Allahabad High Court
Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd. vs Jagpal Singh And Others on 22 February, 2016
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rakesh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on 11.01.2016 Delivered on 22.02.2016 Court No. - 34 1. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 96 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Jagpal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Verma 2. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 74 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Virender Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta,Siddharth Verma 3. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 75 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Jabbar Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- V. Sahai, B.Dayal, S.C. Gupta, 4. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 77 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Rewati and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 5. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 78 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Onkar and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 6. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 80 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Salauddin and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 7. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 81 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Dharampal and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Verma 8. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 82 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Rajinder Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Verma 9. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 83 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Sardar Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Verma 10. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 84 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Nepal and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- V. Sahai, B. Dayal 11. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 90 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Omkar Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- V. Sahai, B. Dayal, Madan Mohan Chaurasiya 12. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 92 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Mahender Singh and another Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 13. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 94 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Nepal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S. C. Gupta 14. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 95 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Rajpal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta 15. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 60 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Zahir Ahmed and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan 16. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 62 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Munshi Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- A.L.Jaiswal,Anita Srivastava,B.Dayal,S. Singh 17. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 63 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Rajpal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- A.L.Jaiswal,A. Srivastava,B.Dayal,S. Singh 18. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 64 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Omkar Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- B.Dayal, S. Sahai 19. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 66 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Jagpal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- B.Dayal, S. Sahai 20. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 68 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Jameel Ahmed and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- B.Dayal 21. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 73 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Baburam and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Verma 22. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 76 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Deepak and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Verma 23. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 88 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Dharam Pal and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal,V. Sahai 24. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 93 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Krishanveer Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S. C. Gupta 25. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 97 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Jagvira Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Verma 26. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 98 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Chote Lal and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Verma 27. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 100 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Keshu and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Verma 28. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 102 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Nain Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Verma 29. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 103 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Shyamwati and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Verma 30. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 104 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Ram Sharan and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta,Siddharth Verma 31. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 105 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Dharam Pal and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Verma 32. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 106 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Dharamvir and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Ranjeet Saxena 33. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 79 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Jagvira and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 34. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 72 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Subhash Chandra and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 35. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 211 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Nidan Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 36. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 236 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Ashok and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 37. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 70 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Vedram and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 38. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 99 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Bhopal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 39. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 192 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Devkaran and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 40. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 208 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Pramod and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 41. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 202 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Sher Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 42. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 194 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Narender Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 43. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 137 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Rajender and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 44. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 196 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Shivpal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 45. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 201 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Chaman Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta 46. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 190 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Smt. Jagwati and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 47. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 189 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Raj Kumar and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 48. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 206 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Moolchand and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Gupta,Siddhartha Verma 49. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 134 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Dal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 50. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 235 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Ram Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 51. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 136 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Parshuram and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 52. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 71 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Rajpal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Siddhartha Verma 53. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 101 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Rajpal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 54. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 198 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Devendra Pal and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 55. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 191 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Dal Chand and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 56. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 193 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Indraj and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 57. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 200 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Parmal and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 58. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 195 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Rajpal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 59. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 234 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Smt. Sudha and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 60. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 220 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Vijay Kumar and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 61. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 197 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Jai Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 62. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 204 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Dheer Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 63. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 217 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Dharampal and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 64. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 140 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Dharampal and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 65. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 203 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Surender and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 66. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 218 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Tejpal and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 67. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 212 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Suresh Kumar and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 68. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 219 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Satyapal and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 69. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 129 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Parshuram and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 70. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 205 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Salekchand and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 71. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 209 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Sanjiv Kumar and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 72. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 210 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Jagdish Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 73. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 61 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Pushkar Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- V. Sahai, B.Dayal 74. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 67 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Bhagat Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- V. Sahai, B.Dayal 75. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 87 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Subhash Chandra and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- V. Sahai, B.Dayal 76. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 65 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Chahel Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- V. Sahai, B.Dayal 77. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 85 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Satish Kumar and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- V. Sahai, B.Dayal 78. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 119 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Vishamber and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, Prant Mishra, S.P. Gupta 79. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 120 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Noorjahan and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan Chaurasiya 80. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 122 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Banarasi and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 81. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 123 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Puran and Others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, S.P. Gupta 82. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 124 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Alimuddin and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, S.P. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan 83. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 125 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Shamshuddin and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, S.P. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan 84. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 126 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Dharamvir and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 85. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 130 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Rajvir and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 86. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 131 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Govind and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 87. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 132 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Raisuddin and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 88. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 133 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Jahir Ahmed and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan 89. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 135 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Ashok Kumar (Deceased) and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 90. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 139 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Charan Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 91. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 143 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Allah Banda and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan Chaurasiya 92. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 146 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Asmat Nasir and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 93. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 147 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Nihal Singhand and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava, S.P. Gupta 94. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 148 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Nihal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 95. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 168 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Mange Ram and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 96. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 164 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Narender and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 97. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 172 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Bhoondiya and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 98. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 152 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Bhondiya and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 99. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 165 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Jagan Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 100. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 163 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Chandrabhan (Deceased) and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 101. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 156 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Vedbir and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 102. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 158 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Jabbar Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 103. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 153 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Bhopal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 104. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 169 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Nepal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 105. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 160 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Bhagat Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 106. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 157 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Samay Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 107. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 170 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Nepal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 108. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 173 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Ahsan and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 109. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 643 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Amar Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 110. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 632 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Chandra Bhan (Deceased) and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 111. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 647 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Satish Kumar and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal, V. Sahai 112. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 648 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Jamil Ahmad and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 113. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 650 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Ilahibaksh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 114. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 641 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Bhopal Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal, V. Sahai 115. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 637 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Pushkar Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 116. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 638 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Samay Singh and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 117. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 69 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Gajraj and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal, V. Sahai 118. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 86 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Dayawati and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- B. Dayal, V. Sahai 119. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 91 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Respondent :- Yashpal and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava 120. Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 162 of 2005 Appellant :- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd Respondent :- Raghubar and others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Bhargava Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
(Delivered by Hon. Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
1. Heard Sri Arvind Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Piyush Bhargava, Advocate, for appellants; and, Sri B. Dayal, Sri Madan Mohan, Sri Ranjeet Saxena and Sri S.C. Gupta, Advocates, for claimants.
2. All these appeals under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1894") have come up at the instance of defendant-Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "PGCIL") who has felt aggrieved by award/judgments dated 29th September, 2004 and 26th April, 2005, whereby Reference Courts have determined market value of acquired land at Rs.131/- per square meter. All the appeals have arisen from award/judgment dated 29.09.2004 except First Appeals No. 632/2005, 637/2005, 638/2005, 641/2005, 643/2005, 647/2005, 648/2005 and 650/205 which have arisen from award/judgment dated 26.4.2005.
3. Some claimants/respondents have also filed Cross Appeals which we have detailed in a chart given at a later stage. Since, all these appeals and cross appeals have arisen from common acquisition proceedings and involve common issues, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
4. For the purpose of establishing 765/400/220 KV Transmission Sub-Station, PGCIL proposed to acquire more than 70 hectares of land in village 'Mataur' and 'Samauli Salempur', District Meerut. These two villages are adjacent to each other. Proceedings for acquisition of land, forcibly, were initiated under the provisions of Act, 1894. Notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of Act, 1894 was issued on 13.2.1995 proposing to acquire 70.7562 hectares land (55.1754 hectares in village Mataur and 15.5840 hectares land in village Samauli Salempur). Notification under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(1) of Act, 1894 was published in Gazette dated 17.9.1995. Possession of acquired land was taken on 6.9.1996. The proposed acquisition included land in two villages of various Khasra numbers and areas, as detailed below : -
Village - Mataur :-
Khasra No. Area (in Sq. meter) Khasra No. Area (in Sq. meter) Khasra No. Area (in Sq. meter) 988 2892 989 13190 990 7450 991 680 992 424 993 1260 994 1390 995 320 996 1560 997 1030 998 1400 1000 3800 1001 630 1002 880 1003 488 1006 300 1014 1352 1027 1254 1028 6044 1029 4880 1031 9010 1033 1430 1034 1940 1035 1930 1036 2820 1038 5640 1039 6310 1040 50 1043 6590 1044 6500 1046 8800 1047 800 1048 790 1050 6190 1051 3060 1053 2260 1054 6210 1057 6110 1059 2720 1060 210 1061 1560 1063 1290 1064 1290 1065 1280 1067 6200 1070 880 1071 1010 1073 36620 1076 41530 1077 17780 1080 3740 1081 4070 1082 4650 1085 7170 1086 6560 1088 25860 1090 26970 1091 720 1093 1600 1094 760 1095 2400 1098 20 1099 20 1100 890 1101 6294 1164 272 1167 1680 1168 3450 1169 3650 1171 776 1174 816 1175 520 1176 584 1177 720 1180 220 1181 600 1195 320 1199 580 1200 1860 1203 6880 1204 1790 1207 22190 1208 4260 1209 4310 1212 21056 1213 1000 1216 6260 1217 1190 1218 1190 1219 1190 1222 5000 1224 1250 1225 1250 1226 1250 1227 1250 1229 25056 1230 12770 1231 1136 1236 1000 1249 8422 1253 360 1254 10420 1255 1840 1257 4620 1258 4408 1259 15650 1262 3960 1268 1256 1269 6628 1270 6910 1272 5960 1281 2552 Village - Samauli Salempur :-
Khasra No. Area (in Sq. meter) Khasra No. Area (in Sq. meter) Khasra No. Area (in Sq. meter) 144 208 183 4110 184 160 187 1700 188 1976 189 908 190 1056 191 1810 192 1810 193 1030 194 1008 195 750 196 750 198 4536 199 4056 201 1660 202 1656 205 239 206 240 207 3886 208 2540 210 2590 211 1030 212 1030 213 1030 214 4059 215 4142 227 16 230 16770 233 1600 234 1620 235 2080 237 2090 238 2080 240 6610 241 6620 242 3106 243 3186 244 3186 247 5380 250 3640 251 2504 252 2744 253 264 255 3890 394 780 395 26960 396 1672 397 320 399 7800 401 1208 403 1700
5. Notices under Section 9 were issued on 16.12.1995. Claimants-land owners filed objections claiming compensation at the rates, varying from Rs. 400/- to Rs.1500/- per sq. yard in village Mataur. In village Samauli Salempur, claimants requested for compensation at Rs. 250/- to Rs.1500/- per sq. yard. Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "SLAO') vide award dated 20.2.1998, following in principles, circle rate, nature of soil, sale deed at serial no. 95 of village Mataur as also Board of Revenue's letter dated 12.5.1992, determined market value as under :
Village - Mataur:-
fdLe tehu LfdZy jsV izfr gsDVs;j vftZr {ks=Qy gs0 esa nj izfr gsDVs;j ls0v0vk0 34-58 46&4187 3]29]718&48 ls0v0[kk0 33-83 1&0940 3]22]567&26 ls0nks0$vk0 29-41 0&9041 2]80]422&80 ls0nks0vk0 27-67 0&0717 2]53]831&99 ls0'kks0vk0 19-01 0&4385 1]81]259&35 ls0'kks0[kk0
-12-09 0&1194 1]15]277&51 Hkw0v0[kk0 13-83 1&2094 1]31]868&32 Hkw0nks0vk0 17-27 0&8911 1]54]668&54 Hkw0nks0[kk0 13-83 3&3858 1]31]868&32 Lis0iz0vk0
- 3-95 0&0903 37]663&04 Lis0iz0[kk0
-3-95 0&5524 37]663&04 Village - Samauli Salempur :-
fdLe tehu LfdZy jsV izfr gs0 vftZr {ks=Qy gDVs;j esa nj izfr gsDVs;j ls0v0vk0 32&61 8&3990 3]10]934&63 ls0nks0$vk0 26&17 1&5994 2]49]529&57 ls0v0vk0 22&73 4&5427 2]16]729&35 ls0v0[kk0 18&02 0&7350 1]71]819&75 ls0'kks0vk0 16&80 0&1280 1]60]187&11 Mk0v0vk0 18&02 0&1767 1]71]019&75
6. Almost all land owners felt dissatisfied with the offer made by SLAO and submitted applications for Reference under Section 18 of Act, 1894 to District Judge, Meerut for determining market value following principles laid down under Section 23 of Act, 1894.
7. Vide award dated 29.9.2004 Sri S.D. Paliwal, Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Meerut adjudicated 50 LAR's and determined market value at Rs.131/- per sq. meter.
8. Another award dated 26.4.2005, which has given rise to some appeals, has also been delivered by Sri S.D. Paliwal, Additional District Judge, Court No.17, Meerut adjudicating 21 LARs including LARs No. 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 23 and 25, (whereagainst appeals have been filed by PGCIL), determining market value at Rs.131/- per square meter. Reference Court has followed award dated 29th September, 2004 in LAR No. 21 of 2002 and other connected references.
9. For the purposes of these appeals, as agreed by learned counsel for parties, we have taken facts and other references from First Appeal No. 96 of 2005 arising from LAR No.117 of 1998, and award dated 29th April, 2004.
10. There are 120 first appeals and 67 cross objections/appeals. A chart, giving details of names of land owners, Khasra No., Area, LAR No., date of award and rate determined by SLAO etc. is given as under : -
Sl. no.
