REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3677 OF 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.9751/2008)
UDHO DASS
.. APPELLANT(S)
vs.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
.. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL
APPEAL
NO.
3674
OF
2010
(Arising
out of
SLP(C)No.4571/2008)
OM PRAKASH
.. APPELLANT(S)
vs.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
.. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CA 3716/2010 @ SLP(C) 12765/2010 @
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10008 of 2009
[CHHOTO @ KABULI & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(For permission to file SLP, substitution, c/delay in filing
substitution appln. and office report)
CA 3718/2010 @ SLP(C) 12766/2010 @
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10015 of 2009
[DAYANAND (D) TR. LRS & ORS. V. STAT EOF HARYANA & ANR.]
(For permission to file SLP, substitution, c/delay in filing
substitution appln. and office report)
CA No. 3761/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 10191 of 2008
[SARDAR SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(With appln. for substitution of deceased petitioner, c/delay
in filing substitution appln. and office report)
CA
3721/2010 @ SLP(C) 12767/2010 @
IA Nos. 1-2 In & S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10193 of 2009
[SABHA CHAND (D) TR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(For permission to file SLP and office report)
CA 3731/2010 @ SLP(C) 12772/2010 @
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10239 of 2009
[KUNDAN (D) THR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(For permission to file SLP, substitution, c/delay in filing
substitution appln. and office report)
CA 3722/2010 @ SLP(C) 12768/2010 @
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10350 of 2009
[KUNDAN (D) THR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(For permission to file SLP, substitution, c/delay in filing
substitution appln. and office report)
CA 3723/2010 @ SLP(C) 12769/2010 @
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10429 of 2009
[[KISHAN CHAND & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
With IA No. 1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)
CA 3724/2010 @ SLP(C) 12770/2010 @
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10431 of 2009
[SANTOSH KUMARI V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
With IA No. 1 (C/delay in filing SLP and office report)
CA 3725/2010 @ SLP(C) 12771/2010 @
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 10521 of 2009
[RAJ MAL & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
With IA
No.
1
(C/delay
in
filing
SLP and
office
report)
CA 3678-
87/2010
@
SLP(C)
NO.
11303-
11312 of
2008
[JAI
BHAGWAN
& ORS.
V. STATE
OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With office report)
CA 3762/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 12240 of 2010
[PRAKASH CHAND JAIN & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With appln. for /c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling
SLP and office report)
CA 3739/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 1318 of 2010
[KHAYALI RAM (D) BY LRS. & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling
SLP and office report)
CA 3688/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 14151 of 2008
[SHYAM SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With office report)
CA 3700/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 14363 of 2009
[OM PRAKASH V. STATE OF HARYANA]
(With appln. for permission to place additional documents on
record, prayer for interim relief and office report)
CA
3701/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 14514 of 2009
[PREM KUMARI V. STATE OF HARYANA]
(With office report)
CA 3702/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 14515 of 2009
[SAT NARAIN & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA]
(With office report)
CA 3703/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 14523 of 2009
[ZILE SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA]
(With office report)
CA 3704/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 14946 of 2009
[JAI CHAND (D) THR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With office report)
CA 3705/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 15007 of 2009
[JAI CHAND (D) THR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With office report)
CA 3706/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 15041 of 2009
[KRISHAN & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With office report)
CA
3707/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 15099 of 2009
[RAM KISHAN & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA]
(With office report)
CA 3708/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 15100 of 2009
[MAHENDER V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With office report)
CA 3711/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 15356 of 2009
[ATAM PRAKASH V. STATE OF HARYANA]
(With office report)
CA 3712/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 15593 of 2009
[RATTI RAM V. STATE OF HARYANA]
(With office report)
CA 3690/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 16088 of 2008
[ATAM
PARKASH
V. STATE
OF
HARYANA
& ORS.]
