BHUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 975 · Decided: 01-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 3 S.C.R. 975 
BHUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Civil Appeal No. 7377 of 2008) 
APRIL 01, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Land Acquisition 
A 
B 
c 
- Compensation - Enhancement of - Acquisition of large 
chunk of land by the State for construction of residentia·t 
purpose in the year 1977 -
High Court awarded 
compensation at the rate of Rs. 501- per square yard to the D 
claimants/landowners - On appeal, held: Claimants did not 
file any sale deed to prove the fair market value of the 
acquired land - On basis of the oral evidence adduced of 
some witnesses to prove the potentiality of the lands, the 
High Court fixed Rs. 501- per square yard though it did E 
hold in the claimants' favour that they were entitled to claim 
compensation at the rate of Rs. 631- per square yard -
Findings were based on the potentialities of land and rate 
of one adjacent land of the acquired land which was also F 
found to have been acquired at the same time - Thus, the 
High Court was not justified in determining the fair market 
rate of the acquired at Rs. 501- per square yard and 
instead it should have been fixed at Rs. 631- per square 
yard only - Figure of Rs. 631- per square yard is arrived G 
after applying all relevant facts and is just, reasonable and 
represents fair market value of the lands on the date of 
acquisition - LAO directed to calculate the compensation 
975 
H 
976 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 3 S.C.R. 
A payable to the land owners at the rate of Rs. 631- per sq. 
yard and all statutory compensation. 
s. 23 -
Land acquisition -
Fair market value -
Determination of - Held: Is to be determined u/s .. 23 on 
B the basis of the market rate of the adjacent lands similarly 
situated to the acquired lands prevailing on the date of 
acquisition or/and prior to acquisition but not subsequent 
to the date of acquisition - In appropriate cases, addition 
of 10% pa escalation in the prices specified in the sale 
C deeds (if filed and relied on) in relation to adjacent similarly 
situated lands for fixing the market value of the acquired 
land may be permitted - On facts, claimants-landlords did 
not file sale deeds to prove the fair market value of the 
acquired land - Further; they wanted this Court to take into 
D consideration the rate of those lands which were acquired 
ten years subsequent to the acquisition and then reduce 
its value 10% every year so as to determine the fair 
market value of the acquired land -
The same is 
misconceived and not provided in the Act. 
E 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the appellants did 
not file any sale deed in evidence in support of their 
F case to prove the fair market value of the acquired 
land. All that they adduced was an oral evidence of 
some witnesses to prove the potentiality of the lands 
by showing its location, proximity to the main road 
which was passing in the area and named some 
G industries and hospitals operating in the nearby areas 
of the acquired lands etc. Taking all these factors in 
mind and on appreciation of this oral evidence, the 
LAO, Reference Court and the High Court fixed their 
respective rates namely, Rs.16.52, Rs.221- and Rs. 501 
H - per square yard. The High Court did hold in 
BHUPAL SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA 977 
appellants' favour that they were entitled to claim A· 
compensation at the rate of Rs.63/- per square yard 
basing its finding after taking into consideration the 
potentialities of land and rate of one adjacent land of 
the acquired land which was also found to have been 
acquired at the same time as determined by the courts. B 
Having rightly come to a conclusion that the fair market 
value of the land on the date of acquisition (04.11.1977) 
was Rs.63/- per square yard, there was no justification 
on the part of the High Court to have then reduced it 
to any rate less than Rs.63/- much less to Rs.50/- per C 
square yard, it should have been fixed at Rs.63/- per 
square yard only. [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21] [992-E-H; 993-
A-D] 
1.2 Having regard to the total scenario emerging 0 
from the record of the case and the findings recorded 
by the courts below on the issues such as location of 
land, its potentiality, surroundings, the rate of the 
adjacent land determined by the courts, the condition 
of the acquired underdeveloped lands, the expenditure E 
required to develop the acquired land to start the 
acti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.