First Appeal No. Cross objection by tenure holder LAR No. Date of Award Khata No. / Khasra No. Area in Sq. meter First name of tenure holder Rate of Compensation in Rupees per sq. meter by S.L.A.O. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. 96 of 2005 54510/05 117 of 1998 29.9.2004 128/1270 6910 Jagpal Singh & others 25/-
2. 75 of 2005 2105/07 328192/07 111 of 1998 29.9.2004 990, 992 11769.66 Jabbar Singh and others
11.41
3. 78 of 2005 128 of 1998 29.9.2004 35/989 13190 Onkar Singh & another 13.18
4. 80 of 2005 50 of 1998 29.9.2004 255/255 11690 Salauddin & others 3.8
5. 81 of 2005 329476/09 86 of 1998 29.9.2004 990, 992 and 993/ 1060 9134 Dharampal Singh & others 15.86
6. 82 of 2005 292852/09 105 of 1998 29.9.2004 1054 6210 Rajindra Singh & others 32.95
7. 83 of 2005 292847/09 108 of 1998 29.9.2004 1070 8880 Sardar singh & others
8. 84 of 2005 94 of 1998 29.9.2004 1050/ 1027 6190 Nepal & others 32.97
9. 90 of 2005 102 of 1998 29.9.2004 1213/ 1229 26026 Omkar singh & others 31.11
10. 94 of 2005 4759/08 135 of 1998 29.9.2004 1028 6044 Nepal singh & others 32.97
11. 95 of 2005 4754/08 132 of 1998 29.9.2004 11751065 5200 Rajpal Singh & Others.
1.32
12. 63 of 2005
-
66 of 1998 29.9.2004 185/1070 27740 Rajpal Singh and others 24.99
13. 64 of 2005 134 of 1998 29.9.2004 1086 6560 Onkar Singh and others 32.96
14. 66 of 2005 144 of 1998 29.9.2004 /699, 1085 7170 Gangpal Singh and another 32.95
15. 68 of 2005 72 of 1998 29.9.2004 /1029 5380 Jameed and others 25.09
16. 73 of 2005 100/ 1998 29.9.2004 1259 15650 Bhanwar Singh(s/o Babu Ram (deceased) 32.97
17. 88 of 2005 152338/05 65 of 1998 29.9.2004 240, 241/ 1200 13230 Dharampal Singh & Others
18. 93 of 2005 4758/08 139 of 1998 29.9.2004 1057/994 6110 Krishna Veer Singh & Others 32.98
19. 97 of 2005 54549/05 42 of 1998 29.9.2004 103/1039 6046 Jagvira Singh and others 23.86
20. 98 of 2005 54545/05 118 of 1998 29.9.2004 1254/107 15040 Chote lal Singh & Others 32.88
21. 100 of 2005 54524/05 124 of 1998 29.9.2004 1230/50 12770 Keshu Singh & Others 32.83
22. 102 of 2005 54547/05 78 of 1998 29.9.2004 1249/203 8422 Nain Singh & Others 32.84
23. 103 of 2005 292856/09 106 of 1998 29.9.2004 1067 6200 Smt. Shyamwati & Others 30.1
24. 104 of 2005 2098/07 54526/05 73 of 1998 29.9.2004 1077/1101 19220 Ram Saran Singh & Others 31.65
25. 79 of 2005 54530/05 129 of 1998 29.9.2004 1031/119 9310 Jagvir Singh and others 31.91
26. 72 of 2005 81 of 1998 29.9.2004 1272/279 5960 Subhash Singh & Others 32.98
27. 236 of 2005 59166/05 115 of 1998 29.9.2004 998 Kha/ 995 700 Ashok Singh and others 12.33
28. 70 of 2005 54541/05 101 of 1998 29.9.2004 1269/259 6628 Ved Ram Singh & Others 32.98
29. 99 of 2005 54536/05 123 of 1998 29.9.2004 1207/51 22190 Bhopal Singh & Others 31.93
30. 192 of 2005 59164/05 39 of 1998 29.9.2004 211/167 1030 Dev Karan Singh & Others 29.03
31. 208 of 2005 55791/05 103 of 1998 29.9.2004 1225 1250 Pramod Singh & Others 32.98
32. 202 of 2005 2097/07 82 of 1998 29.9.2004 1029/578 1010 Sher Singh & Others 32.98
33. 194 of 2005 557635/05 41 of 1998 29.9.2004 214/1229 4059 Narendra Singh & Others 28.42
34. 196 of 2005 59154/05 74 of 1998 29.9.2004 1034/439 1940 Shivpal Singh & Others 32.98
35. 201 of 2005 2103/07 80 of 1998 29.9.2004 1053/529 2260 Chaman Singh & Others 32.98
36. 189 of 2005 55772/05 36 of 1998 29.9.2004 1998/346 4536 Raj Kumar Singh & Others 25.22
37. 190 of 2005 37 of 1998 29.9.2004 215/146 4142 Smt. Javati & Others 21.46
38. 206 of 2005 55794/05, 2102/07 98 of 1998 29.9.2004 1231/562 1136 Mool Chand & anothers 15.57
39. 134 of 2005 110 of 1998 29.9.2004 1081/477 4070 Dal Singh & Others 32.96
40. 235 of 2005 55775/05 126 of 1998 29.9.2004 1040/380 50 Ram Singh ( deceased ) & Others
41. 71 of 2005 54534/05 83 of 1998 29.9.2004 425/1204 17790 Raj Pal Singh & Others 32.96
42. 101 of 2005 55780/05, 55788/05 125 of 1998 29.9.2004 1039/379 6310 Shri Raj Pal & Others 32.98
43. 198 of 2005 54538/05 76 of 1998 29.9.2004 1168/162 3450 Devendra Pal & Others 32.98
44. 191 of 2005 54543/05 38 of 1998 29.9.2004 202/156 1650 Dal Chand & Others 25.05
45. 193 of 2005 59152/05 40 of 1998 29.9.2004 201/47 1660 Murari Lal Singh & Others 22.88
46. 200 of 2005 21115/06 79 of 1998 29.9.2004 1236/227 1080 Paramlal Singh & Others 20.41
47. 195 of 2005 59171/05 44 of 1998 29.9.2004 237/185 4170 Raj Pal Singh and others 31.09
48. 197 of 2005 55799/05 75 of 1998 29.9.2004 1281/209 2552 Jai Singh & Others 32.88
49. 204 of 2005 55783/05 95 of 1998 29.9.2004 1224 1250 Dheer Singh & Others 32.98
50. 217 of 2005 292836/09 112 of 1998 29.9.2004 205/240 229 Dharampal Singh & Others 26.26
51. 140 of 2005 292873/09 120 of 1998 29.9.2004 993 1260 Dharampal Singh & Others 13.19
52. 203 of 2005 26448/07, 55797/05 84 of 1998 29.9.2004 468/1174 816 Surendra Singh and others 13.19
53. 219 of 2005 59169/05 60 of 1998 29.9.2004 81/ 2086 Satya Pal Singh & Others 26.33
54. 129 of 2005 292839/09 85 of 1998 29.9.2004 1051 3860 Parshuram Singh & Others 34.59
55. 205 of 2005 2115/07 97 of 1998 29.9.2004 1268/490 1256 Salekchand singh & Others 32.96
56. 209 of 2005 55759/05 104 of 1998 29.9.2004 1227 1250 Sanjeev Kumar and others 32.98
57. 210 of 2005 55778/05 114 of 1998 29.9.2004 1035 1930 Jagdish Singh & others 32.98
58. 87of 2005 89 of 1998 29.9.2004 1067/495 6200 Mukesh & others 2.15
59. 65 of 2005 90 of 1998 29.9.2004 992, 990/171, 172 7874 Chakel Singh & others 16.3
60. 85 of 2005 87 of 1998 29.9.2004 1076/463 44050 Satish Kumar and others 31.69
61. 119 of 2005 35 of 1998 29.9.2004 194 1808 Vishamber ( deceased).
26.59
62. 120 of 2005 49 of 1998 29.9.2004 189 900 Noorjahan & others 21.68
63. 122 of 2005 47 of 1998 29.9.2004 188 1976 Banarsi & others 21.68
64. 123 of 2005 48 of 1998 29.9.2004 235 2080 Puran & others 31.09
65. 124 of 2005 52 of 1998 29.9.2004 250 3640 Alimuddin & others 27.98
66. 125 of 2005 51 of 1998 29.9.2004 233 1600 Shamshuddin & others 31.09
67. 126 of 2005 107 of 1998 29.9.2004 1006/1043 300 Dharamvir & others 13.19
68. 130 of 2005 59 of 1998 29.9.2004 191 1810 Rajvir & others 21.68
69. 133 of 2005 56 of 1998 29.9.2004 253 264 Jahir Ahmad & Others
70. 139 of 2005 298329/09 121 of 1998 29.9.2004 1046, 1047, 1048/89 2390 Charan Singh & Others 32.98
71. 164 of 2005 141 of 1998 29.9.2004 1029/1029 1970 Narendar and another 32.98
72. 172 of 2005 113 of 1998 29.9.2004 244/243 3186 Bhondiaya & Others 31.09
73. 152 of 2005 46 of 1998 29.9.2004 243/244 3186 Bhodiaya & Others 31.09
74. 165 of 2005 142 of 1998 29.9.2004 1059 2720 Jagan Singh & Others 32.98
75. 163 of 2005 71 of 1998 29.9.2004 187/1217 1700 Chandrabhan Singh & Others 20.85
76. 156 of 2005 64 of 1998 29.9.2004 2010/158 2590 Vedvir & others 30.29
77. 158 of 2005 70 of 1998 29.9.2004 397/153 320 Jabbar Singh & others 28.95
78. 153 of 2005 55 of 1998 29.9.2004 227 816 Bhopal Singh & others 22.66
79. 160 of 2005 93 of 1998 29.9.2004 126/1226 1250 Bhagat Singh and others 32.98
80. 157 of 2005 67 of 1998 29.9.2004 144 208 Samay Singh & others 17.77
81. 173 of 2005 62 of 1998 29.9.2004 403/14 170 Ashan & others 29.96
82. 69 of 2005 69 of 1998 29.9.2004 255, 397/102 11690 Gajraj & others 21.18 83 162 of 2005 130 of 1998 29.9.2004 1082 4650 Rajhubar & others 32.98
84. 131 of 2005 282123/09 57 of 1998 29.9.2004 /207 3886 Govind & others 29.67
85. 77 of 2005 54532/05 20 of 1999 29.9.2004 515/1203 6880 Smt. Revti Singh and others 24.99
86. 92 of 2005 34 of 1999 29.9.2004 988, 1255,1258,1171 16900 Mahendra singh & others 15.8
87. 74 of 2005 2109/07, 59158/05 12 of 1999 29.9.2004 1171 7840 Virendra Singh & others 19.85
88. 76 of 2005 54508/05 39 of 1999 29.9.2004 1038 5640 Deepak Singh and ohters 32.98
89. 105 of 2005 59161/05 33 of 1999 29.9.2004 1043/990 6990 Dharam Pal Singh & Others
90. 106 of 2005 288079/09 16 of 1999 29.9.2004 1044/1006 6580 Dharamvir Singh & Others
91. 211 of 2005 54528/05 19 of 1999 29.9.2004 1029/542 1900 Nidan Singh & Others
92. 137 of 2005 292844/09 3 of 1999 29.9.2004 1100 Ka 890 Rajendra Singh & Others 32.26
93. 136 of 2005 292899/09 9 of 1999 29.9.2004 997/ 446.33 Parshuram & Others 30.44
94. 234 of 2005 59156/05 7 of 1999 29.9.2004 1222/462 5000 Smt. Sudha Singh & Others 8.25
95. 220 of 2005 55786/05 40 of 1999 29.9.2004 1000/433 380 Vijay Kumar Singh & Others 13.19
96. 218 of 2005 55769/05 18 of 1999 29.9.2004 1169 3650 Tej Pal Singh & Others 32.98
97. 212 of 2005 54512/05 21 of 1999 29.9.2004 462/1222 5000 Suresh Singh & Others 8.25
98. 61 of 2005 2 of 1999 29.9.2004 212/1091 47840 Pushkar and anohter 10.99
99. 67 of 2005 8 of 1999 29.9.2004 1222/1014 5000 Bhagat Singh & others 16.49
100. 60 of 2005 8 of 2002 29.9.2004 253 Zahir ahmad & others
101. 135 of 2005 282109/09, 298342/09 15 of 1999 29.9.2004 995/1036 520 Ashok Kumar & Others 7.84
102. 147 of 2005 38 of 1999 29.9.2004 196/195 850 Nihal Singh & Others 21.34
103. 148 of 2005 37 of 1999 29.9.2004 195/196 8500 Nihal Singh & Others 1.92
104. 168 of 2005 1 of 1999 29.9.2004 1064/239 2289 Mange Ram & Others 61.04
105. 169 of 2005 4 of 1999 29.9.2004 1100/1050 890 Nepal Singh & others 32.26
106. 170 of 2005 5 of 1999 29.9.2004 997 1030 Nepal Singh & others 2.19
107. 86 of 2005 6 of 1999 29.9.2004 1203 6880 Dayavati & others 10.45
108. 91 of 2005 17 of 1999 29.9.2004 1090, 1091, 1212 3122.66 Yash pal & others 505.14
109. 143 of 2005 19 of 2002 29.9.2004 2023 230 Allah Banda & Others 21.09
110. 146 of 2005 9 of 2002 29.9.2004 410 2740 Asmat Nasir & Others 4.53
111. 132 of 2005 58 of 1998 29.9.2004 234 1620 Raisuddin & Others 31.09
112. 62 of 2005 13 of 1999 29.9.2004 314/1073, 1101 41914 Munshi Singh & Others 31.09
113. 643 of 2005 20 of 2002 26.4.2005 /195 Amar Singh & others
114. 632 of 2005 11 of 2002 26.4.2005 187 540 Chandra Bhan ( deceased) 20.29
115. 647 of 2005 23 of 2002 26.4.2005 1195 580 Satish Kumar & others 7.09
116. 648 of 2005 16 of 2002 26.4.2005 247/149 2330 Jami Ahmad & others 24.42
117. 650 of 2005 15 of 2002 26.4.2005 43/396 120 Ilahibaksh & others 21.72
118. 641 of 2005 14 of 2002 26.4.2005 227 1290 Bhopal Singh & others 22.21
119. 637 of 2005 25 of 2002 26.4.2005 1090/1212 1220 Pushkar Singh & others 32.58
120. 638 of 2005 12 of 2002 26.4.2005 144 650 Samay Singh and others 17.29
11. Before Reference Court, land owners pleaded that on an average, rate awarded by SLAO is at Rs.25/- per sq. meter which is wholly inadequate and unreasonable. They are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. meter. Land owners pleaded that acquired land is situated at Meerut-Muzaffar Nagar, G.T. Road and Near Meerut City. It is suitable for residential purposes and has potential for development. Near acquired land, there existed Daurala Sugar Mill and its ancillary units. Township Daurala and commercial centers are also not far away from acquired land. Abadi of village Mataur is near acquired land. Veterinary Hospital, Primary Health Center, Secondary and Primary Schools, Petrol Pump, Cold Storage and Bank etc. are also existing near acquired land.