(With
appln.
for
c/delay
in
filing
SLP and
office
report)
CA
3689/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 16359 of 2008
[JAI CHAND (D) BY LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)
CA 3713/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 16676 of 2009
[BALJIT & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA]
(With office report)
CA 3714/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 16694 of 2009
[RAGHBIR & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With office report)
CA 3692/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 16861 of 2008
[LAL CHAND V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With appln. for permission to place additional documents on
record)
CA 3715/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 17005 of 2009
[BALDEV RAJ V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With office report)
CA
3719/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 17068 of 2009
[SURAJMAL (D) TR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA]
(With office report)
CA 3693/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 17111 of 2008
[RAM KISHAN & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With office report)
CA 3720/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 17175 of 2009
[KISHAN CHAND V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With office report)
CA 3691/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 17736 of 2008
[SUDHIR KUMAR BATRA & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With office report)
CA 3726/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 18107 of 2009
[JAGE RAM & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With office report)
CA 3694/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 18168 of 2008
[HARJINDER SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With office report)
CA
3697/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 18312 of 2008
[SHYAM SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(With office report)
CA 3698/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 18314 of 2008
[JIWAN SINGH & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With office report)
CA 3695/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 19934 of 2008
[KUNDAN (D) TR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)
CA 3696/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 19938 of 2008
[BHAGWAN DASS V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With office report)
CA 3730/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 20147 of 2009
[RAGHBIR V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With office report)
CA 3727/2010 @
SLP(C)
NO.
22751 of
2009
[RADHA &
ORS. V.
STATE OF
HARYANA
& ANR.]
(With
office
report)
CA
3728/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 23350 of 2009
[MADAN LAL & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With office report)
CA 3729/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 23357 of 2009
[RAJ KUMAR & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With appln. for substitution, c/delay in filing substitution
appln. and office report)
CA 3699/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 23926 of 2008
[DAYA NAND & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP and office report)
CA 3736/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 31649 of 2009
[HARI RAM & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With office report)
CA 3740-52/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 31689-31701 of 2009
[NET RAM & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA]
(With office report)
CA 3737/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 31838 of 2009
[BHARTU (D) TR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With office report)
CA
3738/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 33116 of 2009
[JAI PAL & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(With appln. for impleadment as party respondent and office
report)
CA 3732-35/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 35055-35058 of 2009
[HANS RAJ MALIK ETC. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With office report)
CA 3753/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 4663 of 2010
[RAMESHWAR DASS & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA]
(With office report)
CA 3675/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 5537 of 2008
[RAJBIR & ANR. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With office report)
CA 3754-60/2010 @ SLP(C) 12776-82/2010 @
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 6825-6831 of 2008
[RAMESH
KUMAR &
ORS.
ETC. V.
STATE OF
HARYANA
& ORS.]
(With
appln.
for
permission to file SLP and substitution of deceased petitioner
and office report)
CA 3709/2010 @ SLP(C) 12760/2010 @
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 9252 of 2009
[KRISHAN & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.]
(For permission to file SLP, substitution, c/delay in filing
substitution appln. and office report)
CA 3709/2010 @ SLP(C) 12761/2010 @
S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 9310 of 2009
[KUNDAN (D) THR. LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(for permission to file SLP, substitution, c/delay in filing
substitution appln. and office report)
CA 3717/2010 @
IA NOS. 1-5 IN & SLP(C) NO. 9743 of 2010
[KHEM LAL (D) BY LRS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(For permission to file SLP and office report)
CA 3677/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 9751 of 2008
[UDHO DASS V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.]
(With appln. for permission to place additional documents on
record and office report)
CA 3676/2010 @
SLP(C) NO. 9977 of 2008
[SURAJ MAL (D) THR. LRS & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & OS.]
ORDE
R
Permission to file SLPs is granted.
Delay condoned in filing substitution applications.
Applications for substitution are allowed.
Delay condoned in filing the special leave
petitions.
Leave granted.
Vide Notification dated 17th May, 1990 under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called
`The Act') 162.5 acres of land situated in village Patti
Musalmanan was notified for setting up of a housing project
in Sector 12, Sonepat. This Notification was followed by
a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 16th May 1991.
The Collector rendered his Award on 12th May 1993 awarding a
sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) per acre as
compensation for the entire land.
On a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act to the
Additional District Judge, Sonepat, the compensation was
enhanced to Rs.125/- per sq. yard for the land behind the
E.C.E. factory situated away and on the left side of the
Sonepat Bahalgarh road and Rs.150/- per square yard on the
right side abutting the aforesaid road. In arriving at
these different figures the Reference Court held that the
land on the left side did not abut the road and it had
therefore less potential value vis-a-vis. the land on the
right side which touched the road.
The High Court in first appeal further enhanced the
compensation from Rs.125/- to Rs.135/- for land on the left
side and to Rs.160/- from Rs.150/- on the right side on
the principle applied by the Reference Court. The present
set of appeals at the instance of the landowners have been
filed impugning the judgments of the courts below.
We have gone through the record and have heard the
learned counsel for the parties at length.
It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Srivastava, the
learned senior counsel in most of the appeals, that the
appellants were entitled to take the Award for the
acquisition in village Jamalpur Kalan which pertained to an
acquisition of the year 1992, and which had led to a
compensation of Rs.250/- per square yard, as the basis for
the determination of the compensation in the present case
as well as the land of Jamalpur Kalan had a common boundary
with the land acquired behind the E.C.E. factory with a
small deduction in the price as the present acquisition
was of the year 1990. In the alternative he has submitted
that the compensation ought to have been settled on the
basis of the sale instances exhibits P.2 to P.14 which
showed a substantial increase yearwise from Rs.300/- per
sq. yd in 1984 (Ext. P.2) to Rs. 600/- in 1989 (Ext. P.14).
He has also submitted that as the land had been notified
for the purpose of a housing project no distinction could
be made between the land abutting the main road and that
which was slightly away and the belting principle applied
by the District Judge as well as the High Court was not
called for. For this argument the learned counsel has
placed reliance on P. Rama Reddi and Others vs. Land
Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority,
Hyderabad and others (1995) 2 SCC 305. It has also been
submitted that though the potentiality of the land had
admittedly been noted by the District Judge and the High
Court but the full potential of land had not been
appreciated or recognized and as such it was open to this
Court to reappraise the evidence and to arrive at a fair
assessment on this aspect, as the compensation proceedings
started in the year 1990, were still continuing.
Mr. P.S. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel for
some of the other claimants has supplemented the arguments
made by Mr. Srivastava and has also placed reliance on the
award in the case of village Jamalpur Kalan. Some of the
other counsel have also raised certain issues but as they
are substantially covered by the submissions noted above
we need not refer to them.
Mr. Shakil Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing in
SLP(C) No. 18312/2008 has further pointed out that the
proper compensation for the building and trees had not
been correctly awarded and the compensation under these
heads needed to be substantially enhanced.
The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the
claimants have been controverted by Mr. Govind Goel, the
learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary-respondents.
He has submitted that the Award in the case of Jamalpur
Kalan could not be taken into account for the primary
reason that it pertained to an acquisition of 1992 whereas
the present one was of 1990 and the District Judge as well
as the High Court had fully recognized the potential of the
land and had accorded compensation on that basis. He has
also submitted that the reliance by the claimants on the
sale instances Ext. P.2 to P.14 was misplaced as they
pertained to very small areas of one Biswa (50 sq. yd) and
the other sale instances put on record by the claimants
themselves (Ext.p.15 and P.16) pertaining to two sales
made on 28th April, 1989 for 4400 square yards at Rs.120/-
per square yard and P.16 for 1600 square yards at Rs.122/-
per square yard had in fact been accepted by the Courts
below with a marginal increase towards the potential of
the acquired land. It has also been submitted that in the
light of the fact that these were sale instances
pertaining to this very village that is Patti Musalmanan
there was absolutely no justification in going to the Award
pertaining to Jamalpur Kalan for determining the
compensation. He has finally submitted that belting in the
facts of the case was fully justified and in this
connection has placed reliance on Executive Director Vs.
Sarat Chandra Bisoi and Another (2000) 6 SCC 326)
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and gone through the record. The location of the land in
order to appreciate its potential for the purpose of
compensation has first to be understood.. Admittedly, the
land is situated within the municipal limits of Sonepat
which is a district headquarter adjoining Delhi and within
the National Capital Region. The distance between
Bahalgarh, a small township on the Grand Trunk Road,
National Highway No.1, built five centuries ago by Sher
Shah Suri (and arguably India's most important and
strategic highway and the lifeline between the rest of
India and the north and northwest), and Sonepat is 7 km.,
as per the indication on the National Highway itself. The
acquired land is situated on both sides of the road leading
from Bahalgarh to Sonepat with some portions touching the
road side and some portion slightly away and situated
behind the ECE factory. It is, however, the admitted
position and (we have seen the location on the maps that
have been produced before us) that the land behind the ECE
factory adjoins the area of village Jamalpur Kalan which
had been acquired in the year 1992 and which the appellants
claim should be made the basis for determining compensation
in the present matter as well. It must also be noticed
that the enormous development from the Delhi border
alongside the Grand Trunk Road and well beyond the
Bahalgarh – Sonepat bifurcation is now a matter for all to
see and we have seen this on the maps produced in Court as
well, as huge residential and commercial areas have been
developed with a mind boggling increase in the price of
agricultural land in the last 15 or 20 years. While dealing
with the question of the potential value of the land
acquired this Court in P. Rama Reddy's case (supra)
observed that several matters had to keep in mind; they
being (and we quote),
“(i)
the situation of the acquired land vis-a-
vis the city or the town or village which had
been growing in size because of its commercial,
industrial, educational, religious or any other
kind of importance or because of its explosive
population;
(ii)the suitability of the acquired land for
putting up the buildings, be they residential,
commercial or industrial, as the case may be;
(iii)possibility of obtaining water and electric
supply for occupants of buildings to be put up
on that land;
(iv)absence of statutory impediments or the like
for using th acquired land for building
purposes;
(v)existence of highways, public roads, layouts
of building plots or developed residential
extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of
the acquired land;
(vi)benefits or advantages or educational
institutions, health care centres, or the like
in the surrounding areas of the acquired land
which may become available to the occupiers of
buildings, if built on the acquired land;
(vii)and lands around the acquired land or the
acquired land itself being in demand for
building purposes, to specify a few.
The material to be so placed on record or made
available in respect of the said matters and the like,
cannot have the needed evidentary value for concluding that
the acquired land being used for building purposes in the
immediate or near future unless the same is supported by
reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances
permit. When once a conclusion is reached that there was
the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting
up buildings in the immediate or near future, such
conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired
land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine
its market value taking into account the increase in price
attributable to such building potentiality.”
As already indicated above, these are the broad
factors that we too have kept in mind.
Although, in the present matter, sale instances
around or near abouts the date of Notification of the
present acquisition are available yet these cannot justify
or explain the potential of a particular piece of land on
the date of acquisition as the potential can be recognized
only some time in the future and it is open to a landowner
claimant to contend that the potential can be examined
first at the time of the Section 18 Reference, the first
Appeal in the High Court or in the Supreme Court in appeal
as well. We must also highlight that Collectors, as agents
of the State Government, are extraordinarily chary in
awarding compensation and the land owners have to fight for
decades before they are able to get their due. We take the
present case as an example. The land was notified for
acquisition in May 1990. The collector rendered his award
in May 1993 awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. The
Reference Court by its award dated January 2001 increased
the compensation to Rs.125 per square yard for the land of
the road behind the ECE factory and Rs.150 per square yard
for the land abutting the road which would come to
Rs.6,05,000/- and Rs.7,26,000/- respectively for the two
pieces of land. This itself is a huge increase vis-a-vis
the Collector's award. The High Court in First Appeal by
its judgment of 24th
September 2007 enhanced the
compensation for the two categories to Rs.135 and 160
respectively making it Rs.6,53,400/- and Rs.7,74,400/-. In
other words, this is the compensation which ought to have
been awarded by the Collector at the time of his award on
12th May 1993. This has, however, come to the land owner
for the first time as a result of the judgment of the High
Court which is under challenge in this appeal; in other
words, a full 17 years from the date of Notification under
Section 4 and 14 years from the date of the award of the
Collector on which date the possession of the land must
have been taken from the landowner. Concededly, the Act
also provides for the payment of the solatium, interest and
an additional amount but we are of the opinion, and it is
common knowledge, that even these payments do not keep pace
with the astronomical rise in prices in many parts of
India, and most certainly in North India, in the land price
and cannot fully compensate for the acquisition of the land
and the payment of the compensation in driblets. The 12%
per annum increase which Courts have often found to be
adequate in compensation matters hardly does justice to
those land owners whose land have been acquired as judicial
notice can be taken of the fact that the increase is not 10
or 12 or 15% per year but is often upto 100% a year for
land which has the potential of being urbanized and
commercialized such as in the present case. Be that as it
may, we must assume that the landowners were entitled to
the compensation fixed by the High Court on the date of the
award of the Collector and had this amount been made
available to the landowners on that date, it would have
been possible for them to rehabilitate their holdings in
some other place. This exercise has been defeated for the
simple reason that the payment of compensation has been
spread over almost two decades. In this view of the
matter, we are of the opinion that a landowner is entitled
to say that if the compensation proceedings continued over
a period of almost 20 years as in the present case, the
potential of the land acquired from him must also be
adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread
over the period of 20 years if the evidence so permits and
cannot be limited to the near future alone. We, therefore,
feel that in the circumstances, the appellants herein were
fully entitled to say that the potential of the acquired
land had not been fully recognized by the High Court or by
the Reference Court. We must add a word of caution here and
emphasize that this broad principle would be applicable
where the possession of the land has been taken pursuant to
proceedings under an acquiring Act and not to those cases
where land is already in possession of the Government and
is subsequently acquired.
There is another unfortunate aspect which is for
all to see and to which the Courts turn a Nelson's eye and
pretend as if the problem does not exist. This is a
factor which creates an extremely grim situation in a case
of compensation based exclusively on sale instances. This
is the wide spread tendency to under value sale prices.
The provision of Collector's rates has only marginally
corrected the anomaly, as these rates are also abnormally
low and do not reflect the true value. Where does all this
leave a landowner whose land is being compulsorily acquired
as he has no control over the price on which some other
landowner sells his property which is often the basis for
compensation?
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the above
sale instances relied upon by the parties do not accurately
reflect the potential of the acquired land and the award of
the High Court in the case of Jamalpur Kalan granting a
sum of Rs.250/- per square yard as compensation is the
minimal proper base.
Mr. Goyal has, however, submitted that the belting
system ordered by the reference and the High Court was the
proper one in the circumstances, more particularly as it
was well known that land alongside the road had more value
vis.a.vis. the land away therefrom. He has, accordingly,
submitted that the land behind the ECE factory which was
not abutting the road needed to be given lower
compensation. Mr. Goyal's reliance on Sarat Chandra's case
for this argument is however to no avail. In this matter,
agricultural land which had no potential for urbanization
and commercialization had been acquired and it was on that
basis, this Court held that the belting system was
permissible. In the case before us, admittedly the land
was acquired in the year 1990, had great potential value,
and has been completely urbanized as huge residential
complexes, industrial areas and estates and a huge
education city have come up in the last ten or fifteen
years. Moreover, insofar land which is to be used for
residential purposes is concerned, a plot away from the
main road is often of more value, as the noise and the air
pollution alongside the arterial roads is almost
unbearable. It is also significant that the land of
Jamalpur Kalan was touching the rear side of the ECE
factory and the High Court had granted compensation of
Rs.250/- per square yard for the acquisition of the year
1992. We have also seen the site plan to satisfy ourselves
and find that the land acquired from Jamalpur Kalan and the
present land share a common boundary behind the ECE
factory. The belting system in the facts of the present
case would thus not be permissible.
We are, therefore, of the opinion as the said award
pertained to the year 1992, a sum of Rs.225/- per square
yard which would come Rs. 10,89000/- per acre would be the
adequate compensation in the present case and for arriving
at this figure not only have we computed the value of the
land on the date of the Notification under Section 4 but
have also recognized its potential on the basis of evidence
of development in the area around the Bahalgarh-Sonepat
road.
Mr. Shakil Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing in
one of the cases has also prayed that compensation for the
building and trees awarded in his case was inadequate and
needed to be enhanced. We are unable to accept this
submission as there is no evidence with regard to the value
of these buildings and trees.
For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these
appeals and award a sum of Rs.225/- per square yard as
compensation for the entire acquired land and further
direct that the appellants will have all statutory benefits
that they would be entitled to as a consequences of this
order. We also direct the respondent State of Haryana or
the beneficiaries, as the case may be, to pay the
compensation as enhanced by us by the end of this year.
..................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
.................J.
(J.M. PANCHAL)
New Delhi,
April 21, 2010.