Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Yasdev Inder Singh & Ors.Tr.Pa Holder vs Yasdev Inder Singh .Tr.Pa Holder on 31 July, 2014
Ès C.A. Nos.690-694 of 2011 etc. 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.690-694 OF 2011
YASDEV INDER SINGH ETC. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PRESIDENT, LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR & ORS RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4558-4560 OF 2011
JAIDEV INDER SINGH ETC. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PRESIDENT, LAND ACQUISITION TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR & ORS RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7631 OF 2011
AMARJIT SINGH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST,
AMRITSAR, THROUGH CHAIRMAN & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7632 OF 2011
AMARJIT SINGH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VERSUS
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2014.08.07
18:07:08 IST
AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
Reason:
C.A. Nos.690-694 of 2011 etc. 2
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7636 OF 2011
AMARJIT SINGH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6289 OF 2011
SHASHI BHATIA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8106-8108 OF 2011
YASHDEV INDER SINGH, THROUGH
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER & ORS.ETC. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PRESIDENT, LAND ACQUISITION
TRIBUNAL& ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5589-5592 OF 2012
GIAN KAUR & ORS.ETC. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7523 OF 2012
BALDEV SINGH & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
C.A. Nos.690-694 of 2011 etc. 3
CIVIL APPEAL NO.9144 OF 2012
VASDEEP SINGH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7282 OF 2012
KAWALJIT SINGH & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1516 OF 2013
ATUL PURI & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3263 OF 2013
GIAN KAUR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5081 OF 2013
GURBACHAN SINGH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST,
AMRITSAR & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
C.A. Nos.690-694 of 2011 etc. 4
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6275 OF 2013
AMRIK SINGH APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST,
AMRITSAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.78 OF 2013
INDERJIT SINGH & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for the
parties.
2. The High Court in the impugned judgment,
while fixing the market value of the subject land
at Rs.18.50 per square yard, observed as
follows :-
"In the case in hand, the sales
instances, which have been taken into
consideration by the learned Tribunal are
either of the land of the Claimants whose
lands have been acquired or part of it has
been acquired or of the adjacent land.
The sales instances were also of the
period immediately before the acquisition.
We are in agreement with principle adopted
by the Tribunal for determining the
C.A. Nos.690-694 of 2011 etc. 5
average price, although the figure is
incorrect. Taking into consideration the
maximum rate and the minimum rate of the
sales instances of very small area, that
was, Rs.13 per sq.yd. and Rs.40 per sq.yd.
as also maximum area of 1650 sq.yds. which
was Rs.21 per sq.yd., the average thereof
comes to Rs.24.66 per sq.yd. and not Rs.23
per sq.yd. as arrived at by the Tribunal.
Keeping in view the developed
surrounding area and the location of the
land, which factum could not be disputed
by counsel for respondent, the cut of 40%
applied to the case in hand, is not
justified and is on the excessive side.
The judgments relied upon by the Tribunal
for imposing such cut, were cases where
sale price of auctioned land in the
developed area was to be taken into
consideration for determining the market
value of the un-developed area, but here
the sales instances are of the same land
and of the same period when the land was
to be acquired. We are of considered view
that to moderate the rates of the sales
instances which are of small area, while
the land acquired is a large area, cut of
25% should have been applied by the
Tribunal. When applying the same, the
market value of the land would come to
Rs.18.50 per sq.yd."
3. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, learned counsel for
the appellants in some of the appeals, heavily
relies upon the decision of this Court in ’Anjani
Molu Dessai v. State of Goa & Another’, (2013) 13
C.A. Nos.690-694 of 2011 etc. 6
SCC 710, and submits that the High Court ought to
have taken into consideration the maximum rate of
the sale instances produced by the appellants
instead of drawing the average from the sale
deeds. His submission is that the market value
must have been fixed at the rate of Rs.40 per
square yard, and at best 25% deduction could have
been made from that rate, since the land acquired
is a large area.
4. In Anjani Molu Dessai’s case (supra),
with regard to the consideration of several
exemplars representing the market price, this
Court observed in paragraph 20 of the report
(page Nos.715-716) as follows :
"What has been observed by this Court is
that where there are several exemplars with
reference to similar lands, usually the
highest of the exemplars, which is a bona
fide, transaction, will be considered."
(emphasis supplied)
Clarifying this statement, the Court
further observed that "where there are several
sales of similar lands whose prices range in a
C.A. Nos.690-694 of 2011 etc. 7
narrow bandwidth, the average thereof can be
taken, as representing the market price."
5. We do not think that Anjani Molu Dessai’s
case (supra) lays down any absolute proposition
of law that in all cases where there are several
exemplars with reference to similar lands, the
highest of the exemplars must be considered. The
statement in Anjani Molu Dessai’s case (supra),
as noted above, would show that this Court has
been guarded as it has qualified the statement by
use of the expression ’usually’ and then further
clarifying the same.
6. Insofar as the sales instances in the
present group of matters is concerned, they
relate to very-very small area. The subject land
for which the market value is to be determined is
about 323 acres.
7. The sale exemplar of 1650 square yards is
of the maximum area and consideration of that is
of Rs.21 per square yard. The High Court while
drawing average had arrived at the consideration
C.A. Nos.690-694 of 2011 etc. 8
of the sale deeds at Rs.23 per square yard.
8. In the above fact situation, it cannot be
said that the High Court committed any error in
confirming the finding of the Tribunal on
consideration of the sale instances of the same
area by drawing out the average. As a matter of
fact, the High Court had been quite liberal and
considerate in applying 25% deduction only,
though the subject land is a very large extent of
land in comparison to exemplars relied upon by
the appellants.
9. In view of the above, there is no merit
in these appeals. These are dismissed with no
order as to costs.
........................CJI.
( R.M. LODHA )
..........................J.
( J.CHELAMESWAR )
NEW DELHI; ..........................J.
JULY 31, 2014 ( A.K. SIKRI )
C.A. Nos.690-694 of 2011 etc. 9
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.1 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 690-694 OF 2011
YASDEV INDER SINGH ETC. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PRESIDENT, LAND ACQUISITION
TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR & ORS Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 4558-4560 of 2011
(With office report)
C.A. No. 7631 of 2011
(With office report)
C.A. No. 7632 of 2011
(With office report)
C.A. No. 7636 of 2011
(With office report)
C.A. No. 6289 of 2011
(With office report)
C.A. No. 8106-8108 of 2011
(With office report for direction)
C.A. No. 5589-5592 of 2012
(With office report for direction)
C.A. No. 7523 of 2012
(With office report
C.A. No. 9144 of 2012
(With office report)
C.A. No. 7282 of 2012
(With office report)
C.A. No. 1516 of 2013
(With office report)
C.A. No. 3263 of 2013
(With office report)
C.A. Nos.690-694 of 2011 etc. 10
C.A. No. 5081 of 2013
(With office report)
C.A. No. 6275 of 2013
(With office report)
C.A. No. 78 of 2013
(With office report)
Date : 31/07/2014 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
For Appellant(s) Mr. Santosh Krishnan, Adv.
For Mr. Nikhil Goel ,Adv.
Mrs. Amita Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Tandon, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Adv.
Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Verma, Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mathur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv.
Mr. C. K. Rai, Adv.
Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Verma, Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, Adv.
Mr. Shree Pal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shikher Garg, Adv.
C.A. Nos.690-694 of 2011 etc. 11
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Renu Diwan)
Sr.P.A. Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file.)