Balwan Singh (Dead) Thr. Lr. Etc. vs The State Of Haryana

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALLTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3197-3216 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7879-7898/2022 @ Diary No. 392/2022)

Balwan Singh (Dead) By Lrs. Etc. Etc. …Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Haryana and Others …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3226 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.4430/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3227 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.4440/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3228 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.4718/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3358-3375 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7827-7844/2022 @ Diary No. 7303/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3403-3449 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7899-7945/2022 @ Diary No. 6160/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3450-3458 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7960-7968/2022 @ Diary No. 31210/2021) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3399-3402 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7875-7878/2022 @ Diary No. 372/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3376-3398 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7850-7872/2022 Signature Not Verified @ Diary No. 619/2022) Digitally signed by R Natarajan CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3225 OF 2022 Date: 2022.05.18 17:28:47 IST Reason: (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.2446/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3224 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.1553/2022)

1 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3217-3223 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.1380-1386/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3229-3230 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7093-7094/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3233-3234 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7369-7370/2022 @ Diary No. 3157/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3231-3232 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7355-7356/2022 @ Diary No. 3553/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3235-3357 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.7553-7675/2022 @ Diary No. 6604/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4068-4070 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos.8666-8668/2022 @ Diary No. 12858/2022)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Interlocutory Application No. 33721/2022 in Civil Appeals arising

from Diary No. 392/2022 is allowed in terms of prayer (a) and the names

of the proforma respondents are ordered to be deleted from the array of

parties, at the risk and responsibility of the appellants.

1A. As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of

appeals and, as such, in respect of the lands acquired of the same

village – Kheri Sadh, District Rohtak, Haryana, but in two different

2 phases, and village Baliyana, all these appeals are decided and

disposed of together by this common judgment and order.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common

final judgment and order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 1113/2016 and other

allied First Appeals in respect of the lands acquired of village Kheri

Sadh, District Rohtak, Haryana, for which notification under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was

issued on 9.6.2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Phase

Acquisition’), both, the original claimants/landowners as well as the

acquiring body/State have preferred the present appeals.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common

judgment and order dated 10.11.2021 passed in R.F.A. No. 1632/2016

and other allied First Appeals in respect of the lands acquired of village

Kheri Sadh, District Rohtak, Haryana, for which notification under

Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.02.2008 (hereinafter referred to as

the ’Second Phase Acquisition’), the original claimants/landowners have

preferred the present appeals.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common

judgment and order dated 1.9.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab

and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 521/2017 and other allied first

appeals in respect of the land acquired of village Baliyana, District

3 Rohtak for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on

9.6.2006, the original claimants/landowners have preferred the present

appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 7850-

7872/2022 and 1553/2022.

Facts of the case pertaining to Village Kheri Sadh:

3. The lands situated at village Kheri Sadh, District Rohtak, Haryana

(First Phase Acquisition) came to be acquired under the provisions of the

Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose, namely, for setting up

Industrial Model Township, Rohtak. Notification under Section 4 of the

Act was issued on 9.6.2006 proposing to acquire the lands situated in

the village Kheri Sadh, totally admeasuring 126 acres, 7 kanals and 10

marlas. The lands were acquired for public purpose, namely for setting

up Industrial Model Township, Rohtak. Notification under Section 6 of

the Act was issued on 11.01.2007. The Land Acquisition Officer

declared the award on 15.05.2007 determining the compensation at Rs.

16,00,000/- per acre.

3.1 References under Section 18 of the Act were made at the instance

of the original claimants/landowners. Relying upon the sale

instances/sale exemplars produced at Ex. P8 & P9 and after applying a

cut of 20% for the lands abutting highway up to depth of one acre and

beyond that, applying the cut of 38%, the Reference Court determined

4 the compensation at Rs. 24,00,000/- per acre for the lands up to one

acre on highway and for the remaining lands at Rs.19,77,000/- per acre.

