RANJIT SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

A R.M. LODHA, CJI. 1. Delay in filing applications for substitution is condoned.

2Copy pinpoint2. Applications for substitution are allowed.

3Copy pinpoint3. Permission to file special leave petitions is granted.

4Copy pinpoint4. Delay in filing the special leave petitions is condoned.

5Copy pinpoint5. Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 22324 of 2013, 5405 of 2014, 16788 of 2014 and S.L.P.(C)@ CC NO. 12129 of 2013.

6Copy pinpoint6. In this group of appeals, the question for consideration c is whether there is any scope for enhancement of compensation with regard to the subject lands. ·

7Copy pinpoint7. The subject lands pertain to five different notifications published on 04.06.1980; 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982, 05.07,1982 and 10.02.1983 and are located in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and D · 12 Part-I near Kamal byepass and so also Kamal Kunjpura Road.

8Copy pinpoint8. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel appearing for many of the appellants heavily relied upon the decision of E this Court in the group of matters, lead matter being Civil Appeal No.2187 of 2013 arising from Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.17615 of 2008, 'Subhash Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.' given on 19.02.2013. They submitted that matter in Subhash Chander's case (supra) pertains to four notifications dated 04.06.1980 (Sector-6), F 13.03.1981 (Sector-3), 22.06.1982 (Sector 9) and 05.07.1982 (Sectors-7 and 8). Most of the subject lands were acquired under the notifications which were under consideration in the matter of Subhash Chander (supra).

9Copy pinpoint9. As regard notification dated 10.02.1983 (Sector 12, Part-I), learned counsel submits that the subject land therein is within the municipal area and has a better potential than the land in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

10Copy pinpoint10. In Subhash Chander's case (supra), this Court noted the judgment of the High Court to the following extent:-

RANJIT SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & 357 ORS. [R.M. LODHA, CJI.] "In absence of sufficient material of comparable rates, the market price can be determined by periodi~al increase formula approved by the Apex Court in the case of Sahaswan, District Baduan (supra). If the formula approved by the Apex Court in Shaswan, District Baduan (supra) is to be applied with 1973 year as the base, the market value of the land in the year 1980 comes to Rs.58.45/-, in the year 1981 comes to Rs.66.21/- and in the year 1982 comes to Rs.76.21/-. The land being big chunk~ 1/3rd of the development purposes, for roads, parks and public utilities. Therefore, the rate per square yard comes to c Rs.39.17/- as on the date of notification d~ted 4.6.1980 and Rs.44.37/- per square as on the date of notification dated 13.3.1981 and at Rs.51.07/- per square yard as on the dates of notifications dated 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982. Accordingly, the mark~t price of the land under different acquisition notifications is assessed at Rs.39/- per square yard in respect to land acquired for Sector 6 (represented by notification dated 4.6.1980) and Rs.44/- for Sector 3 (represented by the notification dated 22.6.1982 and

5. 7.1982). These appeals are accordingly allowed with costs and respondents are directed to calculate the compensation for the acquired land at the above rates. The appellants are also entitled to solatium and interest as determined by the Reference Court on the amount determined herein." F

11Copy pinpoint11. As per Subhash Chander's decision, the market value of the land in the year 1980 was determined at Rs.58.45 per square yard, year 1981 at Rs.66.21 per square yard, and year 1982 at Rs.76.21 per square yard. G

12Copy pinpoint12. In the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22324 of 2013, learned counsel for the appellant placed before us a list of dates, which refers to a sale deed (Exhibit P-6) dated 09.04.1980 for sale of 15 bighas for Gurudwara on G.T. Kamal Road Bypass, at the rate of H

p. 358

A Rs.35,000/- per bigha, i.e, at the rate of Rs.46.54 per square yard. The acquisition of land pursuant to the notification dated 04.06.1980 is in very close proximity with the sale deed dated 09.04.1980. If that is taken as a comparable exemplar for determination of market value for the land acquired under B notification dated 04.06.1980, the market value of the land comes to Rs.46.54 per square yard. However, as per the judgment of this Court in Subhash Chander's case (supra), the market value in the year 1980 is determined at Rs.58.45. It is pertinent to note here that the Single Judge determined the c market value of the subject lands by applying the principles· laid down by this Court in the case of "Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary v. Bipin Kumar and Another, (2004) 2 SCC 283. He took the exemplar of 1973 as the base and then gave increase of 15% per year and then applied cut of 1/3rd price for developrrent purposes, roads, parks and public utilities. This Court although maintained the order of the Single Judge insofar as he took the exemplar of 1973 as the base and yearly increase but found no justificati'on for cut for development purposes and such other considerations. Be that as it may, since the State has not chosen to challenge the impugned judgment, we are satisfied that the market value determined by this Court in Subhash Chander's case (supra) may be applied to the land acquired under the notifications dated 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982 and 05.07.1982. We order,accordingly. F

13Copy pinpoint13. As regards, the acquisition of subject lands acquired under the notification dated 10.02.1983, Mr. M.K. Dua, learned counsel for the appellants raises two points for appropriate determination of market value, (one) the land acquired has better potential being located in the urban area and (two) the annual increase of 1983 must be given. We are not persuaded by Mr. Dua's arguments. Coming to the second point first, it may be immediately stated that annual increase for a fraction of a year would not be ordinarily just for determination of the market value. As regards the first point raised by Mr. Dua,

RANJIT SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & 359 ORS. [R.M. LODHA, CJI.] suffice it to say that land under acquisition is a large tract of land and except that the subject land happens to fall in the municipal area, there is not much difference in the potentiality of the land acquired under the notification of 05.07 .1982 and the subject lands. Having regard to all these aspects, we are satisfied that market value of the land acquired under the notification dated 10.02.1983 must have parity with the market value of the land acquired under the notification of 05.07.1982.

14Copy pinpoint14. Consequently, the market value of the land under the notification dated 04.06.1980 is fixed at Rs.58.45 per square yard, Rs.66.21 per square yard for the land under notification dated 13.03.1981, Rs.76.21 for the land acquired under the notifications dated 22.06.1982, 05.07.1982 and 10.02.1983. We, accordingly, enhance the compensation awarded by the High Court to the above extent. D

15Copy pinpoint15. The appellants who have approached this Court beyond one year of the impugned judgment shall not be entitled to any interest for the period of delay. The appellants shall be entitled to statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. The differential amount shall be paid by the respondents to the E appellants within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment of this Court.

16Copy pinpoint16. The appeals are allowed as above with no order as to costs. F

17Copy pinpoint17. Civil Appeal Nos.7660 of 2012 and 7662 of 2012 are detagged from this group of matters. Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeals disposed of.