12. PGCIL contested claim on the ground that Daraula Sugar Mill and other ancillary units are far away. Acquired land is actually being used for agricultural purposes and would require a good amount for its development. Abadi of Meerut city is about 7 to 8 Kilometers and land abutting road is only about 80 square meters. Rest is going deep inside upto about one and half kilometer.
13. Reference Court formulated five issues. Relevant issues 1 and 2, substantial for adjudication of market value of acquired land, read as under :
^^1- D;k vftZr Hkwfe dh cktkjh nj ,okMZ vUrxZr /kkjk 11 Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] ds vuqlkj mfpr gS] ;fn ugha rks mfpr izfrdj dh nj D;k gS\ "1. Whether the market rate of the acquired land is proper according to the award u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act? If not, what is the rate of reasonable compensation?"
2- D;k vftZr Hkwfe d`"kd Hkwfe Fkh vkSj mldk mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx d`f"k dk;Z ds fy, fd;k tk jgk Fkk vFkok vfTkZr Hkwfe fdl Hkkofud o vkS|ksfxd {kerk dh Hkwfe Fkh\** "2. Whether the acquired land was agricultural land and was being used and utilized for agricultural purpose and what degree of building & industrial capacity the acquired land had?"
(English Translation by Court)
14. Reference Court in award dated 29.9.2004 treated LAR No. 117 of 1998 as leading case and rest 49 LARs were clubbed with it. Evidence was recorded collectively.
15. In support of claimants-land owners, four witnesses i.e. Jagpal Singh-PW-1, S.K. Tyagi-PW-2, Jasbir Singh-PW-3 and Surendra Singh-PW-4 were examined,while on behalf of defendants,Jahid Parvez was examined as DW1.
16. The documentary evidence adduced by claimants-land owner comprised sale deeds ( Paper No. 14C to 19C and 22C to 27C), Shijra (Paper No. 31C), Notification (Paper No. 28C) and circle rate (Paper No. 29C).
17. PGCIL adduced documentary evidence comprising sale deed (Paper No. 40C).
18. Land owners pointed out that sale deed dated 26.5.1995 relied by SLAO was executed by Richpal Singh in favour of his wife Smt. Dayawati and aunt Smt. Rewati, transferring 7000 square meter of land. The document was suspicious for the reason that there was no occasion for a husband to transfer land to his wife and aunt . It was an ingenuine transaction. Reference Court found that Richpal Singh had indulged in a large number of court cases and may be for avoiding any liability, aforesaid document was executed. Wife was residing with Richpal and there was no valid and genuine reason for such sale transaction. The Court below, therefore, held that reliance on sale deed dated 26.5.1995 by SLAO, for awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. meter, was erroneous. Since this very sale deed was relied by PGCIL before Reference Court also, the same stood rejected.
19. Reference Court then considered exemplars cited by claimants-land owners and found that most of the sale deeds relate to very small piece of land, executed for consideration at Rs. 300/- per sq. meter. The same cannot be treated ideal exemplars since acquired land is quite big. Though transaction appear to be for commercial purpose, but for the purpose of acquisition of 70 hectares and more land, those exemplars of small size of land are not valid. Thus, Reference Court in nutshell rejected all such exemplars except sale-deed dated 11.3.1996 executed by Richpal Singh and Om Prakash through their attorney Anang Pal in favour of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "VSNL") transferring 6000/- sq. meter of land at the rate of Rs. 131.50 square meter land. Court also observed that Notification under Section 4 was published in June, 1995 while sale-deed is dated 11.3.1996 which is quite nearer to the said Notification. Area of land transacted under the aforesaid sale-deed was also 6000 sq. meter and, therefore, following the same, it determined market rate at Rs.131/- per sq. meter.
20. Sri Arvind Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Piyush Bhargava, contended that acquired land was very deep from G.T. Road to the extent of about one and half kilometers. Entire land was not abutting G.T. Road. Area of acquired land also vary from very small, i.e., a few square meters to more than 40,000 square meters and land of such varying area could not have been valued at the same rate.
21. It is then contended that Reference Court has not determined market value by appreciating the fact that land of different owners being differently placed, situated was liable to be treated differently. Accordingly, it has committed manifest illegality by determining same market value for land having different characteristics, size and situational advantages and disadvantages.
22. On the contrary, learned counsel for claimants land owners, some of whom have also filed Cross Objections, contended that a large number of sale-deeds were relied showing sale transactions in the area, near acquired land, at a much higher rate but those sale- deeds have been ignored and rejected by Court below for wholly unjust, illegal and invalid reasons. Some of sale-deeds, relied by claimant- landowners are detailed as under : -
Sl No. Nature of document and date Vendor Vendee Area (in sq. meters) Rate (per sq. meter) 1 Sale-deed dt. 25.4.1994 (paper No.20 Ga) Jasbir Singh, Ashok Kumar Smt. Chirauji 165.35 sq. meter Rs.300/-2
Sale-deed dt. 23.5.1994 (Paper No. 21Ga) Santosh Giri Smt. Babita 165.55 sq. meter Rs.300/-
3 Sale-deed dt. 28.4.1994 (paper No.22Ga) Ram Chandra Singh Smt. Kusum Bala .36.088 Rs.300/-
4 Sale-deed/08.12.94 (paper No.23Ga) Rajeev Singh Smt. Rajesh 117 Rs.300/-
5 Agreement to sell dt. 29.4.1994 (paper No.24 Ga) Vikas (minor through his mother Smt. Bhagwati) M/s D.C.M. Shree Ram Industries Ltd.
3161.12 sq. yard Rs.150/- sq. yard.
23. Counsel for claimant-landowners did not dispute that there are some more sale-deeds but they are of subsequent period, i.e. 11.3.1996, 1.5.1998 and 5.9.2002. This Court is presently deferring reference to these subsequent sale-deeds and if necessary would discuss the same at a later stage.
24. It is contended on behalf of Claimant landowners, when exemplars of different rates are available, one providing highest rate should have been followed. Though land is situated in an already developed area, still, if any deduction on account of largeness of area was to be applied, it could have been only 1/3rd or 25 per cent, and, therefore, rate of Rs. 300/- per square meter shown in various exemplars, after deduction, would have come to Rs. 200/- or 225/- per square meter, but Court below has awarded compensation at the rate of only Rs. 131/- per square yard, which is wholly unreasonable, inadequate and unjust. No deduction towards development was applicable in the case in hand. The agreement for sale also could have been followed and relied on in absence of any reason to treat such document as a sham transaction, particularly, since it ultimately resulted in sale deed. For the purposes of applying principle of largeness of area, it is not the entire acquired land which has to be seen but size of acquired land of individual land owners has to be considered.
25. Both the sides have relied on several authorities, which we shall discuss at appropriate stage. However, at this stage, we may notice that on behalf of PGCIL, reliance is placed on National Thermal Power Corporation through its G.M. Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (4) ADJ 537 (All.), Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. UOI, (2015) 2 SCC 262, Power Grid Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 (5) ADJ 138(All.), Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 SCC 160, Ashrafi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2013) 5 SCC 527, Meerut Development Authority Vs. Basheshwar Dayal, (2013) 3 UPLBEC 2469, Chandrashekhar Vs. L.A. Officer, (2012) 1 SCC 390, Trishala Jain and another Vs. State of Uttranchal and another, (2011) 6 SCC 47, Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and another, (2009) 15 SCC 769, Kasturi and others Vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354, Shaji Kuriakose and another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others, (2001) 7 SCC 650, Basavva (Smt.) and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, (1996) 9 SCC 640 and Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 3 SCC 751.
26. On behalf of claimants-land owner reliance is placed on Bharat Immunologicals Vs. Ghanshyam Singh, ALR 2015 (112) 686, Smt. Chaya Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, ALR 2015 (112) 781, Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra), Valliyammal & others Vs. Special Land Acquisition, 2011 (8) JT 442, Thakarsibhai Devjibhai Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and Anr. 2001 JT 2001 (3) SC 90 and Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (117) R.D. 289.
27. Rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides give rise to following points for determination:
(i) Whether Reference Court has rightly determined market rate of Rs. 131/- per square meter of entire acquired land irrespective of area of individual plots of land owners, their location and other relevant factors?
(ii) Whether Reference Court ought to have considered the question of determination of market value, with reference to entire area of acquired land, its location/situation and other developmental advantages/ disadvantage vis-a-vis relevant exemplars?
(iii) Whether Court below has rightly followed exemplar sale-deed dated 11.3.1996 executed in favour of VSNL or has erred in law in rejecting other exemplar sale-deeds or agreement for sale caused ultimately in a sale deed relied by claimant-landowners and placed in evidence?
(iv) Whether Reference Court has considered and applied relevant principles and factors applicable for determination of market value and principles under Section 23 of 1894?
28. All the aforesaid issues are interrelated, and therefore, we are considering the same together.
29. The topography of entire acquired land is demonstrated in the status plan/map (unscaled), which is Exhibit 12(Paper No. 31 Ga). It shows shape of acquired land as a rectangular bottle having neck abutting G.T. Road i.e. Meerut-Muzaffar Nagar Road and substantial part is on east side inside from G.T Road. The extreme eastern part of acquired land falls in village Samauli Salempur but substantial part comes in village Mataur. Exhibit 12 (map) shows that on east-northern side of G.T. Road, abutting acquired land, there is abadi of village Mataur while on east-southern side there existed a Primary Health Center. On the opposite side of acquired land, across G.T. Road, there is abadi of village Mataur and also store and other constructions of VSNL. Adjacent to VSNL there is a School, Oriental Bank and Police Station Daurala. The entire area on both sides is occupied with abadi or different kinds of commercial, industrial or other public related institutions. Frontage of acquired land abutting G.T. Road is only around 100 meters and thereafter it goes about 1100-1200 meters inside i.e. eastern side of G.T. Road. Village Mataur is on front side towards G.T. Road, while village Samauli Salempur is on the backside.
30. Learned counsel appearing for claimant-landowners admitted that at the time of execution when Notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 was published, entire acquired land was being used for agricultural purposes.
31. PW-1-Jagpal Singh has stated that near acquired land there existed Daraula Sugar Works run by D.C.M. Group, Distillery of DCM, Sugar and Tube Chemical Plants, a Power Station setup by DCM for running its factories. This Power Station used to supply electricity to Sugar Factory and Workers' Colony of DCM. 60% sugar factory is in village Mataur and 40% in village Daurala. Abutting acquired land is national highway Delhi-Dehradoon. On western side of national highway, there is a railway line. There is a Veterinary Hospital opposite Primary Health Center, just in the vicinity of acquired land. Adjacent to Veterinary Hospital there is Oriental Bank of Commerce. All these buildings are in village Mataur. There also exist State Bank, Petrol Pump, Cold Storage etc.
32. From Exhibit-12, however we find that Daurala Sugar Factory is on the west side across G.T. Road/ National Highway and it is at some distance from acquired land but adjacent to abadi of village Mataur. Land however is part of village Mataur.
33. It appears that village Mataur is a big village and there existed a number of commercial, industrial and other institutions/establishments and abadi showing that village is sufficiently developed and lots of business and industrial activities were going on thereat, when acquisition commenced.
