# U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD v. ASHA RAM (D) THR. LRS & ORS

- **Citation:** [2021] 3 S.C.R. 751
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-03-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 337 of 2021
- **Bench:** Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/u-p-awas-evam-vikash-parishad-v-asha-ram-d-thr-lrs-ors-35022
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,845 of 51,980. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39845 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
751
 [2021] 3 S.C.R. 751
751
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD
v.
ASHA RAM (D) THR. LRS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 337 of 2021)
MARCH 23, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
753
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
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D)
THR. LRS & ORS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
755
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.
Case Law Reference
(2016) 6 SCC 308
referred to
Para 15
[1972] 3 SCR 208
referred to
Para 21
[1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 199
referred to
Para 21
(2001) 10 SCC 669
referred to
Para 23
[2005] 3 SCR 542
referred to
Para 24
[2008] 11 SCR 927
referred to
Para 25
[2007] 12 SCR 1120
referred to
Para 26
[2009] 1 SCR 289
referred to
Para 27
[2009] 5 SCR 864
referred to
Para 30
(2013) 16 SCC 392
referred to
Para 31
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 337
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal No. 827 of 2000.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 360, 340, 338, 361, 362, 348, 343, 382, 363, 381,
339, 349, 383, 350, 351, 352, 384, 341, 364, 353, 354, 385, 357, 365, 355,
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D)
THR. LRS & ORS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
366, 347, 342, 367, 358, 368, 356, 369, 344, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 345,
386, 346, 375, 376, 377, 387, 359, 378, 379 and 380 of 2021.
Y. D. Sharma, P.N. Mishra, Ms.Meenakshi Arora, Pradeep Kant,
Sukumar Patjoshi, Sr.Advs., R.K. Bali, Ms. Megha Bali, Amit Korpal,
Atul Dewan, Ms.Deepkaran Dalal, Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Syed Mehdi
Imam, Uzmi Jameel Husain, Syed Mansoor Ali Rizvi, Rajnish Kumar
Jha, Ms. Pushpa Kumari Mishra, Ms. Deepika Sharma, Kumar Gaurav,
Ms. Mehrunnisa, Mohd. Ashraff, Uday Gupta, Ms. Shivani M. Lal, Kripa
Shankar, M. K. Tripathi, Chand Qureshi, Ram Dutt Sharma, Rajeev
Kumar Gupta, Hiren Dasan, Vishwajit Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ms. Ridhima
Singh, Ms. Vijaya Singh, Sushmit Chauhan, Ms. Akansha Singh, Pranav
Raj Singh, Aneesh Mittal, Ms.Reeta Chaudhary, Divyanshu Sahay, Sunil
Kumar Jain, Anil Kaushik, Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi,
K. S. Rana, Ahilesh Kalra, Divyanshu Sahay, Rohit Kumar Singh, R.
Venkat Raman, Ms. Aswathi M.K., Ravindra Kumar, Pradeep Kumar
Mathur, Shailesh Upadhyaya, Chiranjeev Johri, K. S. Rana, Haraprasad
Sahu, Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeals arise out of an order passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 19.07.2019
whereby a compensation of Rs. 297/- per square yard was awarded for
the land acquired in six villages apart from the statutory benefits. In the
present set of 51 appeals, 38 appeals pertain to land situated at Village
Prahlad Garhi; 2 appeals pertain to land situated at Village Jhandapur; 3
appeals pertain to land situated at Village Sahibabad; 2 appeals pertain
to land situated at Village Jhandapur/ Sahibabad; 1 appeal pertains to
land situated at Village Arthala and 5 appeals pertain to land situated at
Village Makanpur.
2. The appellant - U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad1 has been
constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
Adhiniyam, 19652. A notification was published on 26.06.1982 by the
Parishad under Section 28 of the Act intending to acquire 1229.914 acres
of land. Subsequently, a notification under Section 32 of the Act was
1 For Short, the 'Parishad'
2 For short the 'Act'
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
757
published on 28.02.1987. Sections 28 and 32 of the Act are equivalent to
Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18943.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer announced an award on
27.02.1989 awarding compensation of Rs. 50/- per square yard in respect
of land of all the six villages and compensation of Rs. 35/- per square
yard was awarded in respect of land owners owning more than 8 acres.
The area of the land for which the compensation was awarded in the six
villages is as under:
The remaining area measuring 72.019 acres was the land of the
Gram Panchayat or the State Government, for which no compensation
was awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer.
