Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Shawal Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Land Acquisition Collector Hp on 14 January, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant
1
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.7 SECTION XIV
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. 5885/2006
SHAWAL SINGH (D) THR. LRS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, HP & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 14/01/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Appellant(s) Mr. M.L. Varma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suresh Singh, Adv.
Mr. P. N. Puri, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Y. Prabhakara Rao, Adv.
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Vinod Lakhina Date: 2016.01.16 12:23:50 IST Reason: 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5885/2006 SHAWAL SINGH (D) THR. LRS. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, HP & ANR. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER
1. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 11th March, 2005 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by which compensation at the rate of Rs.23,115/- per kanal has been granted to the claimant along with all statutory benefits including interest and solatium. Aggrieved by the said award and claiming higher compensation this appeal has been filed.
2
2. The total area of the land acquired in the present case is 98 kanals and 2 marlas out of which the appellants own about 7 kanals. The Land Acquisition Collector while determining the compensation classified the land into three categories and awarded the compensation as follows:
“Barani Rs.23,115/- per
Abbal kanal;
Banjar Rs.7,234.20
Quadim paise per kanal
Gair Mumkin Rs.14,285.80
paise per kanal”
3. The Reference Court dismissed the claim for higher compensation. Aggrieved, an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was filed by the claimant. The High Court by the impugned order took the view that as the purpose of 3 acquisition was for building a housing colony the categorization of the land was not a relevant factor. In addition, the High Court considered the location of the land for the purposes of determining the potential value thereof and having regard to the exemplar sale deeds brought on record thought it proper to award compensation at the rate awarded to the highest category of land i.e. Barani Abbal which rate is Rs.23,115/- per kanal.
4. Shri M.L. Varma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has raised a contention that the highest exemplar which showed sale at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per kanal ought to have been taken into account by the High Court for the purposes of determining the compensation payable. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust 4 (Registered), Faridkot and others versus State of Punjab and others [(2012) 5 SCC 432 (paragraph 17)].
5. Pointing out the findings of the High Court with regard to the location of the land, Shri Varma has also relied another decision of this Court in Atma Singh (dead) through LRs. and others versus State of Haryana and another [(2008) 2 SCC 568 (paragraph 5)] wherein this Court has laid down parameters on the basis of which potential value of the acquired land is required to be assessed/determined. Reliance has also been placed on a third decision of this Court in Trishala Jain and another versus State of Uttaranchal and another [(2011) 6 SCC 47 (paragraphs 56 and
58)] to contend that determination of compensation necessarily involves some amount of guesswork. It is on the basis of the aforesaid legal precedents that Shri 5 Varma has contended that the compensation awarded by the High court is grossly inadequate and needs to be suitably enhanced.
6. From the order of the Reference Court, which is available on record, we find that the claimant in support of his claim of higher compensation had brought on record several sale deeds showing transactions between the rate of Rs.8,500/- and Rs.50,000/- per kanal. The Reference Court on consideration of the aforesaid exemplars had recorded a finding that the sale deeds in question were for very small areas ranging from 5 marlas to 1 kanal 3 marlas and that such lands had been purchased for the purposes of construction of private houses. The Reference Court had also recorded a finding that Exhibit P-12, Exhibit P-14, Exhibit P-16 and Exhibit P-20 cited by the claimant himself show that the 6 said transaction was at the rate of near about Rs.20,000/- per kanal. Though the basis on which the Reference Court had declined enhancement of the compensation has been disagreed with by the High Court and higher compensation, as already noticed, has been awarded by the High Court, the aforesaid findings of fact remain undisturbed. The fact that the exemplar sale deeds were for small plots and the acquisition in the present case is of a large area measuring 98 kanals and 2 marlas cannot be disputed. Coupled with the above is the settled position in law that in respect of a large area acquired for a housing colony suitable deductions have to be made. The same has not been taken into account by the High Court in awarding the higher compensation of Rs.23,115/- per kanal, a fact that must go into the process of determination of the quantum awardable.
7
7. The decision of this Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others (supra) with regard to highest rate of comparable sales is subject to certain well defined and well understood exceptions apart from the necessity of proving such sales to be bona fide as indicated in the decisions of this Court. The extent of the area transferred would certainly be a relevant factor which issue stands concluded by findings of fact recorded by the learned Reference Court.
8. The decision of this Court in Trishala Jain and another (supra) insofar as the determination of compensation on the basis of guesswork is concerned itself contains an observation to the effect that such guesswork would be permissible only if relevant/sufficient evidence is not available on record. In the present case, 8 as already observed by the Court, adequate evidence which would militate against the claim of higher compensation made by the claimant is readily available, as discussed above.
9. In the light of the above, we do not find that there is any basis for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the High Court as canvased in the present appeal. The appeal, therefore, has to fail. It is, accordingly, dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ...................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI JANUARY 14, 2016