34. These developmental activities have been deposed by all the four witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-4 and is supported by Exhibit-12 (Map). Our attention is not drawn to any material or evidence on record, adduced by appellants-PGCIL to contradict the aforesaid facts. Thus it can safely be held that acquired land lie in a developed area and has great potential for various purposes.
35. Sri Arvind Verma, learned Senior Advocate for appellants could not dispute that exemplars relied by PGCIL was found suspicious and dubious hence rejected by Reference Court. Findings of Reference Court in this regard have not been challenged before us and nothing has been shown so as to persuade us to take a different view than what has been taken by Reference Court for rejection of sale deed dated 26.5.1995 which was relied by PGCIL-appellants. So there remains no exemplars cited by PGCIL, valid for consideration for determining market value.
36. The claimant-landowners cited sale deeds dated 25.4.1994 (Exhibit-1), 24.5.1994 (Exhibit-2), 24.5.1994 (Exhibit-3), 29.3.1994 (Exhibit-4), 23.5.1995 (Exhibit-5), 28.4.1994 (Exhibit-6), 16.8.1994 (Exhibit-7), 13.7.1994 (Exhibit-8), 17.11.1993 (Exhibit-9), 17.12.1997 (Exhibit-10) and 9.11.1993 (Exhibit-11).
37. The defendant-appellant has also referred to sale deeds dated 25.4.1994 (Paper No. 4), 1.5.1998 (Paper No. 5), 16.8.1994 (Paper No.6) and 11.3.1996 (Paper No. 7) in support of plea that Reference Court has wrongly determined higher rate of compensation. We shall discuss evidence cited by parties, evidenciary value thereof and trustworthiness later on, but first we propose to examine principles which are to be followed by authorities or Court when required to determine market value of land acquired forcibly under the provisions of Act, 1894.
38. The authorities laying down principles relevant for determination of market value broadly may be considered under the following head :
(i) Status of the proceeding before Collector/ SLAO in the proceedings before Reference Court.
(ii) Relevance of circle rate determined by Collector / SLAO for the purposes of stamp duty.
(iii) Evidence permissible to be considered by Reference Court for determining market value/ compensation under Section 23(1) of Act, 1894.
Status of Proceedings of SLAO before Reference Court
39. Collector/ SLAO invites objections from landowners and after hearing them, determine amount of compensation payable to landowners in respect of acquired land. In this process generally it considers sale deeds executed in the area where acquired land situates, by collecting relevant information from the office of Sub-Registrar. Besides, such material as is placed before it by landowners is also considered. It is supposed to consider situation of land, nature and quality of soil and other relevant factors.
40. The award made by Collector/SALO determining market value of acquired land for the purposes of compensation is an offer made to landowners. Statute provides that landowners, if satisfied with said offer, may accept compensation, but if not, they have a remedy of submitting application before Collector for making reference to District Judge for determining market value of acquired land. District Judge then would consider the matter, looking into the principles laid down in Act, 1894 and, in particular, Sections 23 and 24.
41. Before us, it is not disputed that an award made by SLAO is an offer made by Collector to land owners for compensation payable against acquired land. Reference Court does not sit in appeal over award of SLAO to find out whether determination made by SLAO is correct or not. The proceeding before Reference Court is original and treated like a suit. Material considered by SLAO is not to be seen by Reference Court unless such material has been relied and proved in accordance with law before it.
42. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra), Court has said that a reference is like a suit which is to be treated as an original proceeding. The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that price offered for his land in the Award is inadequate. However, for the said purpose, Court would not consider the material, relied upon by Land Acquisition Officer in Award, unless some material is produced and proved before Court.
43. Thus, Reference Court does not sit in appeal over the Award of Land Acquisition Officer. Material used by Land Acquisition Officer is not open to be used by Court suo motu unless such material is produced by the parties and proved independently before Reference Court. Determination of market value has to be made as per market rates prevailing on the date of publication of notification under section 4 (1) of Act, 1894. Circle Rate- Relevance
44. Many a times it is seen that Collector / SLAO or even landowners justify a particular market value with reference to circle rate published by Collector which has been determined for the purposes of stamp duty. This approach has not been approved by Courts time and again.
45. In Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595, this question came up for consideration in the matter arisen from State of Andhra Pradesh. The landowners appealed against order of Reference Court before Andhra Pradesh High Court claiming higher compensation on the basis of the basic valuation register maintained by Revenue authorities under Stamp Act, 1899. The claim of land owners failed in High Court, which held that such register had no evidenciary value on statutory basis. In appeal, Apex Court held that basic valuation register was maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty under Section 47-A of Stamp Act, 1899 as amended in State of Andhra Pradesh. It did not confer expressly any power upon the Government to determine market value of land prevailing in a particular area, i.e., village, block, district or region. It also did not provide, a statutory obligation upon Revenue authorities to maintain basic valuation register for levy of stamp duty in regard to instruments presented for registration. Therefore, there existed no statutory provision or rule providing for maintaining such valuation register. In the circumstances, such register prepared and maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty had no statutory force or basis and cannot form a valid criteria to determine market value of land acquired under Act, 1894. This decision was followed in Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Jasti Rohini, 1995 (1) SCC 717.
46. Another matter from State of U.P. came up for consideration involving same issue in U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. M/s Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., (1996) 3 SCC 124. Landowners' demanded compensation in regard to land acquired under Act, 1894 on the basis of market value assessed as per circle rate determined by Collector. It was accepted by High Court, but in appeal, judgment was reversed by Supreme Court following its earlier decision in Jawajee Nagnatham (supra). Court held that market value under Section 23 of Act, 1894 cannot be determined on circle rates determined by Collector for the purpose of stamp duty under Stamp Act, 1899. This view was reiterated in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Bipin Kumar, (2004) 2 SCC 283.
47. The issue has again been considered recently by a larger Bench in Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and another (supra) wherein two Judgments of Apex Court taking a view that circle rates may be considered, as prima facie basis, for the purpose of ascertaining the market value were examined. These decisions are Ramesh Chand Bansal v. District Magistrate/Collector, (1999) 5 SCC 62 and R Sai Ram Bharathi v. J Jayalalitha, (2004) 2 SCC 9. The Court resolved controversy holding, if in a particular case, guidelines for market values are determined by an Expert Committee constituted under State Stamp Law for following a detailed procedure laid down under the relevant rules and are published in State Gazette, the same may be considered as a relevant material to determine market value. Court said, when guidelines of market value, i.e., minimum rates for registration of properties, are so evaluated and determined by Expert Committees, as per statutory procedure, there is no reason why such rates should not be a relevant piece of evidence for determination of market value. Having said so, in para 44, Court further said :-
"44. One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert Committees, as expert evidence can, therefore, form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed assessment procedure (either streetwise, or roadwise, or areawise, or villagewise) and finalized after inviting objections and published in the gazette. Be that as it may."
48. It is thus evident that for the purposes of determining market value circle rate fixed by Collector for the purposes of stamp duty would not be a relevant material unless such determination is under a statutory obligation and after following a prescribed procedure. Agreement to Sell- whether relevant material
49. The relevant material has consensus of precedents so constitute and includes sale deeds of immovable properties situate in area in which acquired land comes, particularly, if it has been executed in proximity of the date of acquisition notification published under Section 4(1). Even "agreement to sell" has been held relevant though with caution and in given circumstances. Court below, in the case in hand, ought to have examined exemplar (Paper No. 24Ga) which is an "agreement to sell" relating to a land measuring 3161.12 sq. yard at Rs.150/- sq. yard which was executed on 29th April, 1994, just ten months before Notification under Section 4 was issued in the case in hand. There is no hard and fast Rule which may exclude an 'agreement to sell' to be considered for the purposes of determining market value. When 'agreement to sell' has subsequently matured in a sale transaction and there is nothing to create any doubt over genuity of transaction, it may constitute a relevant material.
50. In Fort Press Co. Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Bombay, AIR 1922 PC 365, it was held that an agreement between the parties as to the price does not interfere with the jurisdiction of Collector under Act, 1894. Referring to the aforesaid decision in Assam Railway and Trading Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Lakhimpur and another, AIR 1976 SC 1182, Court held "there was an agreement between the parties about the price that is not disputed; whether this amounted to a concluded contract it does not seem to us a question that is required to be decided in this appeal. Assumption to this was an agreement which bound the parties, the Collector had still the jurisdiction to determine the market value of the land." In the aforesaid decisions agreement was not discarded merely for the reason of its being agreement but what the Court said that it is only a material to be considered by statutory authorities but jurisdiction to determine market value lies upon Collector under section 11 of Act, 1894. The document of agreement would not be a conclusive material.
51. Court in Assam Railway and Trading Co. Ltd (supra) also referred to another Privy Council decision in Samiullah vs. Collector of Aligarh, AIR 1946 PC 75, holding " in assessing compensation he is bound to exercise his own judgment as to the correct basis of valuation and his judgment could not be controlled by an agreement between the parties interested. On a Reference under section 18 the District Judge must also exercise its own judgment and consider among other things whether the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was based on a correct principle".
52. In Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai and others vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1989 SC 2051, claimants relied on instances by way of agreement of sale dated 21.01.1957 and the sale deed dated 2nd April, 1957. The notification under section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was published on 6th August, 1956 and agreement for sale was executed about five months thereafter. Court held that such an agreement of sale, per se, could not be rejected for the reason that it was executed posterior to the date of acquisition notification under section 4(1) and said:
"....the agreement for sale in connection with that land, pertains to a sale after the acquisition, it can be fairly regarded as reasonably proximate to the acquisition and, in the absence of any evidence to show that there was any speculative or sharp rise in the prices after the acquisition, the agreement to sell dated January 21, 1957 must be regarded as furnishing some light on the market value of the land on the date of publication of Section 4 notification." (emphasis added)
53. Similar to the case in hand, we find that an issue came before a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Purushotham Pandit Kher vs. Special Deputy Commissioner, ILR 1989 Karnataka 2042. Therein also, an agreement for sale was registered on 22.08.1972. Before it could fructify in to sale, one of the land, referred to in the agreement for sale, was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 21.02.1974, issued under section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. The agreement to sell was relied by the body for whose benefit land was acquired and opposed by purchaser claimant before the High Court. The claimant contended that Reference Court should not have relied upon the value of acquired land as reflected in the registered agreement for sale. The question formulated by Court therein reads as under:
"......whether the Reference Court would be justified in placing reliance on an agreement to sell relating to an acquired land to which the claimant was a party, as reflecting its market value, instead of relying upon the value of sites or lands in the neighborhood of the acquired land as reflecting the value of each of them for determining the market value of the acquired land on a comparable basis. "
54. Court answered the question as under:
"......we are not left in doubt that a Reference Court would be fully justified in relying upon a bonafide, genuine and authentic transaction of an agreement to sell entered into by the claimant for purchase of the very acquired property, as reflecting its market value, instead of relying upon the transactions of sites or lands in the neighbourhood of the acquired land as furnishing proper criteria for determining its (acquired land's) market value on a comparable basis". (emphasis added)
55. In Special Land Acquisition Officer and another vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and others, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 168 which is a judgment of three Hon'ble Judges, Court, in para 11 of the judgment has said:
"What could be regarded as the near estimate of the acquired land has to be ascertained, be it the Collector or be it the court on the basis of authenticated transactions of sales or agreements to sell relating to the same land or a portion of it wherever possible because such transactions of sale or agreements to sell are always regarded as the best evidence available for the purpose." (emphasis added)
56. Again, in para 13, Court expressing its view of permissibility to look into an agreement for sale has observed as under:
"However, if sale deed or agreement to sell relating to the small extent of land on the basis of which the market value of the large extent of the agricultural land has to be determined is a portion of the acquired agricultural land itself or other land in its close proximity, it may be made the basis for determining the market value of the acquired large extent of agricultural land but has to be done when there is satisfactory evidence of the absence of sales or agreements to sell off bigger extents of land pertaining to the acquired land or other lands in the vicinity of the acquired land." (emphasis added)
57. Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer and another vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and others (supra), again in para 14 of judgment, said as under:
"14. Therefore, where a sale deed or an agreement to sell relating to a small extent of land is produced by the claimant, in the enquiry held for determination of compensation payable for his large extent of land, the court is not always bound to determine the market price of such large extent of acquired land on the basis of the price fetched or to be fetched by small extent of land covered by such sale deed or agreement to sell." (emphasis added)
58. In U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Janul Islam, (1998) 2 SCC 467, a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court, in para 35 of the judgment said:
"[35] We do not find any substance in the submissions urged on behalf of the Parishad regarding rejection of the application for adducing additional evidence by the High Court. The High Court, in our opinion, has rightly held that in the absence of any material that the agreements for sale relied upon had matured into sale transactions not much assistance could be derived from them in the matter of determination of the market value of the acquired land,". (emphasis added)
59. The aforesaid decisions, therefore, do not exclude agreement to sell from being a relevant material for determining market value where it has matured into sale transaction. There are some other authorities earlier to aforesaid judgment in this regard.
60. The authorities under Act, 1894, therefore, while determining rate of compensation payable to land holders may consider material placed before it by the parties. An agreement for sale, relied by any of parties, is not to be discarded merely for the reason that it is an agreement for sale unless there are other reasons justifying its rejection.