4. The land owners being aggrieved of the compensation awarded
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer sought a Reference for
determining the market value. The Learned Additional District Judge
while deciding the Reference awarded Rs. 120/- per square yard as the
compensation apart from the statutory benefits vide award dated
23.05.2000.
5. The landowners as well as the Parishad filed appeals against
the decision of the Reference Court. Such appeals were decided
separately by the High Court in respect of land acquired by the above
stated notification under Section 28 of the Act. The first appeal in U.P.
Avas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Jawahar Lal & Ors.4 filed by the
Parishad in respect of land situated in Village Prahladgarhi was dismissed
on 21.07.2015. The land owners have relied upon the following three
sale deeds in appeal before the High Court to claim higher compensation:
3 For short, the 'LA Act'
4 First Appeal No. 56 of 2005 decided on 21.7.2015
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D)
THR. LRS & ORS [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
6. The High Court considering the three sale deeds held as under:
"28. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as also
the factum that the court below has already applied deduction of
25%, we do not find any fault on the part of Reference Court in
determining market value of acquired land at Rs. 120/- per sq.
yard. It can neither be said to be excessive or unreasonable, nor it
can be said that appropriate principles in determining market value
have not been considered by court below. The two judgments
cited by appellant do not help it in any manner since the principles
laid down therein have already been noticed by court below. In
these facts and circumstances, in our view, the aforesaid point for
determination formulated above is answered in favour of
respondents and against appellant."
7. The compensation awarded @ Rs.120/- per square yard vide
order dated 21.7.2015 attained finality when the Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 4636 of 2016 (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jawahar
Lal (D) through LRs & Ors.) filed by the Parishad was dismissed on
28.03.2016.
8. Another appeal Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikash
Parishad & Anr.5 arising against the award of the Reference Court
dated 23.5.2000 filed by the land owners in respect of land situated in
Village Jhandapur was initially dismissed by the High Court on 16.12.2015.
The land owners in the appeal relied upon the following sale deeds in
support of their contention for determining the market value:
5 First Appeal No. 827 of 2000 decided on 28.10.2015
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
759
9. The sale deeds dated 13.1.1986 and 15.1.1986 were not relied
upon by the High Court for the reason that such sale instances were of
more than 31⁄2 years after the publication of notification intending to acquire
land. The High Court found that if the compensation has to be awarded
on the basis of sale deeds dated 5.5.1982 and 8.6.1982, the compensation
would be lower than what has been awarded by the Reference Court.
The Court in its order dated 28.10.2015 held as under:
"13. We find that reliance placed by appellants on the aforesaid
sale deeds would not help claimants in any manner. In our view
the court below has already been considerate enough in
determining market value at Rs. 120/- per square yard else the
aforesaid two sale deeds, if relied, would have cause in a lower
market value. Before elaborating our aforesaid observation we
find it appropriate to remind ourselves with principles laid down in
last several decades on the question how market value of land
acquired forcibly under provisions of Act, 1894 should be
determined."
10. In Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad &
Anr.6, the above order of the High Court was taken as the basis to
determine the market value of land acquired in the said appeal. Another
appeal by the land owners Asha Ram & Anr. v. U.P. Awas Evam
Vikas Parishad & Anr.7 was decided on 01.03.2016, relying upon the
earlier two orders.
11. The aforesaid orders dated 28.10.2015; 16.12.2015 and
1.3.2016 were set aside by this Court on 9.11.2017 and the matters
were remanded to the High Court vide the following order-
"Leave granted.
Learned counsel for the parties have filed certain documents along
with the Special Leave Petitions. The said documents are taken
on record, particularly the decision of this Court in SLP(C)
Nos.1506-1517/2016, titled as Pradeep Kapoor vs. State of
U.P. documents were not on record before the High Court. They
are taken on record. These appeals are remitted back to the High
Court for deciding afresh. A prayer is made for consideration of
the aforesaid documents. It is open to the parties if they so desire
6 First Appeal No. 552 of 2001 decided on 16.12.2015
7 First Appeal No. 412 of 2001 decided on 1.3.2016
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D)
THR. LRS & ORS [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
to adduce additional evidence, in that event, the High Court may
ask Reference Court to record additional evidence and to record
finding and then High Court may decide the appeals afresh.
The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeals are
remitted to the High Court for being decided afresh in accordance
with law.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly."
12. The IA to produce additional documents as mentioned in the
above order has been placed along with the written submissions by the
land owners before this Court. Apart from the award by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer and the order of the Reference Court, various
other judgments pertaining to different acquisitions were produced.
