Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Patiala Urban Planning And Development ... vs Tarlochan Singh And Ors. on 24 October, 2018
Bench: Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 18014 OF 2017
PATIALA URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
TARLOCHAN SINGH AND ORS. Appellant(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 18126-18237/2017
AND
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 18070-18116/2017
O R D E R
Heard learned senior counsel for the parties. Impleadment allowed.
The Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority and the landowners are in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.1418/- per sq. yard.
336 acres of land had been acquired by issuing a Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 NEELAM GULATI Date: 2018.11.03 10:45:27 IST Reason: (in short ‘the Act') on 10.12.2002 for the purpose of the integrated township (Residential-commercial-IT- 2 Institutional).
The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 26.06.2003 determining the compensation for Chahi land at the rate of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre for the land adjacent to the main road up to one acre, for the next three acres i.e. second, third and fourth acres at Rs.7,50,000/- per acre and beyond fourth acre Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. It is also not disputed that a lot of development in the area has taken place and Verka Milk Plant is situated adjacent to the land acquired. The frontier portion of the land abuts main Patiala Sirhind Road. Sketch map indicates that there is a link road nearby and on another side also there is a road. The Reference Court determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq. yard, for the land, abutting road up to the depth of one acre; and Rs.225/- per sq. yard for the next three acres and beyond the fourth acre @ Rs.150/- per sq. yard.
However, the High Court relying upon a decision, in the case of Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, in which Notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued on 5.8.1993 before 9 years and 4 months has enhanced the compensation. In that case, the High Court has determined the compensation at Rs.720/- per sq. yard. In the instant case the High Court has determined the valuation by giving 12% 3 cumulative increase for 9 years 4 months and after making the deduction of 30% for development at the rate of Rs.1418/- per square yard. Aggrieved thereby the appeals have been preferred by both the parties in this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court has gravely erred in law in relying upon the valuation determined by it in Sukhdev Singh’s case in which the Notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued on 4.8.1993. It was too remote to consider the rate prevailing in the year 1993 whereas the comparative sale exemplar evidence of 2001-2002 had been adduced by the parties and lot of sale deeds were placed on record. It is not a safe method to work out the compensation by applying the cumulative method of increase for many years. This Court in Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board & Ors. vs. K.S. Gangadharappa & Anr. (2009) 11 SCC 164 has observed that sale has to be in a reasonable time of the date of notification under section 4(1).
In General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008) 14 SCC 745, it was observed that the transaction or acquisition before five years is unsafe and unreliable standard. The Court observed:
“15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisitions), where there is no 4 evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied- on-sale transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is up to four to five years. Beyond that, it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the “rate” of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase.” In Loveleen Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
(2018) 7 SCC 492 the Court has discussed Ashrafi v. State of Haryana (2013) 5 SCC 527 and observed that it is not proper to apply Cumulative Increase Method over five years and it cannot be applied when comparative sale evidence is available. In Loveleen (supra), this Court observed:
“9. The High Court has mainly relied upon Ashrafi (supra) for coming to its conclusion. In our considered opinion, the method of granting compensation on the basis of cumulative increase as done was not permissible in the facts of the case, in view of the sale deeds produced. The method of working out compensation without considering the evidence on record cannot be said to be justifiable. The land in Ashrafi (supra) was acquired in the year 1995 and was very small. It was for a commercial purpose. In the matter on hand, the land was acquired in the year 2005. Thus, there is a gap of about 10 years between the two acquisitions. Relying on such an acquisition of a decade ago may be unsafe.
11. In addition to this, the land in Ashrafi (supra) was very small as compared to the acquisition on hand. The award passed in that matter cannot be taken into consideration as a comparable factor while awarding 5 compensation in this matter which involves more than 229 ac of land. The award that had been relied upon was passed keeping in mind the price as prevailed in the year 1995 in Ashrafi matter (supra), that too for a small commercial area. As there is a huge time gap between the acquisition in Ashrafi (supra) and the present one, and the land in Ashrafi (supra) was much smaller, Ashrafi (supra) cannot be a safe criterion to assess compensation in this case, and more so in view of the ample evidence available on record. The Court cannot lose sight of the facts and the documents.” In absence of comparative sale exemplars, the awards can be looked into and it has to be seen what was the basis of awarding compensation. The basis of determination in award has to be seen and that should be on judicially acceptable principle. Its value is not more than any sale exemplar and is not to be accepted readily. The similarity of land, distance has to be considered, besides it should be in close proximity of time before it is accepted as evidence. It has to be tendered in evidence and relevant facts for its acceptability have to be proved.
In Ram Kanwar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2015) 1 RCR (Civil) 234, sale exemplars are the best evidence and in absence of sale deeds awards can be looked into. Following observations were made:
“11. It is settled law that prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and, indeed the best, evidences of market value of lands.
12. In Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1980) 1 SCC 575, this Court observed:6
"2. There cannot be any doubt that the best evidence of the market value of the acquired land is afforded by transactions of sale in respect of the very acquired land, provided of course there is nothing to doubt the authenticity of the transactions."
13. This Court in Charan Dass v. HP. Housing & Urban Development Authority, 2009(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 740:
2009(6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 45: (2010) 13 SCC 398 has reiterated its aforesaid view and further observed:
"21. One of the preferred and well-accepted methods adopted for ascertaining the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the sale transactions on or about the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. But here again finding a transaction of sale on or a few days before the said notification is not an easy exercise. In the absence of such evidence, contemporaneous transactions in respect of the lands which have similar advantages and disadvantages are considered as a good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land.
