Jai Parkash Etc Etc vs Union Territory, Chandigarh Etc Etc

Jai Parkash Etc Etc ..Appellant (S)

VERSUS

Union Territory, Chandigarh Etc Etc ..Respondent (S)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1768­1791 of 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1792­1804 of 2022

With

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1805­1806 of 2022

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2022.03.10 appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment 17:13:19 IST Reason:

and order.

1

2. The relevant facts which are necessary for determination of

the present appeals in a nutshell are as under: ­

2.1 In all these cases a notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 19.03.1999 by

which the Chandigarh Administration sought to acquire

30.78 acres of land situated in Village Hallo Majra,

Hadbast No.219 and 32.92 acres of land situated in Village

Behlana, Hadbast No.231, Union Territory, Chandigarh,

for use by Defence Security Forces. That a notification

under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was

issued on 23.03.1999. The Land Acquisition Officer

declared the award dated 18.01.2000 and assessed the

market value of the acquired lands of both the villages @

Rs.6,87,837/­ per acre. That on reference, the learned

Reference Court determined and enhanced the market

value of the acquired lands of both the villages @

Rs.9,65,000/­ per acre. The judgment and award passed

by the Reference Court determining the market value of

the lands @ Rs.9,65,000/­ per acre was the subject matter

of appeals before the High Court.

2 2.2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that before the

Reference Court, the original claimants – appellants herein

relied upon the sale deeds produced and exhibited as P­43,

P­44 and P­73 and P­74. However, the learned Reference

Court rejected the said sale transactions on the ground

that the said sale transactions are pertaining to small

plots. Therefore, the learned Reference Court discarded the

same. Before the High Court also the original claimants

heavily relied upon the sale instances at exhibit P­43, P­44

and P­73 and P­74. By the impugned common impugned

judgment and order, the High Court has held that the

Reference Court ought to have considered the sale

transactions exhibit P­73 and P­74 and ought to have

determined the market value of the lands acquired, after

adopting some reasonable cut. After taking the average

price of both the sale deeds – exhibit P­73 and P­74, the

High Court determined the average price of Rs.22,57,000/­

per acre. That thereafter after giving a cut of 50%, the High

Court has determined the market value of the acquired

3 lands at Rs.11,28,580/­ (round off to Rs.11,30,000/­) per

acre.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in

respective appeals, determining/assessing the market

value of the lands acquired at Rs.11,30,000/­ per acre, the

original claimants have preferred the present appeals.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respective parties at length.

4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the High Court

has relied upon the sale instances exhibit P­73 and P­74

against which no appeals have been preferred by the

Chandigarh Administration. Therefore, the findings

recorded by the High Court that the sale instances i.e.

exhibit P­73 and P­74 can be best exemplars and which

can be considered for determining and assessing the

market value of the lands acquired, has attained finality.

5. Now the next question which would arise for consideration,

would be, whether in the facts and circumstances of the

4 case, the High Court is justified in applying a deduction of

50% while determining/assessing market price?

5.1 It is to noted that as such nothing has been discussed by

the High Court while applying a deduction of 50%.

Therefore, in the normal course the appeals are required to

be remanded to the High Court for applying the proper cut.

However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties have prayed and requested to make the

appropriate percentage of deduction by this Court instead

of remanding the matters to the High Court.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties and considering the location of the lands

acquired and that part of the acquired land abuts the

National Highway No. 21 and at the same time, the sale

instances exhibit P­73 & P­74 pertain to comparatively

smaller plots as compared to the acquired lands (in all

approximately 63.70 acres of lands) a reasonable

percentage of deduction is required to be made while

determining/assessing the market price.

5

7. Looking to the location and the purpose for which the

lands have been acquired, in the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if a

deduction of 40 % is applied instead of 50% as applied by

the High Court, it will meet the end of justice and it can be

said to be a fair market value for the acquired lands.

Therefore, if a deduction of 40% is applied, it will come to

Rs.13,54,200/­ per acre. The present appeals are required

to be allowed in part to the aforesaid extent.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all

these present appeals are allowed in part. The impugned

judgments and orders passed by the High Court in

respective Regular First Appeals are hereby modified to the

extent of awarding Rs.13,54,200/­ per acre towards

compensation for the acquired lands (instead of

Rs.11,30,000/­ per acre as assessed and awarded by the

High Court). The land owners shall also be entitled to all

the statutory benefits available under the Act on the

enhanced amount of compensation. However, it is

observed that so far as the appellants in Civil Appeal

6 Nos.1805­1806 of 2022, arising out of the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court in RFA

No.1253 of 2004, is concerned, they shall not be entitled to

any interest on 1033 days’ delay on the enhanced amount

of compensation but solatium is payable on the enhanced

amount of compensation for the period of delay i.e., for the

period of 1033 days in filing the Special Leave Petition

before this Court. All these appeals are partly allowed to

the aforesaid extent. In view of the above there shall be no

order as to costs.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi, March 10, 2022.

7