3.2 In the appeals preferred by the original claimants/landowners, the

High Court, by the impugned common judgment and order dated

1.9.2021, though agreed with the Reference Court as regards the

relevant sale exemplars being Ex. P8 & P9, enhanced the compensation

for the lands abutting highway up to one acre to Rs. 28,69,910/- per acre

by reducing the cut to 10% from 20%. The High Court has dismissed

the first appeals preferred by the landowners with respect to remaining

lands beyond one acre abutting highway and has also dismissed the first

appeals preferred by the State. Consequently, the High Court has

upheld the compensation at Rs. 19,77,000/- per acre for the lands

beyond one acre on highway.

3.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common

judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 1.9.2021, both, the

original claimants/landowners as well as the State have preferred the

present appeals.

4. So far as the Second Phase Acquisition is concerned, notification

under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.02.2008 with respect to the

very village Kheri Sadh. Relying upon and considering its earlier

judgment and order dated 1.9.2021 passed in R.F. A. No. 1113/2016 and

other allied first appeals, with respect to the lands acquired of the same

5 village but for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on

9.6.2006 and considering the time gap of approximately one year and

eight months, the High Court has granted 12% escalation and has

determined the compensation at Rs. 30,89,066/- per acre for the lands

up to one acre on highway and with respect to the remaining lands, i.e.,

for the lands beyond one acre from highway, determined the

compensation at Rs.28,08,242/- per acre and has partly allowed the

appeals preferred by the original claimants/landowners.

4.1 Against the impugned common judgment and order dated

10.11.2021, by which the High Court has determined the compensation

at Rs. 30,80,066/- per acre for the lands up to one acre from highway

and Rs. 28,08,242/- per acre for the lands beyond one acre from

highway, the original claimants/landowners have preferred the present

appeals.

Facts of the Appeals pertaining to village Baliyana:

5. So far as the civil appeals arising out of the impugned common

judgment and order passed by the High Court with respect to the land

acquired at village Baliyana, Tehsil and District Rohtak are concerned,

notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.6.2006 for setting

up the Industrial Model Township, Rohtak to be planned and developed

as an integrated complex for industrial, residential and other support

services etc. Notification under Section 6 was issued on 11.01.2007.

6

The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award and awarded

compensation to the landowners in respect of 5848 kanals 16 marlas of

acquired land at the rate of Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre for all types of land.

Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the Land

Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.16,00,000/- per acre, at the

instances of the landowners/original claimants, references under Section

18 of the Act were made to the Reference Court. Before the Reference

Court, the original claimants/landowners relied upon a number of sale

exemplars at Ex. P1 to P7. However, except one sale exemplar, all were

for the period subsequent to the notification issued under Section 4 of

the Act and therefore the Reference Court discarded the same. Before

the Reference Court, the original claimants/landowners also relied upon

the judgment of the Reference Court in the case of Splendour Land v.

State of Haryana, decided on 29.09.2015 by way of additional evidence,

by which qua the same notification issued under Section 4 of the Act

dated 9.6.2006 for the purpose of Industrial Model Township, Rohtak, the

Collector awarded Rs. 16,00,000/- per acre, the Reference Court

enhanced the same to Rs. 19,77,000/- and Rs. 24,00,000/- per acre.

However, it is required to be noted that the said judgment was with

respect to the land situated at village Kheri Sadh. Thereafter, having

observed that though the boundaries of village Baliyana and village

Kheri Sadh are adjacent to each other, the location of village Kheri Sadh

7 is at Rohtak-Delhi National Highway No. 10 and the land situated at

village Baliyana is on Rohtak-Sonepat Road and that too, falls at a

distance of about 30 acres from Rohtak-Sonepat Road and is at a

distance of some acres from National Highway No.10, the Reference

Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 17,00,000/- per

acre. The judgment and order passed by the Reference Court

enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.17,00,000/- per acre was

challenged by both, the landowners as well as the acquiring body. By

the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has

dismissed the appeals preferred by the original claimants/landowners as

well as the acquiring body and has confirmed the judgment and award

passed by the Reference Court determining the compensation at Rs.

17,00,000/- per acre for all types of land.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common

judgment and order passed by the High Court enhancing the amount of

compensation to Rs. 17,00,000/- per acre only with respect to the land of

village Baliyana, the original claimants have preferred the present

appeals.

Submissions on behalf of the original claimants/landowners insofar as First Phase Acquisition of Village Kheri Sadh:

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective original

claimants/landowners have vehemently submitted that as held

8 consistently by this Court, the highest sale exemplar shall be made the

basis for determination of compensation. It is submitted that in the

present case, though Ex. P3 sale exemplar was available on record,

wherein the land was sold at an average rate of Rs.46,45,714.22 per

acre, the High Court ought to have determined the compensation

considering the sale exemplar at Ex. P3.

7.1 It is submitted that even assuming that the sale exemplar

produced at Ex. P3 was with respect to a small plot of land, at least there

may be 40% cut. It is submitted that, as such, as held by this Court in

the case of Ashrafi & Others v. State of Haryana and others, (2013) 5

SCC 527, generally cut of 33% may be reasonable.

7.2 It is then submitted that as such looking to the potentiality and the

overall development of the area and the lands in question were situated

in an already developed area, no cut should have been applied.

7.3 It is further submitted that in any case the High Court has failed to

grant proportionate increase for the lands beyond one acre from

highway. It is submitted that as the High Court has enhanced the

compensation from Rs.24,00,000/- per acre to Rs. 28,69,910/- per acre

for the lands up to one acre from highway, a proportionate increase

ought to have been granted for the lands beyond one acre from highway.

It is submitted that the High Court has not given any reasons for not

9 giving proportionate increase as was granted for the lands abutting

highway up to one acre.

Submissions on behalf of the original claimants/landowners insofar as Second Phase Acquisition of Village Kheri Sadh:

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original

claimants/landowners in the Second Phase Acquisition, for which

notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.02.2008, have

submitted that the High Court has erred in granting an escalation of 12%

per annum only, which is grossly inadequate.

8.1 It is submitted that in the areas where fast development and boom

in residential and economic activity is expected in the near future, the

land appreciates at a much faster rate. It is submitted that therefore the

High Court has erred in granting only 12% escalation.

Submissions on behalf of the original claimants/landowners insofar as Acquisition of Village Baliyana:

9. Now so far as the land acquired of village Baliyana is concerned,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original

claimants/landowners have vehemently submitted that the land acquired

at village Baliyana has been acquired for setting up the Industrial Model

Township, Rohtak for industrial, residential and other support services. It

is contended that the acquired land at village Baliyana is having a very

great potentiality. It is urged that it is not in dispute that the boundaries

10 of village Baliyana and village Kheri Sadh are adjacent to each other and

having a common boundary, both, the Reference Court as well as the

High Court ought to have awarded the compensation for the acquired

land of village Baliyana at par with the compensation determined and

awarded for the land acquired of village Kheri Sadh. It is contended that

the High Court has committed a grave error in awarding compensation at

the rate of Rs. 17,00,000/- per acre only, though the High Court

determined a higher compensation for the acquired land of village Kheri

Sadh.

9.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners have

heavily relied upon the allotment letter dated 13.08.2009, whereby 700

acres of land situated at village Baliyana was allotted by the acquiring

body/HSIIDC to Maruti Suzuki India Limited at the rate of Rs. 75,00,000/-

per acre.

Submissions on behalf of the State/Acquiring Body:

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/acquiring body –

HSIIDC have made the following submissions insofar as the land

acquired of village Kheri Sadh is concerned:

i) that the courts below in Phase I acquisition of village Kheri Sadh erroneously refused to take into consideration four sale exemplars produced at Ex. R2, R3, R4 and R5 on the ground that average sale price of these sale exemplars is lower than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that, however, Section 25 11 of the 1894 Act does not prohibit consideration of sale exemplars of the price lower than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. That Section 25 only debars the Court from awarding an amount of compensation lower than the amount awarded by the Collector.

ii) It is submitted that Ex. R2 is the closest sale deed prior to the date of notification and thus ought to have been relied upon for the determination of compensation being the best exemplar produced on record. That discarding the same on the ground that it is on lower side as well as of lesser area is not correct in the eye of law.

iii) It is further submitted that the High Court as well as the Reference Court did not consider the fact that Ex. R3, R4 and R5, although were executed after the date of notification but the same provided a good picture of the market value of the acquired land as even after issuance of notification, the market value of the acquired land did not increase to the extent as determined by the Reference Court. It is therefore submitted that both, the Reference Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in not taking into consideration the sale exemplars produced at Ex. R3, R4 and R5.

iv) Now so far as the reliance placed upon the sale exemplars produced at Ex. P8 and P9 by the Reference Court as well as the High Court is concerned, it is submitted that in those exemplars, the sale deeds were executed by the private builders. It is submitted that the reliance placed upon such sale exemplars is not correct since private builders purchase the land at any cost for earning the maximum profit after development of the land. It is submitted that moreover the cut of 10% is not an appropriate cut as applied by the High Court. It is submitted that the High Court as well as the Reference Court have totally ignored the settled principles of law that

12 a cut of 50% to 75% should be imposed on the acquired land and since the acquired land is a large tract of undeveloped land, the department shall have to incur a huge expenditure to develop the said land. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/acquiring body have relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of Basavva v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 9 SCC 640; Kanta Devi v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 201; Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444; Chandrashekar v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2012) 1 SCC 390; Haryana State Agricultural Market Board v. Krishan Kumar, (2011) 15 SCC 297; Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769; A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy, (2010) 12 SCC 707; Dy. Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu, (2006) 12 SCC 87; Mummidi Apparao v. Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., (2009) 4 SCC 402; Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh, (2010) 11 SCC 581, in support of their submission that cut of 50% to 75% ought to have been imposed, while determining the compensation.

v) It is further submitted that in the present case, even before the High Court, learned counsel appearing for the landowners themselves submitted that the cut should not be more than 20%, but still the High Court has applied the cut of only 10%, instead of 20%.

vi) It is further submitted that the acquired land of the landowners is an agricultural land and therefore they are not entitled to the compensation of a commercial land.

10.1 Now so far as the compensation determined with respect to the

acquired land of village Baliyana is concerned, it is vehemently

submitted that the landowners of village Baliyana cannot claim parity

13 with the compensation awarded for the acquired land of village Kheri

Sadh as the location of village Kheri Sadh is much better than village

Baliyana. It is submitted that the High Court has rightly observed in para

4.2 of the impugned judgment that Village Kheri Sadh falls inside the

Pheripheral road of Rohtak City, whereas the acquired land of village

Baliyana falls outside the Peripheral Road. It is submitted that the High

Court has rightly refused to determine the compensation for the acquired

land of village Baliyana at par with the land acquired of village Kheri

Sadh. It is therefore submitted that the High Court has rightly rejected

the appeals filed by the landowners of village Baliyana.

10.1.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the allotment letter

dated 13.08.2009, whereby 700 acres of the land situated at village

Baliyana was allotted by the acquiring body to the Maruti Suzuki India

Limited at the rate of Rs.75,00,000/- per acre, relied upon on behalf of

the landowners is concerned, it is submitted that the said allotment is

three years after issuance of section 4 notification in the present case

and therefore the same cannot be made the basis for determining

compensation as, for obtaining change of land use, huge amount has to

be paid as government charges and then only the potential of land will

become commercial or industrial. It is submitted that determination of

compensation for the acquired land will rest upon the nature of land on

the date of issuance of section 4 notification, usage of such land for a

14 specific purpose and potential of such land at the time of acquisition. It

is urged that any development around the acquired land which is of

commercial nature cannot form the basis for determination of

compensation of an agricultural land and therefore the landowners

cannot claim future commercial potential for their agricultural land.

Consideration:

First Phase Acquisition pertaining to village Kheri Sadh:

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at

length.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that insofar as the “first

phase acquisition” with respect to the land acquired in village Kheri Sadh

is concerned, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on

9.6.2006. Before the Reference Court, the original

claimants/landowners relied upon the sale exemplars produced at Ex.

P8, P9 and P3. The original claimants relied upon the sale exemplar

produced at Ex. P3, under which the land was sold at an average of

Rs.46,45,714.22 per acre. However, as the said sale exemplar was of a

very small plot of land, the Reference Court discarded the same. The

original claimants/landowners also relied upon some other sale

instances, however, as the same were post Section 4 notification, the

same are rightly discarded both, by the Reference Court and the High

Court. Relying upon the sale exemplars produced at Ex. P8 & P9 and

15 applying the cut of 20%, the Reference Court enhanced the amount of

compensation to Rs. 24,00,000/- per acre for the land up to the depth of

one acre abutting highway, and applying the cut of 38%, the Reference

Court enhanced the compensation at Rs. 19,77,000/- per acre for the

remaining land in the village Kheri Sadh.

11.1 The High Court in the appeals preferred by the original

claimants/landowners, though has also relied upon the sale exemplars

produced at Ex. P8 and P9, by the impugned judgment and order, has

enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 28,69,910/- per acre for

the land located up to the depth of one acre from national highway and

has confirmed the amount of compensation at Rs. 19,77,000/- per acre

for the remaining land of village Kheri Sadh. While enhancing the

amount of compensation to Rs. 28,69,910/- per acre of the land located

up to the depth of one acre from national highway, the High Court has

reduced the cut from 20 % to 10%.

12. Now so far as applying the cut of 10% is concerned, as such, the

High Court has not assigned any reasons whatsoever as to why the High

Court is applying the cut of 10%. There is no discussion whatsoever on

applying the cut of 10%. It appears from the record and it is not in

dispute that the lands in question of village Kheri Sadh are agricultural

lands. The sale exemplars produced at Ex. P8 & P9 were also with

respect to small plots of land, may be, bigger than the sale exemplar

16 produced at Ex. P3. But still both the sale exemplars Ex. P8 & P9 were

with respect to small plots of land, even as observed by the High Court.

In the present case, a large extent of land admeasuring 126 acres, 7

kanals and 10 marlas came to be acquired. Therefore, as such, the

Reference Court was justified in applying the cut of 20% for the acquired

land up to the depth of one acre abutting highway and applying the cut

of 38% for the acquired land beyond one acre from highway. As per the

settled position of law, a cut can be ranging from 20% to 75%.

13. In the case of Lal Chand (supra), it is held that to determine the

market value of a large tract of undeveloped agricultural land (with

potential for development), with reference to sale price of small

developed plots, deductions varying between 20% to 75% of the price of

such developed plots could be made.

13.1 In the case of Krishan Kumar (supra), it is observed and held by

this Court that if the value of small developed plots should be the basis,

appropriate deductions will have to be made therefrom towards the area

to be used for roads, drains, and common facilities. Thereafter, further

deduction will have to be made towards the cost of development, that is,

the case of levelling the land, cost of laying roads and drains etc.

Therefore, as such, the High Court has committed a grave error in

applying the cut of 10% only instead of 20% as applied by the Reference

Court.

17

14. Now so far as the reliance placed upon sale exemplars produced

at Ex. R2, R3, R4 and R5 both, the Reference Court as well as the High

Court have rightly discarded the same as the one of the sale exemplars

was for the value lower than the amount of compensation determined by

the Collector and the other sale exemplars were for the period post

section 4 notification.

15. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the acquiring body/State

that there shall not be any uniform increase and/or determination of the

compensation with respect to the lands acquired and it will depend upon

the location of the lands acquired is concerned, it is required to be noted

that, as such, neither the original claimants/landowners nor even the

acquiring body have produced any map showing the location of the

lands in question. However, considering the fact that the lands have

been acquired under the very same notification and for the very purpose

and in the absence of any map showing the location, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, no error has been committed by the

Reference Court as well as the High Court in applying the uniform

compensation for the lands acquired up to one acre from highway and

for the lands beyond it.

16. Therefore, the High Court has erred in enhancing the amount of

compensation to Rs.28,69,910/- per acre with respect to the land up to

depth of one acre abutting highway. We are of the opinion that the High

18 Court has committed a grave error in applying the cut of 10% instead of

20% applied by the Reference Court. Therefore, the original

claimants/landowners shall be entitled to the compensation determined

by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.24,00,000/- per acre for the

acquired land up to depth of one acre abutting highway and for the

remaining land of village Kheri Sadh, the landowners/original claimants

shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 19,77,000/- per acre,

as determined by the Reference Court after applying the cut of 38%.

Therefore, the appeals preferred by the State are required to be partly

allowed so far as the “first phase acquisition” of village Kheri Sadh is

concerned.

Second Phase Acquisition pertaining to village Kheri Sadh:

17. Now so far as the “second phase acquisition” of village Kheri

Sadh, for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on

13.02.2008 is concerned, considering the time gap of approximately one

year and eight months (20 months) and considering 12% escalation and

as observed hereinabove with respect to the “first phase acquisition”

pertaining to the very village Kheri Sadh the compensation is determined

at Rs. 24,00,000/- per acre up to depth of one acre abutting highway and

Rs. 19,77,000/- per acre for the remaining land, the original

claimants/landowners in the “second phase acquisition” shall be entitled

for compensation at the rate of Rs. 28,80,000/- per acre for the acquired

19 land up to depth of one acre abutting highway and for the remaining land

of village Kheri Sadh in the “second phase acquisition”, the original

claimants/landowners shall be entitled for compensation at the rate of

Rs. 23,72,400/- per acre. And to that extent, the impugned judgment

and order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the High Court in R.F.A. No.

1632/2016 and other allied appeals is required to be modified to the

aforesaid extent, so far as the” second phase acquisition” of village Kheri

Sadh is concerned. However, as the acquiring body/State have not

preferred any appeals challenging the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court, at this stage, we do not pass any further order

except to dismiss the present appeals preferred by the original

landowners.

Acquisition pertaining to village Baliyana:

18. Now so far as the appeals preferred by the original

claimants/landowners of village Baliyana for which notification under

Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.6.2006, challenging the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court, determining the

compensation at Rs. 17,00,000/- per acre are concerned, we have gone

through the findings recorded by the Reference Court, which have been

confirmed by the High Court. It appears that the original claimants relied

upon the decision of the Reference Court dated 29.09.2015 in the case

of Splendour Land (supra) qua the same notification under Section 4 20 dated 9.6.2006 pertaining to village Kheri Sadh, by which the Reference

Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 19,77,000/- per acre

for the lands acquired beyond one acre from highway. However, it is

required to be noted that the judgment and order passed by the

Reference Court in the case of Splendour Land (supra) was with respect

to village Kheri Sadh. As per the findings recorded by the Reference

Court, which are on appreciation of evidence on record, the land situated

at village Kheri Sadh and village Baliyana are not comparable at all. The

Reference Court has extensively considered the same in paragraphs 20

to 26. It is to be noted that although the boundaries of village Kheri

Sadh and village Baliyana are meeting at one point and are adjacent to

each other, the location of village Kheri Sadh is on Rohtak-Delhi National

Highway No. 10 and so far as the village Baliyana is concerned, the

same is on Rohtak-Sonepat Road and that too falls at a distance of

about 30 acres from Rohtak-Sonepat Road and is at a distance of some

acres from National Highway No. 10. There is a specific finding

recorded by the Reference Court that the land of village Baliyana is not

having so much potential in terms of proximity to Rohtak city and is not

adjacent to National Highway No. 10. Therefore, the original

claimants/landowners of village Baliyana cannot claim the same

compensation which is awarded to the claimants of village Kheri Sadh

(first phase).