61. A Division Bench judgment of this Court also has considered the aforesaid aspect in National Thermal Power Corporation through its G.M. Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) and in para 48 of judgment, Court has said as under:
"48. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that there is no inherent anathema to consider a registered agreement of sale, if genuinity of a valid and honest transaction is not disputed but the Court tried otherwise. In the present case, it is admitted position that land which was subject matter of registered agreement of sale was included in the acquisition notification and, therefore, parties could not conclude their transaction into sale. Thus the reason for non-execution of sale deed was something beyond their control."
62. No authority otherwise has been brought to the notice of this Court wherein it has been held that agreement to sell even if reflects bona fide transactions and having not resulted in sale deed for reasons beyond the control of the parties, cannot be taken into account in any circumstance, whatsoever, even if it belongs to same land or constitutes part of the same land which has been acquired and determination of market value whereof is under consideration. Other Principles relevant for determining market value
63. The basic principle which has to be followed by Reference Court for determining market value of land, as if, the valuer i.e. Court, is a hypothetical purchaser, willing to purchase land from open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price, as on the crucial day, i.e., date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act, 1894. The willingness of vendor to sell land on reasonable price shall be presumed. Court, therefore, would co-relate market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. Only genuine instances would be taken into account. Sometimes even post-notification instances may be taken into account if they are very proximate, genuine and acquisition itself has not motivated purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. Proximity from time angle and from situation angle would be relevant considerations to find out most comparable instances out of the genuine instances. From identified instances which would provide index of market value, price reflected therein may be taken as norm and thereafter to arrive at the true market value of land under acquisition, suitable adjustment by plus and minus factors has to be made. In other words, a balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn and the relevant factors may be valued in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. The market value of land under acquisition has to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instances taken for plus factors and unloading for minus factors.
64. In Kausalya Devi Bogra and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another, (1984) 2 SCC 324, about 150 acres of land was acquired. Owners of acquired land were in two groups, i.e. Kaushalya Devi Bogra and Syed Yusufuddin Syed Ziauddin. First group, i.e. Kaushalya Devi Bogra owned 74 acres, while Yusuffuddin owned about 15 acres of land. In these facts of case where almost 60% of total acquired land was owned by two sets of owners and exemplar of smaller property was relied, Court said that "when large tracts are acquired, the transaction in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline. In certain other cases, for determining market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, a deduction should be given.
65. In Bhagwathula Samnna and others v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality (1991) 4 SCC 506, High Court applied deduction of 33.3% observing, when large extent of land was acquired under housing scheme and exemplar is of small land, reasonable deduction can be made. Following the decision in Tribeni Devi v. Collector, Ranchi, AIR 1972 SC 1417, it was argued before Apex Court that High Court wrongly applied deduction. Acquired land was fully developed and eminently suitable for being used as house sites and, therefore, there was no justification for making any deduction. The land was acquired for formation of road, High Court applied deduction on the ground that expenses have to be incurred for development, which was not justified. Aforesaid submission was considered by Supreme Court in the light of facts of that case. In para 7 and 11 Court said: -
"7. In awarding compensation in acquisition proceedings, the Court has necessarily to determine the market value of the land as on the date of the relevant notification. It is useful to consider the value paid for similar land at the material time under genuine transactions. The market value envisages the price which a willing purchaser may pay under bona fide transfer to a willing seller. The land value can differ depending upon the extent and nature of the land sold. A fully developed small plot in an important locality may fetch a higher value than a larger area in an undeveloped condition and situated in a remote locality. By comparing the price shown in the transactions all variables have to be taken into consideration. The transaction in regard to smaller property cannot, therefore, be taken as a real basis for fixing the compensation for larger tracts of property. In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction.
11. The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition, the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract is already and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reasons that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified."
66. Court further held that proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account price fetched by small plots of land. If larger tract of land, because of advantageous position, is capable of being used for the purpose for which smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of value for the purposes of comparison is not warranted. Having said so, Court in para 13 held as under: -
"13. With regard to the nature of the plots involved in these two cases, it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in such circumstances it is possible to utilize the entire area in question as house sites. In respect of the land acquired for the road, the same advantages are available and it did not require any further development. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has erred in applying the principle of deduction and reducing the fair market value of land from Rs.10/- pr square yard to Rs.6.50 paise pr square yard. In our opinion, no such deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of these cases."
67. The size of land would constitute an important factor to determine market value. It cannot be doubted that small size plot may attract a large number of persons being within their reach which will not be possible in respect of large block of land wherein incumbent will have to incur extra liability in preparing a lay out and carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers etc. Courts have said that in such matters, factors can be discounted by making deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging between 20% to 50%, to account for land, required to be set apart for carving out road etc. and for plotting out small plots.
68. The concept of smaller and larger plots should be looked into not only from the angle as to what area has been acquired, but also the number of land holders and size of their plots.
69. When we talk of concept of prudent seller and prudent buyer, we cannot ignore the fact that in the category of prudent seller, the individual land holder will come. It is the area of his holding which will be relevant for him and not that of actual, total and collective large area, which is sought to be acquired.
70. In V.M. Salgoacar & brother Ltd. vs. Union of India (1995) 2 S.C.C 302, land acquired by notification dated 06.07.1970 in village Chicalim near Goa Airport belonged to a single owner. Court observed, when land is sold out in smaller plots, there may be a rising trend in the market, of fetching higher price in comparison to the plot which are much higher in size. Having said so Court further said " though the small plots ipso facto may not form the basis per se to determine the compensation, they would provide foundation for determining the market value. On its basis, giving proper deduction, the market value ought to be determined".
71. Again in Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (2) S.C.C 152, 20 acres of land in Akola town was sought to be acquired by notification published on 11.08.1965 under section 4(1) of Act, 1894 which was also owned by a single person. It is in this context, Court said, "the Reference Court committed manifest error in determining compensation on the basis of sq. ft. When land of an extent of 20 acres is offered for sale in an open market, no willing and prudent purchaser would come forward to purchase that vast extent of land on sq. ft. basis. Therefore, the Reference Court has to consider valuation sitting on the armchair of a willing prudent hypothetical vendee and to put a question to itself whether in given circumstances, he would agree to purchase the land on sq. ft. basis. No feat of imagination is necessary to reach the conclusion. The answer is obviously "no".
72. In order to determine market value when exemplars are adduced, normally it is found that exemplars of small land, and that too, in developed area after plotting and development are relied. Sometimes a single exemplar is available and sometimes more than that. It is not the number of exemplars which is important and would determine the question whether burden has been discharged by claimants that offer of compensation made by Collector is inadequate and he is entitled to higher compensation but it is the genuity, authenticity and creditworthiness of the documents. If the document is found most suitable and appropriate for determining compensation in respect of acquired land even a single instance/exemplar cited by landowner may be relied and it can be said that claimant-landowner has succeeded in discharging his burden.
73. In Gafar vs. Moradabad Development Authority, 2007 (7) SCC 614, the Court observed that burden is on the claimants to establish that amount awarded to them by Collector is inadequate. That burden has to be discharged by claimants and only if initial burden in that behalf is discharged, the burden would shift to State to justify the compensation offered by SLAO.
74. Further, when there are more than one exemplar, one, which provides highest rate, has to be followed. In Satish Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (14) SCC 758, Court after relying on its earlier decision in Viluben Jhalenjar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 (4) SCC 789, said :
"...when comparable exemplars are brought on record, the one carrying the highest market value amongst them may be followed."
Deductions:
75. Whenever the area of acquired land is larger than the area of land which is subject matter of the exemplar and smaller in size, Courts have held the same admissible subject to appropriate deduction.
76. In Basavva (Smt.) & Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others (supra), notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 proposing to acquire 194 acres of land for industrial development near Dharwad was published on 30.10.1981. Collector made award dated 22.8.1985 offering compensation at the rate between Rs. 8,000/- to Rs.8,080/-, which was enhanced by Reference Court vide award dated 11.10.1988 to Rs.1.72/- per square fit (Rs.74,953/- per acre). On appeal High Court reduced compensation to Rs.56,000/- per acre. The appeal preferred by State Government against High Court's judgment was dismissed.
77. In the appeals preferred by landowners, it was contended on behalf of landowners that deduction towards development upto 53% was reasonable but High Court in applying 65% deduction has erred in law. Court observed, while determining compensation, at first instance, it has to be seen whether sales relating to smaller pieces of land are genuine and reliable; and, whether they are in respect of comparable land. If it is found that sales are genuine and reliable and lands have comparable features, sufficient deduction should be made to arrive at a just and fair market value of large tracts of land. The time lag for real development and waiting period for development are also relevant for determination of just and comparable compensation. For deduction of development charges, nature of development, conditions and nature of land, the land required to be set apart under building rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water etc. and all other relevant circumstances involved are to be considered.
78. The above principles were also laid down in D. Vasundara Devi Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1995) 5 SCC 426 which was relied by Court in Basavva (Smt.) & Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others (supra). It then found that exemplar sale deed was dependable but in respect of a small plot of land situated at a distance of more than 1 k.m. It also found that the land in area is not developed and there is no development towards that area. It was also noticed that it would take years for development in those lands though lands was capable of user for non-agricultural purpose. It is in this background, Court applied 53% deduction for development. It further held that since a long time would take for development and for that purpose additional 12% deduction was allowed making total as 65% deduction.
79. In Land Acquisition Officer, Kammarapally Village Vs. Nookala Rajamallu and others, AIR 2004 SC 1031 and said as under :
"It has been held that the deduction can be made where the land is acquired for residential and commercial purpose with regard to roads and civic amenities, expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realization of the price, the profits on the venture etc. So far as this Court is concerned, it has discarded the deduction policy on various grounds. One of the grounds is that if the State or its authority acquires the land for the purpose of selling it to the ultimate purchasers upon making available facilities, they normally recover the price inclusive of common facilities, therefore, a Government or its authority cannot be doubly benefited either by deductions from the payment of compensation in one hand and by collections of price of such development from the ultimate purchasers on the other hand. It also to be seen that no law prescribes deduction in paying compensation. It is to be remembered that deduction is an exception not the rule."
80. In Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2010 (12) SCC 51, by notification dated 17.5.1990, 162.5 acres of land in village Patti Musalmanan was sought to be acquired for the purposes of housing project in Sonepat (Haryana). Collector determined compensation at the rate of Rs.Two Lacs per acre, but it was enhanced by Additional District Judge on reference under Section 18 of Act, 1894 to Rs.125/- per square yard for the land behind E.C.E. Factory, situated away, and on the left side of the Sonepat Bahalgarh road, and Rs.150/- per square yard on the right side abutting the road. Reference Court held that land on the left side did not abut the road and it had therefore less potential value vis-a-vis land on the right side, which touched the road. In appeal High Court enhanced compensation from Rs.125/- to Rs.135/- and from Rs.150/- to Rs.160/-. Land owner came in appeal before Supreme Court claiming compensation at Rs.200/- per square yard. Court, as a matter of fact, found in that case that even compensation, which was determined by Collector or Reference Court was not paid to land owners immediately, but payment spread over for two decades. Court said if compensation payment continued over a period of almost 20 years, potential of land acquired from land owners must also be adjudged keeping in view development in the area, spread over the period of 20 years if evidence so permits and cannot be limited to near future alone. Court observed that this broad principle would be applicable where possession of land has been taken pursuant to proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to those cases where land is already in possession of Government and is subsequently acquired.
81. The Court also observed that in case where compensation is based exclusively on sale instances, it creates some time a disadvantageous position to land owners, whose land is forcibly acquired. There is wide spread tendency to undervalue sale prices. Circle rates determined by Collector only marginally corrected anomaly, as these rates are also abnormally low and do not reflect true value. These things cause serious disadvantage to land owners, since they have no control over price on which some other land owners sell their property, which is often the basis for compensation payable to land owners, whose land are forcibly acquired. Court also held that there cannot be application of belting system in that case. Normally, land along side the road has more value vis-à-vis the land away from, but that would have been the case where agricultural land, which have no potential for urbanization or commercialization had been acquired and in such a case, belting system is permissible.
82. In Udho Dass (supra) Court held that land was acquired in 1990. It had great potential and had been completely urbanized as huge residential complexes, industrial area and estates, huge education city have come up in the last 10 or 15 years. It further held as under: -
"Moreover, insofar as land which is to be used for residential purposes is concerned, a plot away from the main road is often of more value as the noise and the air pollution alongside the arterial roads is almost unbearable. It also significant that the land of Jamalpur Kalan was touching the rear side of the ECE factory and the High Court had granted compensation of Rs.250/- per square yard for the acquisition of the year 1992. We have also seen the site plan to satisfy ourselves and find that the land acquired from Jamalpur Kalan and the present land share a common boundary behind the ECE factory. The belting system in the facts of the present case would thus not be permissible."
83. In Anjani Molu Desai v. State of Goa and another, (2010) 13 SCC 710, a very large tract comprising 3,65,375 square meter of land in Balli village, Quepem Taulak, Goa was acquired for the purposes of Konkan Railway for laying down broad gauge line. Acquisition notification was issued on 30.7.1991. Appellant Anjani Molu Desai owned 60,343 square meter of land in Survey No.45/1, 45/5, 45/6, 51/1 and 51/2. Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per square meter for orchard lands and Rs.6/- per square meter for paddy lands. Reference Court and High Court affirmed said valuation by rejecting reference and appeal. Collector determined market value relying upon two exemplars and taking an average thereof. First exemplar sale deed dated 30.8.1989 relates to 2055 square meters of land situated at the distance of 200 meter away from acquired land and sold at the rate of Rs.43.80 per square meter. Collector deducted 45% from sale price towards "development cost" i.e. for providing approach road and open spaces, expenses relating to development work, conversion charge etc. This reduced price from Rs.24/- per square meter. Since sale deed was of August, 1989 and acquisition commenced in 1991, thus there being gap of 20 months, Collector provided an increase at the rate of 14.5% per annum and thus, arrived at Rs.32.24 per square meter. Exemplar sale deed dated 30.1.1990 relates sale of 7600 square meters of land at the distance of one kilometer from acquired land sale at Rs.3/- per square meter. Here also, gap was of 18 months, thus 14.5% increase was allowed, which made sale price at Rs.3.82 per square meter. Collector then averaged two rates derived from two sale deeds and determined Rs.18/- per square meter (Rs.32.24 + Rs.3.82/2). This method adopted by Collector was not approved by Supreme Court. It was held, where there are more than one exemplar, which could be considered for determining market value, the one providing higher rate should be accepted and followed. It is only in exceptional cases where there are several sales of similar land, whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, the average can be taken as representing market value. But where values disclosed in respect of two sales are markedly different, it can only lead to an inference that they are with reference to dissimilar land or that lower value sale is on account of under valuation or other price depressing reasons. In respect of orchard land, therefore, Court followed exemplar sale deed dated 30.8.1989 providing sale price at Rs.43.80 per square meter and applying appreciation of 14.5% and odd per annum, Court determined market value at Rs.57.50 and to that extent claim of appellant Anjani Molu Dessai was upheld. Here also proposition laid down by Apex Court is not exceptional but depends on the facts of individual cases.
84. In Nelson Fernandes and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and others, AIR 2007 SC 1414, land was acquired for new broad gauge line of Konkan Railway. Acquisition notification under Section 4 Act, 1894 was issued in August, 1994. SLAO made award of Rs.4/- per square meter. In reference, District and Sessions Judge relying on two sale deeds dated 13.12.1993 enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.192/- per square meter. Sale price in exemplar sale deed was Rs.449/- per square meter. Land owners as well as acquiring body both preferred appeals. Land owner's appeal was rejected while acquiring body's appeal was allowed to the extent that market value was reduced to Rs.38/- per square meter. Supreme Court found that compensation awarded by High Court by rejecting valuer report is not based on cogent material and not supported by cogent reasons. The injury, which land owner, was likely to sustain due to loss of his future earning from selling land as also damage already suffered due to diminution of profit of land between time of publication of notice and time taken by Collector in possession was not considered. Since land was acquired for the purposes of laying down railway line, no development was to be done. There existed civil amenities like, school, police station, water supply, bank, electricity, highway, transport, petrol pump, industries, telecommunication and other business. Hence it determined compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per square meter, but then applied 20% deduction, which brings rate at Rs.200/- per square meter.
85. In Special Land Acquisition Office v. Karigowdo and others, 2010 (5) SCC 708, total acquired land was 146 acres and 7 guntas. It was owned by 419 claimants owners, whose area vary from 2 to 48 guntas. Acquired land was situated in village Sanaba, Chinakavali Hobli, Pandavapura. These land got submerged in 1993 under backwaters of Tonnur tank due to construction of Hemavathi Dam. Physical possession of land was taken between October, 1996 to December, 1999, while acquisition notification under Section 4 (1) of Act, 1894 was issued on 4.4.2002. Crops standing on land were damaged. SLAO determined market value at Rs.90,460/- per acre for wet land and Rs.37,200/- petitioner acre for dry land. On reference, compensation was enhanced to Rs.2,92,500/- per acre for wet land (garden land), Rs.1,46,250/- for dry land (lightly irrigated) and Rs.1,20,000/- for dry land (without mulberry crop). In appeal by land owners, High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.5,00,000/- per acre for wet/garden land and Rs.2,53,750/- per acre for dry land. State, therefore, came in appeal before Apex Court. Dispute arose before Court was for computation of compensation payable to claimants and quantum thereof. Argument advanced by State was that method adopted by Reference Court as well as High Court was impermissible in law. Court cannot take into consideration commercial activity, which may result from, and be indirectly incidental to agricultural activity, particularly, when both of them are carried on independent of each other.
86. In that case there were no sale instances from village Sanaba prior to 2002. The exemplars of adjoining villages were produced before Court. After looking into statutory provisions of Act, 1894, Court said (1) provision of Section 23 are mandatory; and (2) it is for claimants to ascertain as a matter of fact - location, potential and quality of land for establishing its fair market value. It is for claimant to show that what is contemplated under conditions attached thereto has been satisfied. It is also for claimant to show that to award compensation payable under statutory provisions, they have brought on record evidence to satisfy criterion and conditions required to be fulfilled for such a claim. Court has to determine compensation strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of Act, 1894. Potentiality of land should be on the date of acquisition i.e. existing potentiality. Further, potentiality has to be directly relatable to capacity of acquired land to produce agricultural products, or its market value relatable to method of compensation. If there is any existing crops or trees or fruit bearing trees, the same can be taken into consideration, but extent of benefit cannot go to the extent that fruits grown in agricultural land would be converted into jam or any other eatable products. This extension of loss of benefits amounts to remote factors, which is not permitted to take into consideration. The Court thus held that compensation determined by Reference Court and High Court was not justified. State appeal was partly allowed and Court provided for compensation at Rs.2,30,000/- per acre for wet/garden land and Rs.1,53,400/- per acre for dry land.
87. In Mohinder Singh and others v. State of Haryana, (2014) 8 SCC 897, by notification dated 2.12.1982, 327.52 acres in village Patti Jhambra, Shahabad in District Kurushetra (State of Haryana) was acquired for development and utilization of land for residential, commercial, industrial purposes etc. Notification under Section 6 was issued on 4.7.1984 in relation to 178.62 acres, and ultimate possession taken was found only 90.07 acres. Collector made award at different rates per acre depending upon quality of soil/land. Reference Court awarded uniform compensation at Rs.2,66,400/- per acre. Stated preferred appeal whereupon High Court reduced compensation to Rs.1,83,080/- per acre. Land owner preferred intra court appeal and Division Bench determined market value at Rs.2,19,696/- per acre. Land owners further went in appeal before Supreme Court, which set aside the judgment of High Court and restored award passed by Reference Court determining Rs.2,66,400/- per acre as market value. While restoring award of Reference Court, Supreme Court observed that 40% deduction applied by High Court was not justified. Since land was within developed Municipal limit, therefore, deduction of 25% applied by Reference Court was justified.
88. In Union of India v. Raj Kumar Baghal Singh (deal) through legal representatives and others, (2014) 10 SCC 422, 72.9375 acres of land in village Bir Kheri Gujran, District Patiala in State of Punjab was acquired vide notification dated 14.3.1989. Collector made award of Rs.Two Lacs per acre. Reference Court enhanced amount of compensation to Rs.9,05,000/- per acre. In appeal, Single Judge of High Court reduced compensation to Rs.105.80 per square yard and it was confirmed by Division Bench also. Union of India preferred appeal, which was dismissed. Court held that there is no rule of thumb for deduction at a particular rate. It varies and depends on individual case. In para 11 Court said "the extent of cut depends on individual fact situation".
89. Deduction for development is different than deduction permissible in respect of largeness of area vis-a-vis exemplar of small piece of land. Many times, land owners relied on the rates on which development authorities used to offer allotment of developed plots carved out by them in residential or industrial area. Such rates apparently cannot form basis for compensation for acquisition of undeveloped lands for reasons more than one. The market value in respect of large tract of undeveloped agricultural land in a rural area has to be determined in the context of a land similarly situated whereas allotment rates of development authorities are with reference to small plots and in a developed lay out falling within urban or semi-urban area. Statutory authorities including development authorities used to offer rates with reference to economic capacity of buyers like economic Weaker Sections, Low Income Group, Middle Income Group, Higher Income Group etc. Therefore, rates determined by such authorities are not uniform. The market value of acquired land cannot depend upon economic status of land loser and conversely on the economic status of the body at whose instance, land is acquired. Further, normally, land acquired is a freehold land whereas allotment rates determined by development authorities etc. constitute initial premium payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis.
90. However, where an exemplar of small piece of land is relied, in absence of any other relevant material, Court may determine market value in the light of evidence relating to sale price of small developed plots. In such cases, deduction varying from 20% to 75% is liable to apply depending upon nature of development of lay out in which exemplar plot is situated.
91. In Shaji Kuriakose and another Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(supra), a large tract of land in village Manakunnam, District Cochin was proposed to be acquired for setting up a bottling plant by Indian Oil Corporation and notification under Section 4 (1) was issued on 23.08.1990. Acquired land included 7.13 acres of land of claimant/landowner-Shaji Kuriakose. Collector vide award dated 05.05.1992 offered compensation at Rs. 1,225/- per acre i.e. Rs. 500 per cent which was enhanced to Rs.7,000/- per cent by Reference Court. High Court reduced compensation to Rs.4,000/- per cent for wet land and Rs.6,500/- for dry land. Appeal preferred by claimants before Apex Court failed. Court found that land which was sold vide exemplar sale deed was not similarly placed with acquired land inasmuch as there was no access to acquired land, there existed only an internal mud road which belonged to one of the claimants, whose land was acquired, the land covered by exemplar sale deed was a dry land, whereas acquired land was mostly wet land. After acquisition, acquired land has to be reclaimed and a lot of amount would be spent for filling it. The exemplar sale deed related to a small piece of land while acquired land was quite large. Sale for smaller plot fetches more consideration than larger or bigger piece of land. Looking to all these facts, Court found that determination made by High Court was justified and dismissed appeal.
92. In Kasturi & others Vs. State of Haryana (supra), 84.31 acres of land in State of Haryana was proposed to acquire for development of residential and commercial area at Sector 13 and 23 Bhiwani by publishing notification under Section 4 on 04.04.1986. Collector made award dated 10.11.1987 and 31.03.1988 determining compensation at Rs.57,500/- per acre and Rs.55,200/- per acre which comes to around Rs. 11.81 per square yard. Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs.125/- per square yard. Landowners as well as State, both preferred appeal in High Court. Landowners sought compensation at Rs.500/- per square yard while State appealed for restoration of Collector's award. High Court reduced compensation to Rs.79.98 per square yard applying 20% deduction towards development charges. It partly allowed appeal of State but dismissed appeals preferred by claimants/landowners. Division Bench confirmed judgment of Single Judge hence matter was taken to Apex Court by claimants/ land owners. It was contended that High Court erred in applying deduction of 20% towards development charges and also by not enhancing compensation to Rs.500/- per square yard as claimed by landowners. Supreme Court found that land acquired comprised a large area and was not developed though has potential for residential and commercial purposes. For its development roads were to be laid, provision for drainage was to be made and certain area was to be earmarked for other civic amenities. The acquired land is not a small plot located in such a way that no other development was required at all and it could be utilized as it is, being a developed building site. In respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 33% amount was processed for deduction subject to variations depending upon nature of land, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop land so as to make plots for residential or commercial purposes. Whether land is plain or uneven, soil of land is soft or hard having bearing on foundation for the purpose of making construction; whether land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around or may have a hillock or may be low lying or may be having deep ditches, are all relevant considerations since that would have consequences in the land to be spent for development. Court relied on various decisions and thereafter upheld deduction of 20% towards development and dismissed appeal of landowners.
93. In Lal Chand Vs. Union of India (supra), Court noticed that deduction for development constitutes two components- one is with reference to area required to be utilized for development work and second is the cost of development work. It further held that deduction for development in respect of residential plot may be higher while not so where it is an industrial plot. Similarly, if acquired land is in a semi-developed urban area or in any undeveloped rural area, then deduction for development may be much less and vary from 25 to 40 percent since some basic infrastructure will already be available. The percentage is only indicative and vary depending upon relevant factors. With reference to exemplars of transfer of land between private parties, Court would also look into intrinsic evidence, i.e., the exemplar sale deed where it recites financial difficulties of vendor and urgent need to find money as a reason for sale or other similar factors, like litigation or existence of some other dispute. These are all the factors constituting intrinsic evidence of a distress sale.
94. In Lal Chand Vs. Union of India (supra), Court also observed, if acquisition is in regard to a large area of agricultural land in a village and exemplar sale deed is also in respect of an agricultural land in the same village, it may be possible to rely upon the sale deed as prima facie evidence of prevailing market value even if such land is at the other end of village, at a distance of one or two kilometers. But, the same may not be appropriate where acquisition relates to plots in a town or city where every locality or road has a different value. A distance of about a kilometer may not make a difference for the purpose of market value in a rural area but even a distance of 50 meters may make a huge difference in market value in urban properties. Thus, distance between two properties, the nature and situation of property, proximity to the village or a road and several other factors may all be relevant in determining market value.
95. In Valliyammal and others v. Special Land Acquisition (supra), Court has looked into various earlier judgments laying down guiding principles for determination of market value of acquired land. Court has observed that comparable sales method of valuation is preferred since it furnishes evidence for determination of market value of acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for acquired land if it had been sold in open market at the time of acquisition. However, this method is not always conclusive and there are certain factors, which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors, compensation can be determined. Such factors are (a) sale must be a genuine transaction; (b) sale deed must have been executed at the time, proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4; (c) land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of acquired land; (d) land covered by the sales must be similar to acquired land; and (e) size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape and size or nature of land, court can proportionately reduce compensation depending upon disadvantages attached with the acquired land. Further, for determining market value, potentiality of acquired land should also be taken into consideration. The "potentiality" means, capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when let out in its most advantageous manner. Court also said, when undeveloped or underdeveloped land is acquired and the exemplar is in respect to developed land, detection towards deduction can be made. Normally, such deduction is 1/3, but it is not a hard and fast rule.
96. In Bhule Ram v. Union of India and another, JT 2014 (5) SC 110, Court in para 7 has observed that valuation of immovable property is not an exact science, nor it can be determined like algebraic problem, as it bounds in uncertainties and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down for arriving at exact market value of the land. There is always a room for conjecture, and thus court must act reluctantly to venture too far in this direction. The factors such as the nature and position of land to be acquired, adaptability and advantages, the purpose for which the land can be used in the most lucrative way, injurious affect resulting in damages to other properties, its potential value, the locality, situation and size and shape of the land, the rise of depression in the value of the land in the locality consequent to the acquisition etc., are relevant factors to be considered. It further said that value, which has to be assessed, is the value to the owner, who parts with his property, and not the value to the new owner, who takes it over. Fair and reasonable compensation means the price of a willing buyer, which is to be paid to the willing seller. Though the Act does not provide for "just terms" or "just compensation", but market value is to be assessed taking into consideration the use to which it is being put on acquisition and whether the land has unusual or unique features or potentialities. Court then also considered as to what is the concept of "guess work" and observed that it is not unknown to various fields of law as it applies in the cases relating to insurance, taxation, compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act as well as under Labour Laws. Having said so, Court further said: -
"The court has a discretion applying the guess work to the facts of the given case but is is not unfettered and has to be reasonable having connection to the facts on record adduced by the parties by way of evidence. The court further held as under: -
"'Guess' as understood in its common parlance is an estimate without any specific information while "calculations" are always made with reference to specific data. "Guesstimate" is an estimate based on a mixture of guesswork and calculations and it is a process in itself. At the same time "guess" cannot be treated synonymous to "conjecture". "Guess" by itself may be a statement or result based on unknown factors while "conjecture" is made with a very slight amount of knowledge, which is just sufficient to incline the scale of probability. "Guesstimate" is with higher certainty than more "guess" or a "conjecture" per se." (para 8)
97. In Bhupal Singh and others v. State of Haryana, (2015) 5 SCC 801 while the above principles laid down in various cases were reiterated, Court in para 18 of judgment, said: -
"Law on the question as to how the court is required to determined the fair market value of the acquired land is fairly well settled by several decisions of this Court and remains no more res integra. This Court has, inter alia, held that when the acquired land is a large chunk of undeveloped land having potential and was acquired for residential purpose then while determining the fair market value of the lands on the date of acquisition, the appropriate deductions are also required to be made."
98. It is also reaffirmed that an exemplar when relates to small piece of developed land and is sought to be relied to determine market value of large tract of undeveloped acquired land, deduction can be applied ranging between 20% to 75%. The Court in para 20 of judgment relied upon its decision in Chandrashekar v. Land Acquisition Officer (supra) stating that deduction has two components, one is "development" and another with respect to the "size of the area". Percentage of deduction was restricted in Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444 stating that deduction of both components should be around 1/3 each in its entirety, which would roughly come to 67% of component of sale consideration of exemplar sale transaction.
99. Thus, with respect to escalation of price where exemplar is much earlier in point of time, Court in K. Devakimma and others v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam and another, 2015 (111) ALR 241 said that recourse can be taken in appropriate cases to the mode of determining market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby land in previous years where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transaction or acquisition of comparable lands in neighbourhood. The percentage of escalation may vary from case to case so also the extent of years to determine the rates.
100. In Trishala Jain and another Vs. State of Uttranchal and another (supra), for the purposes of construction of Government Polytechnic Institute at Dehradun, notification under Section 4 was published on 30th January, 1992, proposing to acquire 12.85 acres of land situated in village Sewala Kalan, Pargana Kendriya Doon, District Dehradun. The area of land belong to claimants-landowner, Trishala Jain and others, was 4.58 acres and 3.031 acres respectively. Collector offered compensation applying "belting system" and the first belt at Rs.9,78,223.40 per acre, second belt at Rs. 6,52,482.27 per acre and third belt at Rs. 4,39,362.70 per acre. Reference Court held belting system applied by Collector improper observing that entire land having been acquired for one purpose, there was no justification for application of belting system. Relying on two exemplar sale deeds dated 26.11.1991 and 17.11.1991 it awarded compensation at Rs. 5,12,000/- per bigha after applying 20% deduction to gross market value of Rs.6,40,000/- per bigha. In appeal, High Court upheld view taken by Reference Court that there was no justification for applying "belting system" but raised deduction from 20% to 33.33% and hence determined market value at Rs. 4,26,667/- per bigha. The aforesaid deduction was applied on account of "development charges". Appeal was taken to Supreme Court by claimants/landowners. The four questions formulated by Court are as under:
"I. Whether or not the belting system ought to have been applied for determination of fair market value of the acquired land?
II. What should be the just and fair market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section of the Act?
III. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case there ought to be any deduction after determining the fair market value of the land?
IV. What compensation and benefits are the claimants entitled to?"
101. Court upheld the view taken by courts below that application of "belting system" was unjustified since land as a whole was similarly placed and surrounded by developed areas and proposed to be used for one purpose, i.e., construction of Government Polytechnic Institute. Court then also held that deduction towards development is justified in certain circumstances but how much deduction is to be applied, will depend upon individual facts of the case. In para 39 of judgment, Court said:
"39. The law with regard to applying the principle of deduction to the determined market value of the acquired land is quite consistent, though, of course, the extent of deduction has varied very widely depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. In other words, it is not possible to state precisely the exact deduction which could be made uniformly applicable to all the cases. Normally the rule stated by this Court consistently, in its different judgments, is that deduction is to be applied on account of carrying out development activities like providing roads or civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. when the land has been acquired for construction of residential, commercial or institutional projects. It shall also be applied where the sale instances (exemplars) relate to smaller pieces of land and in comparison the acquisition relates to a large tract of land." (emphasis added)
102. Further in paras 41 and 44 of judgment, Court said:
"41. The cases where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essential amenities, before acquisition, for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for its development, falls under the purview of cases of `no deduction'. Furthermore, where the evidence led by the parties is of such instances where the compensation paid is comparable, i.e. exemplar lands have all the features comparable to the proposed acquired land, including that of size, is another category of cases where principle of `no deduction' may be applied. These may be the cases where least or no deduction could be made. Such cases are exceptional and/or rare as normally the lands which are proposed to be acquired for development purposes would be agricultural lands and/or semi or haphazardly developed lands at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which is the relevant time to be taken into consideration for all purposes and intents for determining the market value of the land in question."
"44. It is thus evident from the above enunciated principle that the acquired land has to be more or less developed land as its developed surrounding areas, with all amenities and facilities and is fit to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired without any further expenditure, before such land could be considered for no deduction. Similarly the sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principles each case would have to be considered on its own merits." (emphasis added)
103. In Chandrashekar Versus Land Acquisition Officer (supra) for residential layout issued by Gulbarga Development Authority acquisition proceedings were initiated by publishing Notification dated 13.5.1982 proposing to acquire 144 acres of land in villages Rajapur (71 acres) and Badepur (73 acres). The land of claimants-appellants measured 8 acres, 4 guntas in village Badepur and in connected appeal it measured 7 acres, 7 guntas. Collector made award determining compensation at Rs.4100/- per acre for land in village Badepur and Rs.13,500/- for land in village Rajapur. Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs.1,46,000/- per acre in place of Rs.4100/- per acre for land in village Badepur. On appeal, High Court remanded matter, whereafter Reference Court determined compensation at Rs.1,45,000/- per acre vide order dated 21.12.2002. High Court reduced compensation in appeal at Rs. 65,000/-. The view taken by High Court was upheld by Supreme Court by dismissing appeal of landowners. The issue raised before Court was the extent of deduction to be applied while determining market.
104. It would be interesting to notice review of various cases by Supreme Court demonstrating that deduction applied has varied in all cases.
(a) In Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha Vs. Amritsar Improvement Trust, (1982) 1 SCC 419, the Court said where a large area of undeveloped land is acquired, provision has to be made for providing minimum amenities of town-life. Accordingly, deduction of 20 percent of total acquired land should be made for land over which infrastructure has to be made (space for roads etc.). Besides, cause of raising infrastructure like roads, electricity, water, underground drainage, etc. is also to be considered and for this purposes deduction would raise from 20% to 33%. Thus, in all the Court upheld deductions between 40% and 53%.
(b) In Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150, the Court upheld deduction of 40%.
(c) In Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another (supra), the Court upheld deduction between 20% to 50%.
(d) In Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chottor vs. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by and others, (1998) 2 SCC 385, Court upheld deduction of 40% as development cost.
(e) In Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana (supra), 1/3rd deduction was upheld on development, clarifying that deduction can be more or less of 1/3rd depending upon facts of the case.
(f) In Land Acquisition Officer vs. Nookala Rajamallu and others, (2003) 12 SCC 334, Court upheld 53% deduction.
(g) In V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) Versus Land Acquisition Officer, (2003) 12 SCC 642, Court upheld 37% deduction towards development.
(h) In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor Versus State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789, Court observed that deduction of 20 to 50% towards development is permissible.
(i) In Atma Singh Versus State of Haryana and another, (2008)2 SCC 568, 20% deduction towards largeness of area was applied.
(j) In Subh Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (supra), Court observed that where valuation of a large area of agricultural or undeveloped land has to be determined on the basis of sale price of a small developed plot, standard deductions would be 1/3rd towards infrastructural space and 1/3 towards infrastructural developmental cost, i.e. 2/3rd % i.e. 67%.
(k) In Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Versus K. Manohar Reddy and others, (2010) 12 SCC 707, it was observed that deductions on account of development could vary between 20% to 75%.
(l) In Special Land Acquisition Officer and another Versus M.K. Rafiq Sahib, (2011) 7 SCC 714, Court was upheld 60% deduction.
105. In this background of authorities, Court in Chandrashekar Versus Land Acquisition Officer (supra), observed that quantum of deduction towards development is on account of two components. In this regard it said in para 19.1 and 19.2 as under :
" 19.1. Firstly, space/area which would have to be left out, for providing indispensable amenities like formation of roads and adjoining pavements, laying of sewers and rain/flood water drains, overhead water tanks and water lines, water and effluent treatment plants, electricity sub-stations, electricity lines and street lights, telecommunication towers etc. Besides the aforesaid, land has also to be kept apart for parks, gardens and playgrounds. Additionally, development includes provision of civic amenities like educational institutions, dispensaries and hospitals, police stations, petrol pumps etc. This "first component", may conveniently be referred to as deductions for keeping aside area/space for providing developmental infrastructure.
19.2 Secondly, deduction has to be made for the expenditure/expense which is likely to be incurred in providing and raising the infrastructure and civic amenities referred to above, including costs for levelling hillocks and filling up low lying lands and ditches, plotting out smaller plots and the like. This "second component" may conveniently be referred to as deductions for developmental expenditure /expense."
106. Having said so Court in para 23 said:-
"23. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the analysis of the legal position referred to in the foregoing two paragraphs, we are of the view that there is no discrepancy on the issue, in the recent judgments of this Court. In our view, for the "first component" under the head of "development", deduction of 33-1/3 percent can be made. Likewise, for the "second component" under the head of "development" a further deduction of 33-1/3 percent can additionally be made. The facts and circumstances of each case would determine the actual component of deduction, for each of the two components. Yet under the head of "development", the applied deduction should not exceed 67 percent. That should be treated as the upper benchmark. This would mean, that even if deduction under one or the other of the two components exceeds 33-1/3 percent, the two components under the head of "development" put together, should not exceed the upper benchmark."
107. The above principles have further been followed and reiterated in Atma Singh Versus State of Haryana and another (supra), Nirmal Singh Versus State Of Haryana (supra) and Major General Kapil Mehra and others Vs. Union Of India and another (supra)
108. The decisions of this Court in National Thermal Power Corporation through its General Manager (supra) and Power Grid Corporation of India Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) also reiterate the said principles.
109. In Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (d) by LRS and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others (2012) 7 SCC 595 Reference Court while determining market value observed that though land was agricultural but had non-agricultural potential and determined market value. High Court made a deduction of 15% towards development charges.