13. The High Court thereafter decided the 53 appeals on
19.07.2019, awarding a sum of Rs. 297/- per square yard as compensation
for acquiring the land of the six villages as mentioned in the notification.
51 appeals were preferred in respect of acquisition of land by the Parishad
and the others are in respect of the acquisition by Ghaziabad Development
Authority8. The High Court proceeded as if the notification for the
acquisition for the Parishad and GDA is the same and for the same
acquisition proceedings. The land acquired by the Parishad vide notification
dated 26.06.1982 is the subject matter of the present appeals. It is pertinent
to note that the said land is not for the benefit of the GDA. The High
Court in the impugned judgment held as under:
"Accordingly, we find that all the appellants in both the sets of
first appeals are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 297/-
per square yard. We have mentioned in detail regarding the other
similar cases where compensation has been awarded at the rate
of Rs. 297/- per square yard even though there were gaps between
the different notifications, but the villages are same. As discussed
above, Narendra (supra) lays emphasis on fair compensation and
on parity of compensation in respect of similarly situated land. A
careful analysis of the said judgment clearly shows that gaps of a
few years in the notifications have been ignored by the Supreme
Court and this Court also in the subsequent judgment in First Appeal
No. 522 of 2009, Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P., which has
been affirmed by the Supreme Court. We do not find any reason
8 For short, 'GDA'
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
761
for not awarding compensation at the same rate. Accordingly, the
orders of the Reference Court dated 13th April, 1998, 18th February,
2000, 23rd May, 2000, 29th March, 2001 and 02nd April, 2002, which
are under challenge in the respective appeals, are set aside. The
appellants are entitled to compensation of the land at the rate of
Rs. 297/- per square yard along with other statutory benefits under
the law which shall be calculated and paid to them expeditiously
within six months from today."
14. The High Court referred to the judgment of this Court in
Narendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.9 wherein
compensation of Rs. 297/- per square yard was provided in respect of
acquisition by the State vide notification dated 12.9.1986 for the land
situated in Village Makanpur for planned development of Vaishali. The
High Court, in a judgment under appeal, had restricted the amount of
compensation to the amount on which Court fees was affixed. This
Court held as under:
"16) Simply because the appellants had paid court fee on the claim
at the rate of Rs.115/- square yards could not be the reason to
deny the compensation at a higher rate. This could be taken care
of by directing the appellants to pay the difference in court fee
after calculating the same at the rate of Rs.297/- per square yards."
15. In another matter referred by the High Court, Pradeep Kumar
v. State of U.P.10, this Court had remanded the appeals to the High
Court on 16.2.2016 as it awarded Rs.135/- per square yard as
compensation vide its order dated 15.4.2015. The appeals arose out of a
notification under Section 4 of the LA Act published on 15.03.1988 for
acquisition of land in Village Makanpur for planned industrial development
at New Okhla Industrial Development Authority11 constituted under "The
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976". After remand
by this Court, the High Court on 21.04.2016 awarded Rs. 297/- per
square yard as the compensation for the land acquired.
16. Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the Parishad,
argued that the High Court has ignored the date of notification i.e.
26.6.1982 by which the land in the present matter was acquired. In the
matter of Pradeep Kumar, the notification was dated 15.03.1988 in
9 Civil Appeal Nos. 10429-10430 of 2017 decided on 11.09.2017
10 (2016) 6 SCC 308
11 For short, 'Noida'
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D)
THR. LRS & ORS [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
respect of land located in village Makanpur at Noida. However, in the
present matter, more than 1000 acres of land situated in five other villages
is to be acquired. The land in district Ghaziabad sought to be acquired by
the Parishad is on the northern side of the National Highway-24 which
passes through Village Makanpur, whereas the land on the southern side
of National Highway is a part of Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Noida is a well-developed town as compared to the developing town of
Ghaziabad situated on the other side of the National Highway.
17. Mr. Gupta, on the other hand, vehemently argued on behalf of
the land owners that the land situated in Village Makanpur was the subject
matter of acquisition for Noida as well as GDA apart from the Parishad.
It was contended that the purpose for which the land is acquired or the
authority which acquired the land is inconsequential as the land owners
are entitled to compensation irrespective of any such factors. In the
written submissions, reference has been made to the statement of Inderraj
Singh (PW-1) to submit that at the time of acquisition, there were
industrial units as well as residential colonies of Vaishali and Kaushambi.
