
E
Court further observed that the 12% per annum increase which
had often been found to be adequate in matters relating to
compensation, hardly did justice to those land owners whose
lands had been taken away and the increase was even at times
up to 100% a year for land which had the potential of being
F
urbanised and commercialised, such as in the present case.
22. Mr. Swarup pointed out that similar observations had
been made by this Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs.