ATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 315

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH

Case summary

ATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER.pdf

Judgment text

[2009] 12 S. C. R. 315 ATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 7203 of 2004) AUGUST 4, 2009 [S. B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ. ] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land acquisition - Market ' ' -4 value - Determination of - Claim for compensation on basis of market value fixed of a similarly situated land in Lok Ada/at Settlement - High Court awarding compensation on basis of its earlier decision - Correctness of - Held: Correct - It is not known on what basis settlement was arrived at in Lok Ada/at ' . - Absence of any detailed particulars showing similarity of land and/or advantages and dis-advantages pertaining -1 thereto, settlement not rightly made basis for determining market value of land - High Court was required to determine " fair market value of land on basis of the legal principles - It based its decision on its earlier common judgment delivered arising out of the same notification, which has attained finality.

The question which arose for consideration in this . appeal was whether any agreement entered into by and •-:. i: between the holders of the lands and the Union of India in a Lok Adalat should have formed the basis for determination of the amount of compensation in respect of the lands which are said to be similarly situated. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. 1. Determination of the market value of the ,... \ land acquired would depend upon a large number of factors including the nature and quality thereof. The norms which are required to be applied for determination of the market value of the agricultural land and homestead land are different. In given cases location of land and in particular, closeness thereof from any road or high-way would play an important role for determination of the market value wherefor belting system may in appropriate cases may be resorted to. The position of the land, particularly in rainy season, . existence of any building etc.

also plays an important role. A host of other factors including development in and around the acquired land and/or the potentiality of development will also have a bearing on determination of the fair market value of the land. Determination of the market value of the land may also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, amongst them would be the amount of consideration mentioned in a deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of Notification in terms of s. 0 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; in absence of any such exemplars, the market value can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of number of fruit bea~ing trees. For the purpose of determination of price of acquired land, the courts should consider the positive and negative factors. [Paras 10, 11 and 12) [320-8-D; 320-E-F; 320-G] 1. 2. On what basis the settlement in the Lok Adalat •· • was arrived at is not known.

Details of the land with regard to location, nature, advantages and dis-advantages pertaining thereto are absent. In absence of any detailed particulars showing the similarity of the land and/or the respective advantages and dis-advantages pertaining thereto, the settlement was not rightly made the basis for determining the market value of the land. Thus, the High Court was required to determine the fair market value of the land on the basis of the legal principles laid down by this Court. No contention has been could be raised that the High Court in passing the impugned judgment failed ANR. ~ to take into consideration the well settled legal principles. [Paras 14 and 15] [325-B-C; 325-D] 1. 3. The High Court based its decision on its earlier common judgment delivered in the case of *Jia Ram and others arising out of the same notification. There is no information whether any appeal has been preferred against that judgment and if rwhat was the result thereof.

In absence of that inf rmation, the appellants } .... should not be treated differently rom Jia Ram's case who 1 might not have preferred any appeal and have accepted the judgment of the High Court. [Para 16] [325-E; 325-F- G] Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 1 SCC 789; Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC I 1; Ranvir Singh v. Union of India (2005) 12 SCC 59; ~ Karimbanakkal Suleiman (Dead) by L. Rs. v. Special Tahsildar for K. A. K. P. l. P. (2004) 13 Sec 643; Viluben Jhalejar " Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 sec 789; Basant Kumar v. Union of India (1996) 11 SCC 542; Jia Ram and others vs. Union of India R. F. A. No. 500 of 1987, referred to. Case Law Reference: ~"" (2005) 4 sec 789 Referred to. Paras 12, 13 (2005) 12 sec 1 Referred to. Para 13 (2005) 12 sec 59 Referred to. Para 13 (2004) 13 sec 643 Referred to. Para 13 (1996) 11 sec 542 Referred to. Para 13 ~- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7203 of 2004.

From the Judgment & Order dated 28. 2. 2003 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No. 394 of 1989. 1 WITH C. A. Nos. 7204, 7205, 7206, 7207, 7208 of 2004. B. S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh, Mamta Jain, Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, Manish Raghav, Somvir Singh Deswal, M. P. Shorawala for the Appellants. S. P. Singh, Krishna Kumar, Rekha Pandey, Asha G. Nair, Gargi Khanna, Sanjeev Kumar Bhardwaj, Anil Katiyar for the ,. _ '. "22. Concededly, the High Court in its impugned judgment did not place any reliance whatsoever upon the sale instances whereupon strong reliance has been placed by the parties solely on the ground that neither the vendors. nor the vendees thereof had been examined as witnesses. It has also not placed any reliance upon any other judgment or award filed by the parties. The High Court while arriving ~ at the said finding evidently took . into consideration the law as it then stood.

The correctness of the decisions wherein the aforementioned view had been taken was doubted and the matter was referred to a larger Bench. " Referring to Cement Corporation (supra), it was opined that the High Court was required to consider the deeds of sale in their proper perspective for determining the market value of the acquired land. In Karimbanakkal Sulaiman (Dead) by L. Rs. v. Special Tahsildar for K. A. K. P. l. P. , [(2004) 13 SCC 643], this Court held: "These factors have been taken into consideration by the High Court in fixing the land value. Moreover, the land acquired was agricultural land and it was acquired for the purpose of an irrigation project. There is nothing on record to show that the land had any commercial value or future potentialities. We do not think that the land value fixed is too low to be interfered with by this Court. " In Viluben Jha/ejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat, [(2005) 4 SCC 789], this Court opined :- "24.

The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value. In Basavva v. Sp/. Land Acquisition Officer deduction to the extent of 65% was made towards development charges. " In Basant Kumar v. Union of India, [ (1996) 11 SCC 542 ], this Court held that even if the entire land is of one village ~ • one standard for determining the market value should not be applied, stating:- ".... It has been firmly settled law by beadroll of decisions of this Court that the Judge determining the compensation under Section 23(1) should sit in the armchair of a willing prudent purchaser in an open market and see whether he would offer the same amount proposed to be fixed as market value as a willing and prudent buyer for the same or similar land, i. e. , land possessing all the advantageous features and to the same extent. This test should always be kept in view and answered affirmatively, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances.

If feats ANR. [S. S. SINHA, J. ] of imagination are allowed to sway, he outsteps his domain of judicial decision and lands in misconduct amenable to disciplinary law... " 14. On what basis the aforementioned settlement in the Lok Adalat was arrived at is not known. Details of the land with 8 regard to location, nature, advantages and dis-advantages pertaining thereto are absent. In absence of any detailed particulars showing the similarity of the land and/or the • + respective advantages and dis-advantages pertaining thereto, in our opinion, the said settlement had rightly not been made the basis for determining the market value of the land. 15. The High Court, thus, was required to determine the fair market value of the land on the basis of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to heretobefore.

No contention has been/ could be raised that the High Court in passing the impugned judgment failed to take into consideration the well settled legal principles. 16. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. The High Court based its decision on its earlier common judgment arising out of the same notification. The lead judgment was delivered in the case of JiaRam and others vs. Union of India, - R. F. A. No. 500 of 1987. We have not been informed whether any appeal has been preferred against that judgment and if so, what was the result thereof. In absence of that information, we are of the opinion that the appellants should not be treated differently from Jia Ram (supra) who might not have preferred any appeal and have accepted the judgment of the High Court.. 17. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in these appeals. The same are dismissed accordingly. No costs. N. J. Appeals dismissed.