21 18.1 Now so far as the reliance placed by the landowners of village

Baliyana upon the allotment letter dated 13.08.2009, whereby 700 acres

of the land was allotted by the HSIIDC to Maruti Suzuki India Limited at

the rate of Rs. 75,00,000/- per acre is concerned, at the outset, it is

required to be noted that the said allotment was made three years after

issuance of section 4 notification in the present case and therefore the

same cannot be made the basis for determining the compensation.

What is required to be considered is the nature of the acquiring land on

the date of section 4 notification, usage of such land for a specific

purpose and potential of such land at the time of acquisition. Even

otherwise, it is to be noted that the HSIIDC must have incurred a huge

amount for development of the land allotted to Maruti Suzuki and the

HSIIDC would have provided infrastructure facilities, such as, supply of

electricity lines, sewerage, roads, common area etc. Hence, no reliance

can be placed upon the said allotment letter dated 13.08.2009, whereby

700 acres of land were allotted by the HSIIDC to the Maruti Suzuki at the

rate of Rs. 75,00,000/- per acre.

19. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High

Court has rightly determined the compensation at Rs. 17,00,000/- per

acre for the lands acquired of village Baliyana for which the notification

under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.6.2006. We are in complete

agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this

22 Court is called for. Thus, the appeals preferred by the original

claimants/landowners challenging the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court dated 1.9.2021 in R.F.A. No. 521/2017 and

other allied appeals deserve to be dismissed.

Conclusions:

20. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above,

the civil appeals preferred by the original claimants/landowners of village

Kheri Sadh, arising out of the impugned common judgment and order

dated 1.9.2021 passed by the High Court in R.F.A. No. 1113/2016 and

other allied first appeals in respect of the ’First Phase Acquisition’ for

which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.6.2006 are

hereby dismissed. The Civil Appeals preferred by the State/acquiring

body challenging the impugned common judgment and order dated

1.9.2021 passed by the High Court in R.F.A. No. 1113/2016 and other

allied first appeals in respect of the ’First Phase Acquisition’ for which

notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.6.2006 are

hereby partly allowed. It is held that the original claimants/landowners

shall be entitled to the compensation at Rs. 24,00,000/- per acre for the

acquired lands up to one acre abutting highway and Rs. 19,77,000/- per

acre for the remaining lands beyond one acre from highway along with

all statutory benefits.

23

21. In view of the above and for the reasons stated in paragraph 17

above, the civil appeals preferred by the original claimants/landowners

arising out of the impugned common judgment and order of the High

Court dated 10.11.2021 passed in R.F.A. No. 1632/2016 and other allied

first appeals with respect to “Second Phase Acquisition” of Village Kheri

Sadh for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on

13.02.2008 stand dismissed as the original claimants/landowners have

challenged the said judgment and order for enhancement of

compensation and as on today no appeals are preferred by the

State/acquiring body – HSIIDC.

22. The civil appeals preferred by the original claimants/landowners

challenging the impugned common judgment and order dated 1.9.2021

passed in R.F.A. No. 521/2017 and other allied first appeals for

enhancement of compensation in respect of the acquired land of village

Baliyana are hereby dismissed. The impugned common judgment and

order dated 1.9.2021 passed in R.F.A. No. 521/2017 and other allied first

appeals determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 17,00,000/- per

acre is hereby confirmed along with all statutory benefits.

24

23. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be

no order as to costs.

………………………………J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J. MAY 18, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]

25