22. It needs little emphasis that the contemporaneous transactions or the comparable sales have to be in respect of lands which are contiguous to the acquired land and are similar in nature and potentiality. Again, in the absence of sale deeds, the judgments and awards passed in respect of" acquisition of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to work out the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Undoubtedly, an element of some guesswork is involved in the entire exercise, yet the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard."7
Thus, we have no hesitation to set aside the determination made by the High Court as it was based upon the determination made in 1993 which was too remote and could not have formed the basis to arrive at compensation after nine years.
Now coming to the question as to amount of compensation to be awarded, we find that the determination made by the Reference Court after considering the potentiality of the land and the development that has taken place in the area, at the rate of Rs.400/- per square yard was reasonable, at the same time, it was not proper to apply the belting system for awarding compensation in the facts of the instant case and particularly considering the situation of the road on two sides of the land acquired and link road is also situated nearby. Thus, in our opinion, the potentiality of the land was more or less the same, as such, in the facts of this case, the belting method could not have been applied. Thus, we find that the compensation of Rs.400/- per sq. yard determined by the Reference Court was appropriate and based on proper appreciation of the comparable sale evidence and other evidence as to potentiality adduced by the parties. In the circumstances, we determine the compensation uniformly for the entire land at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq. yard. 8
It was submitted by Shri Manoj Swaroop, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners that since development agreement had been entered into in the year 2006 by the Development Authority with M/s. Omaxe Ltd., who is a builder, the Court should not interfere. We are not impressed by the submission. The evidence available on record with respect to the comparable sale in the close vicinity of the time is available and it is settled proposition that the subsequent development or increase in price does not make any difference. Thus, entering into the agreement by the development authority with some builders for the purpose of construction of the residential flats etc. or paying capacity of builder or activity undertaken is not going to affect the compensation to be determined.
It was also submitted on behalf of the landowners that since the appeals have been preferred by Development Authority as against decision in appeals, filed in the High Court for the purpose of reduction in compensation and not against the decision in appeals of landowners, in which the compensation has been enhanced, this Court should not interfere on this technical ground. The submission is factually incorrect as in order to meet the objection separate appeals have also been filed by the Development Authority as against the decision of the High Court allowing appeals filed by the landowners. 9 Moreover, even if no fresh appeals would have been filed, in that case also, in substance, the claim of the Development Authority is that the compensation could not have enhanced by the High Court and the compensation as awarded by the Reference Court may also be reduced. Thus, in essence, their appeal is against the entire determination made by the High Court. It cannot be said to be a case like that of two decrees passed by the High Court in which two separate appeals are required to be filed. The substance of the appeal has to be seen and we have no hesitation in rejecting the submission raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of landowners.
In the circumstances, we dispose of the appeals by determining the compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.400/- per sq. yard. for the entire land. Compensation to carry statutory benefits also. The same shall be paid to the landowners within four months from today. The amount that has already been paid shall be adjusted. This determination shall enure even for the benefit of all the landowners whose land had been acquired whether they have filed appeals or not.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
SLP(C) No. 32559/2017 AND Diary No(s). 14311& 14391/2018 Permission to file SLPs is granted.
Delay condoned.
10Petitions are disposed of in terms of the above order passed in C.A. No. 18014/2017 etc. ................J. (ARUN MISHRA) ................J. (VINEET SARAN) NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 24, 2018
11
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.7 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 18014/2017
PATIALA URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS TARLOCHAN SINGH AND ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No.54573/2017-I/A FOR PLACING ON RECORD COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER SUBMITTED IN THE REFERENCE COURT and IA No.31553/2018- impleading party FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 3/2017 FOR [PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES] ON IA 2/2017 WITH C.A. No. 18126-18237/2017 (IV) (and FOR [PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES] ON IA 113/2016 FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 225/2017 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ON IA 90126/2017 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 90128/2017) C.A. No. 18070-18116/2017 (IV) SLP(C) No. 32559/2017 (IV-B) Diary No(s). 14311/2018 (IV-B) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.57450/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.57452/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.57447/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP) Diary No(s). 14391/2018 (IV-B) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.58010/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.58011/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.58009/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE SLP/TP) Date : 24-10-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN For Appellant(s) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. H.P. Rawal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Sarin, Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Verma, Adv.
Ms. Gagan Deep Kaur, Adv.
Mr. Dinkar Kalra, AOR 12 Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Mr. K.K. Venugoapl, AG Mr. H.P. Rawal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Verma, Adv.
Ms. Divya Anand, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth H. Raval, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Arora, Adv.
Mr. Shovit Singh, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR Mr. Siddharth Batra, Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vishwajeet Arora, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR Mr. Rajat Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Mohit Kaushik, Adv.
Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, adv. Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv.
Mr. Amit, Adv.
Ms. Sushma Singh, Adv.
Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Garima Sehgal, Adv.
Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Swarup, AOR Ms. Tanya Swarup, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Bakshi, AOR Mr. A. Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Anish Garg, Adv.
Mr. A. Tewari, Adv.
Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv.
Mr. Shreepal Singh, Adv.13
Ms. Uttara Babbar, Adv.
Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R IN C.A. Nos. 18014,18126-18237, 18070-18116 of 2017 Impleadment allowed.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.
SLP(C) No. 32559/2017 AND Diary No(s). 14311& 14391/2018 Permission to file SLPs is granted. Delay condoned.
Petitions are disposed of in terms of the above order passed in C.A. No. 18014/2017 etc. (NEELAM GULATI) (JAGDISH CHANDER) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (Signed order C.A. Nos. 18014,18126-18237, 18070-18116 of 2017 is placed on the file)