110. Referring to an earlier decision in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujrat, (2005) 4 SCC 789, Court in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (supra) said that development charges may range between 20% to 50% of the total price. Court further observed:
"in fixing market value of the acquired land which is undeveloped and under-developed the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired." (emphasis added)
111. In making this observation Court relied on its earlier decisions in Kasturi vs. State of Haryana (supra), Tejumal Bhojwani vs. State of U.P., (2003) 10 SCC 525, V. Hanumantha Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer (supra), H.P. Housing Board vs. Bharat S. Negi, (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kishan Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority, (2004) 10 SCC 745, Lal Chand vs. Union of India (supra), A.P. Housing Board vs. K. Manohar Reddy, (2010) 12 SCC 707 and Subh Ram vs. State of Harayana (supra).
112. In Ashrafi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others (supra), Court has observed, if acquired land has potentiality, it would not be justified to apply "belting system".
113. Recently above authorities and several others have been considered in Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. Union of India and another (supra), and Court has observed that while fixing market value of acquired land, Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors:-
(i) Existing geographical situation of land.
(ii) Existing use of land.
(iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/ or developed area,
(iv) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/ village/ area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.
114. Court has further said that market value is determined with reference to the market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood by a willing seller to a willing buyer on or before the date of preliminary notification i.e. under Section 4(1) of 1894 Act, as that would give a fair indication of market value.
115. With respect to factors of comparable sales, Court in Major General Kapil Mehra Vs. Union of India and another (supra) has referred to its earlier decision in Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others Versus K.S. Gangadharappa and another, (2009) 11 SCC 164, and has observed that element of speculation is reduced to minimum if underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are satisfied, i.e.,(i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1); (ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii)) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) It should possess similar advantages.
116. Where there are several exemplars showing different rates, it has been said that averaging is not permissible, if land acquired are of different types and different locations. But where there are several sales of similar land, more or less, at the same time, prices whereof have marginal variation, averaging thereof is permissible. It is further held that for the purpose of fixation of fair and reasonable market value of any type of land, abnormally highvalue or abnormally low value sales should be carefully discarded. If number of sale deeds of the same locality and of same period with short intervals are available, average price of available number of sale deeds shall be considered as a fair and reasonable market price. Ultimately, it is in the interest of justice for land losers to be awarded fair compensation. All attempts should be taken to award fair compensation to the extent possible on the basis of their accessibility to different kinds of roads, locational advantages etc.
117. ''Freehold land' and ''leasehold land', both these terms are conceptually different. If a property, subject to lease and in possession of a lessee, is offered for sale by owner to a prospective private purchaser, the purchaser being aware that on purchase he will get only title and not possession and that the sale in his favour will be subject to encumbrance namely, the lease, he will offer a price taking note of the encumbrances. Naturally, such a price would be less than the price of a property without any encumbrance. But when a land is acquired free from encumbrances, market value of the same will certainly be higher.
118. In Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board ( supra), Court also considered deductions towards competitive bidding and development. In paragraph no. 39, Court said :
"We have referred to various decisions of this Court on deduction towards development to stress upon the point that deduction towards development depends upon the nature and location of the acquired land. The deduction includes components of land required to be set apart under the building rules for roads, sewage, electricity, parks and other common facilities and also deduction towards development charges like laying of roads, construction of sewerage."
119. Thus, having gone through all the aforesaid decisions, we find that no absolute principle or Rule of Thumb has been laid down in any of the authorities as to how much deduction should be made. The substance of all the decisions is that deduction should be applied where undeveloped and under-developed land is acquired and it can vary from 10% to 70%, depending upon various factors of each case. Similarly, if area of land exemplar is very small, appropriate deduction can be made.
120. Normally, Courts have held that exemplars should be such which are before the date of notification under Section 4(1) of Act, 1894 but an exemplar sale deed of a subsequent period of date of acquisition notification is not completely ruled out to be relevant document provided circumstances to justify the same are available.
121. In State of U.P. Vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and others, AIR 1982 SC 876, notification under Section 4 was published on 6.1.1948. Court determined rate of compensation relying on a sale deed dated 11.7.1959, i.e., a document executed after almost three and half years after the date of acquisition notification. Court upheld reliance of such document observing, if there is no material to show that there was any fluctuation in market rate between the date of acquisition and the date of concerned sale deed, such document may be considered as a relevant material in absence of any other apt evidence. This view was followed in a subsequent decision, i.e., Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1998 SC 943, where it is held:
"Such subsequent transactions which are not proximate in point of time to the acquisition can be taken into account for purposes of determining whether as on the date of acquisition there was an upward trend in the prices of land in the area. Further under certain circumstances where it is shown that the market was stable and there were no fluctuations in the prices between the date of the preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transaction, the transaction could also be relied upon to ascertain the market value."
122. Recently a Division Bench decision of this Court Meerut Development Authority through Its Secretary vs. Basheshwar Dayal (supra) has crystallized legal principles settled in various judgments, relevant for determination of market value, as under:
(i) Function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4(1),
(ii) The method for determination of market value may be :
(a) Opinion of experts,
(b) 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,
(c) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired.
(Ref. Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer & others (supra), para 5).
(iii) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, comparable sales method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as capitalisation of net income method or expert opinion method. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive but subject to the following factors:-
(a) Sale must be a genuine transaction,
(b) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act,
(c) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land,
(d) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land
(e) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired.
(f) if there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land.
(iv) The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition which are as under : -
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) Smallness of size
(i) Largeness of area
(ii) Proximity to a road.
(ii) Situation in the interior at a distance from the road.
(iii) Frontage on a road.
(iii) Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth.
(iv) Nearness to developed area.
(iv) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.
(v) Regular shape.
(v) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up.
(vi) Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition.
(vi) Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.
(vii) Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.
(v) 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.
(vi) Deduction not to be done when land holders have been deprived of their holding 15 to 20 years back and have not been paid any amount.
(vii) In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. [Ref. Valliyammal and another Vs. Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition (supra)].
(viii) When there are several exemplars with Reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. [Ref. Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab (supra)].
(ix) In view of Section 51A of the Act certified copy of sale deed is admissible in evidence, even the vendor or vendee thereof is not required to examine themselves for proving the contents thereof. This, however, would not mean that contents of the transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed would automatically be accepted. The legislature advisedly has used the word 'may'. A discretion, therefore, has been conferred upon a Court to be exercised judicially, i.e., upon taking into consideration the relevant factors. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, the same by itself would not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Having regard to the other materials brought on record, the Court may not accept the evidence contained in a deed of sale. (Ref. Cement Corpn. Of India Ltd. Vs. Purya and others (2004) 8 SCC 270, para 28 and 38,).
(x) While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors : -
(a) Existing geographical situation of the land.
(b) Existing use of the land.
(c) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/ or developed area,
(d) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/ village/ area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.
(xi) Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the Court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the Court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the Court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. 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. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. 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.
(xii) 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.
(xiii) In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. Deduction of "development cost" is the concept used to derive the "wholesale price" of a large undeveloped land with Reference to the "retail price" of a small developed plot. The difference between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large undeveloped land is the "development cost". (Ref. paras 16, 17, 18, 21 and 22, Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (dead) and others (supra).
123. In the light of above exposition of law we may find out whether question of market value of acquired land has rightly been adjudicated by Reference Court or not.
124. It is evident that land was situated in an area where overall development already existed. Acquired land has its approach directly from National Highway i.e. G.T. Road though frontage is said to be 100 meters comprising of two holdings only and rest is inside east of G.T. Road.
125. Area of acquired land of majority of landowners is less than 2000 square meters. In fact, it ranges between 50 square meter to around 800 square meter. In these 120 appeals, area of acquired land of some landowners is only 700 square meter (First Appeal No.236/2005), 1030 square meter (First Appeal No.192/2005), 50 square meter (First Appeal No. 235/2005), 229 square meter (First Appeal No.217/2005), 816 square meter (First Appeal No.203/2005), 900 square meter (First Appeal No.120/2005), 300 square meter (First Appeal No. 126/2005), 264 square meter (First Appeal No.133/2005), 320 square meter (First Appeal No.158/2005), 816 square meter (First Appeal No.153/2005), 208 square meter (First Appeal No.157/2005), 170 square meter (First Appeal No.173/2005), 230 square meter (First Appeal No.143/2005), 540 square meter (First Appeal No.632/2005), 580 square meter (First Appeal No.647/2005), 120 square meter (First Appeal No.650/2005) and 650 square meter (First Appeal No.638/2005).
126. In some other matters the area of land owners is above 10000 square meter i.e. 11769 square meter (First Appeal No.75/2005), 13190 square meter (First Appeal No.78/2005 ) 11690 square meter (First Appeal No.80/2005), 26026 square meter (First Appeal No.90/2005), 27740 square meter (First Appeal No.63/2005), 15650 square meter (First Appeal No.73/2005), 13230 square meter (First Appeal No.88/2005), 15040 square meter (First Appeal No.98/2005), 12770 square meter (First Appeal No.100/2005), 19220 square meter (First Appeal No.104/2005), 22190 square meter (First Appeal No.99/2005), 17790 square meter (First Appeal No.71/2005), 44050 square meter (First Appeal No.85/2005), 11690 square meter (First Appeal No.69/2005), 16900 square meter (First Appeal No.92/2005), 47840 square meter (First Appeal No.61/2005) and 41914 square meter (First Appeal No.62/2005).
127. Thus, area of holdings of different landowners vary in a wide range. Sale deeds relied by claimants were also in respect of smaller pieces of land, i.e., 165 sq. mater, 36 sq. meter, 117 sq. meter and odd. An agreement to sell was also cited which was in respect of 3161 sq. yard and consideration therein was at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. yard.
128. Reference Court has rejected various exemplars cited by claimants observing that same relates to very smaller pieces of land but has relied on an exemplar which was in respect of 6000 sq. meter as the basis of its award and applied rate thereof without any deduction. The agreement to sell has been dismissed on same presumptions based on no evidence.
129. In case where acquisition of land varies to such extent where area of acquired land of individual owners ranges from 50 square meters to more than 44000 square meter, to our mind, application of single exemplar for the purposes of determining market value may not be justified. Further, acquired land obviously is situated in a developed area but its own geographical location is very different. Acquisition was made for the purposes of establishing high power transmission sub-station where development in construction activities and nature of construction was to be different. Maximum land was liable to be left open by PGCIL itself, though for various reasons, it requires a bigger piece of land than actual area required for construction of such Sub-station. It is not the case that acquired land did not possess potential for such purposes. Even otherwise development expenses on acquired land was negligible. For the purpose of determining market value where various exemplars showing different consideration are available, the one which provides best value to land owners should be followed, subject to appropriate deductions towards largeness of area etc.
130. Reference Court has applied exemplar where sale of land relates to a sufficiently bigger piece of land i.e. 6000 square meters. Rejection of other exemplars which provided higher value of land only on the ground that the same pertain to small piece of land, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we find was wholly unjust and unreasonable. Application of an exemplar of such a big piece of land i.e. 6000 square meter amounts to treating unequal as equal. If deduction towards largeness of area would have been applied to other exemplars, even the rate would have been higher than what has been determined by Reference Court.
131. Court below has also not examined implications of various development activities going on or existing in area where acquired land is situated. It has also failed to consider other relevant factors as we have noticed above. It has noted what has been brought in evidence by rival parties but has not taken pain to discuss the same and apply to cases in hand for the purpose of determining market value of acquired land. Since entire acquired land has same conditions and is to be used for same purpose, i.e., establishment of High Power Transmission Sub-Station, factors which may apply for residential and industrial development would also be inapplicable. We are satisfied that Reference Court has not examined the matter in proper perspective and has not applied relevant principles in this regard.
132. In the result, we are of the view that a uniform determination of market value of Rs. 131/- per sq. meter relying on a sale deed which relates to 6000 sq. meter of land, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not justified and the matter requires reconsideration. All the four issues are answered accordingly.
133. Though, it is true that almost twenty years have passed since the date of acquisition, and remand to court below may further add to agony of the parties, but we find that matters have to be examined applying principles referred above as also the relevant material and evidence available on record. Therefore, it would be appropriate to remand all the matters to Court below with a direction to proceed for fresh determination of market value.
134. However, we find it appropriate to clarify that so far as acquired land of landowners having area up to 6000 square meter is concerned, obviously the same shall not be reduced below Rs.131/- per square meter. The matter further has to be examined by court below with respect to probability of enhancement of rate and extent thereof.
135. In respect to other matters, where area of acquired land of claimant landowners is very big as already detailed above, Reference Court will examine the matter and, if need be, may reduce or enhance the same. It will examine market value of acquired land, in the light of relevant evidence and exposition of law discussed above.
136. In the result, all the appeals and cross-appeals are allowed to the extent above. The impugned awards/judgments dated 29.09.2004 and 26.04.2005 in Land Acquisition References in Column 4 of chart given in para 10 of this judgment are set aside. Matter is remanded to Reference Court to restore all these LARs and adjudicate upon the question of market value of acquired land afresh in the light of observations made above, available evidence and in accordance with law.
137. Since it is a very old matter, we request Reference Court to proceed and decide LARs expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, subject to other business of the Court.
138. In view of equal success of both parties, cost shall be borne by them.
Order Dated: 22.02.2016 Mukesh