Reliance was placed upon finding of the Reference Court which is to
the following effect:
"10. From the above averments it is proved that the position and
status of disputed acquired land is of high quality and these lands
are of good potential with a view to productivity and other usages
and is fit for residential and commercial capacity."
18. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the land owners,
two maps have also been referred. First map is of Ghaziabad which is
on the northern side of National Highway-24 and the second map is
stated to be of an area now covered within the jurisdiction of Noida, i.e.
in respect of Chalera Banger, Bhangel Begampur, Nagla Charandas,
Tilpatabad, Kakrana Khawaspur. Such map submitted with the written
submissions is not legible. It is submitted that the Village Makanpur is
close to Delhi as compared to the above said villages which are now
parts of Noida. It has been stated that a compensation of Rs.297/- per
square yard has been awarded under the notification dated 19.12.1980
for the land situated in Village Makanpur, hence, the present land owners
are also entitled to the same amount of compensation. As per the argument
of Mr. Gupta, the land acquired is better located than the land which is
the subject matter of acquisition for Noida. The distances of the villages
presently under the jurisdiction of Noida and Ghaziabad from the borders
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
763
of Delhi have also been submitted before us. Though, such distances
are not part of the pleadings or evidence before the Reference Court or
the High Court, the said table has been reproduced hereunder:
"There is no dispute that landowners of village across NH-24,
examples of which were cited before this Court during the course
of hearing have all been awarded compensation @ Rs.297/- per
square yard. The approximate distance to Delhi from the villages
involved in the present case and those across NH-24 is as under:
The above table would show that for villages which are at a
distance of 13-14 km from Delhi, have been awarded
compensation @ Rs.297/- per square yard and therefore the
respondents in the present case deserve compensation at least @
Rs.297/- per square yard, if not more."
19. In the written submissions submitted on behalf of Shri Rohit
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the land owners, it is asserted that the
State Government has decided that 731 acres of land would be carved
out from the total land acquired in 1982 and handed over to the GDA. It
is also submitted that a notification was issued under Section 4 of the LA
Act on 28.2.1987 in respect of 731 acres of land. In the present set of
appeals, we are not dealing with the acquisition of land intended to be
acquired by way of a notification under Section 4 of the LA Act dated
28.2.1987. Mr. Singh in the written submissions has submitted that the
possession was taken over by the GDA on 14.6.1988 and 29.6.1988
which was based upon development work taken place from 1982
onwards. We do not find such facts emanate from the orders passed by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court and the order
of the High Court. The land acquired by the GDA is not part of
determination of the compensation in the present set of appeals.
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D)
THR. LRS & ORS [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
20. The principles of determining the market value are delineated
under Sections 23 and 24 of the LA Act and are well-settled by the
plethora of judgments on the said subject matter. The provisions of the
LA Act and some of the judgments are referred hereinafter-
"23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. - (1)
In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for
land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into considerationfirst, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of
the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1);
xx xx xx
24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. -
xx xx xx
fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to
accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired;
sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person
interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired
will be put;"
21. A three Judge Bench of this Court12 indicated methods of
valuation to be adopted to ascertain the market value of land on the date
of the notification under Section 4(1) as: (i) opinion of experts, (ii) the
price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase
of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and
possessing similar advantages; and (iii) a number of years' purchase of
the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired.
22. This Court13 held that the acid test which the court should
always adopt in determining the market value in matters of compulsory
acquisition is to eschew feats of imagination and sit in the armchair of a
prudent willing purchaser. It was held as under:
"6. No prudent purchaser would purchase large extent of land on
the basis of sale of a small extent of land in the open market. The
acid test the court should always adopt in determining market
value in the matter of compulsory acquisition would be to eschew
12 Smt. Tribeni Devi & Ors. v. Collector of Ranchi and Vice Versa, (1972) 1 SCC 480
13 Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. v. Narottambhai Morarbhai & Anr., (1996)
11 SCC 159
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
765
feats of imagination, sit in the armchair of a prudent willing
purchaser, it should consider whether the willing vendee would
offer the rate at which the trial court proposes to determine the
compensation. Taking these facts into consideration, we are of
the view that the reasonable and adequate compensation for the
lands would be at a net rate of Rs 22 per sq. mtr., after giving
deduction of 1/3rd of the amount towards developmental charges.
Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation
@ Rs 22 per sq. mtr. They are also entitled to the statutory benefits
on the enhanced compensation."
23. This Court14 has also held that in fixation of rate of
compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, there is always some
element of guesswork but that has to spring from the totality of evidence,
the pattern of rate, the pattern of escalation and escalation of price in
the years preceding and succeeding the notification under Section 4 of
the LA Act. The Court has held that:
"13. The first question we proceed to consider is, whether the
High Court was right to enhance the rate from the rate recorded
in Exhibits A-1 and A-2 by Rs 10,000 per acre per year for three
years. It is true, in the fixation of rate of compensation under the
Land Acquisition Act, there is always some element of guesswork.
But that has to be based on some foundation. It must spring from
the totality of evidence, the pattern of rate, the pattern of escalation
and escalation of price in the years preceding and succeeding
Section 4 notification etc. In other words, the guesswork could
reasonably be inferable from it. It is always possible to assess the
rate within this realm. In the present case, we find there are three
exemplars i.e. Exhibits A-1 and A-2 which are three years
preceding the date of notification and Exhibit A-3 which is of the
same point of time when Section 4 notification was issued."
24. Further, this Court15 has held that for determining the market
value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustments have to be made
while considering the various positive and negative factors. The following
observations have been made-
"18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of
compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of
14 Land Acquisition Officer v. B. Vijender Reddy & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 669
15 Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D)
THR. LRS & ORS [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any
cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer
would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in
possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where
he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in
the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special
needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not
forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the
neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section
4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences
have to be considered.
xx xx xx
21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a
large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout
plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller
plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur.
Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of
the total price."
25. This Court16 has delineated the following factors responsible
for increase in land prices such as situation of the land, nature of
development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in
the area, and demand for the land in the area. It was held:
"16. Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine the
market value of acquired lands with reference to future sale
transactions or acquisitions. To illustrate, if the market value of a
land acquired in 1992 has to be determined and if there are no
sale transactions/acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to the date of
preliminary notification), the statistics relating to sales/acquisitions
in future, say of the years 1994-1995 or 1995-1996 are taken as
the base price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by
making deductions at the rate of 10% to 15% per annum. How
far is this safe? One of the fundamental principles of valuation is
that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored
for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very
16 General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai
Patel & Anr., (2008) 14 SCC 745
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
767
acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate
the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a
sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Let us illustrate. Let us assume
there was no development activity in a particular area. The
appreciation in market price in such area would be slow and
minimal. But if some lands in that area are acquired for a residential/
commercial/industrial layout, there will be all round development
and improvement in the infrastructure/amenities/facilities in the
next one or two years, as a result of which the surrounding lands
will become more valuable. Even if there is no actual improvement
in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of improvement on
account of the proposed residential/commercial/industrial layout
will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the
annual increase in market value was around 10% per annum before
the acquisition, the annual increase of market value of lands in the
areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become much more,
say 20% to 30%, or even more on account of the development/
proposed development. Therefore, if the percentage to be added
with reference to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10%
per annum, the percentage to be deducted to arrive at a market
value with reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should
not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of standard
increase becomes unreliable. Courts should, therefore, avoid
determination of market value with reference to subsequent/future
transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater
caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future.
Be that as it may."
26. The relationship between the market value of land and its
potentiality has also been discussed by this Court17 wherein it was
observed that-
"4. ... The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would
pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its
existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential
possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding
any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the
property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value
disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent
17 Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2008) 2 SCC 568
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKASH PARISHAD. v. ASHA RAM (D)
THR. LRS & ORS [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 3 S.C.R.
necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The
guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor
who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conduct
would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market
conditions but not an anxious dealing at arm's length nor facade
of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or
otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of market
value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome
of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities....
5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of
the acquired land should also be taken into consideration.
Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing
into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a
property has to be determined having due regard to its existing
condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility
when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question
whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact
depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is
reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential,
commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities
like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether
near about town is developing or has prospect of development
have to be taken into consideration..."
27. In another three Judge Bench of this Court18, the Court held
as under:
"13. One other important factor which also should be borne in
mind is that it may not be safe to rely only on an award involving
a neighbouring area irrespective of the nature and quality of the
land. For determination of market value again, the positive and
negative factors germane therefor should be taken into
consideration as laid down by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar
Contractor v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 4 SCC 789] , namely:
(SCC p. 797, para 20)..."
28. The land forming the subject matter of the present appeals
was acquired in pursuance of notification under Section 28 of the Act
18 Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer v. Shaik Azam Saheb &
Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 395
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
769
published on 26.6.1982.