LexMANOJ KUMAR ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 997 MANOJ KUMAR ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. (Civi!Appea!Nos.13132-13141 of2017) SEPTEMBER 13,2017 [ARUN MISHRA AND "'' MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.) Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ' A Determination of compensation - Basic principle before C placing reliance on the previous award/judgment or comparable sales - High Court relied upon a judgment in which for the _acquisition of lana in the year 1999, exemplar of 1997 was relied upon - Held: The High Court passed the judgment in a blind manner - It was incumbent upon the High Court to take into consideration D various transactions that were on record, entered into before the date of issuance of Notification under s.4 of the Act - High Court could not have placed an outright reliance on the decision of Swaran · Singh's case, without considering the nature of transaction relied upon in the said decision - The land in Swaran Singh's case was situated just across the road as observed by the High Court as such E it was relevant evidence but not binding - As such it could have ·been. taken into consideration due lo the nearness of the area, but at the same time what was the nature of the transaction relied upon in the said case was also required to be looked into in an objective manner - Such decisions in other cases cannot be relied upon without F examining the basis for determining compensation as to whether sale transaction referred to therein can be relied upon or not and what was the distance, size and also bonajide nature of transaction before such judgments/awards are relied on for deciding the subsequent cases - High Court ·granted 15% cumulative increase which was not justified - Even accepting some increase annually G due to development made after previous acquisition but that could not have been granted on cumulative basis but on a flat basis, that too considering subsequent' rate offered for nearby areas - Therefore, adding between 12-13% flat increase, taking base pri<;e at Ks.15601- granted in the case of Swaran Singh, the price would H 997 .. 998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R. A come approximately to Rs.I.JO crores per acre - Further deduction in addition to deduction made in Swaran Singh s case is required to be made towards development - it is held appropriate to deduct further amount of Rs.15 lakhs - Thus, the compensation came to Rs.95 lakhs per acre, and not Rs.1,46,09,0001- as determined by B High Court - Thus, it is deemed appropriate to award Rs.95 lakhs per acre along with statutory benefits. c Comparable sales - Award of compensation - Determining factors - The compensation cannot be determined by blindly following the previous award/judgment - it has to be considered only a piece of evidence not beyond that - Court has to apply the judicial mind and is not to follow the previous awards without due consideration of the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced in the case in question - The current value reflected by comparable sale deeds is more reliable and binding for determination of compensation - Jn such cases award/judgment relating to an D acquisition made before 5 to 10 years cannot form the safe basis for determining compensation Comparable sales - Binding effect - Held: The award and judgment in the case of others not being inter parties are not binding as precedents - Recently, it is noticed that courts follow them blindly E probably under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair treatment - The courts are being swayed away and this approach in the absence of and similar nature and situation of land is causing more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in the case of unequals. F Comparable sales - Evidentiary value vis-a-vis precedential value - The previous awards/judgments are the only piece of evidence at par with comparative sale transactions - The similarity of the land covered by previous judgment/award is required to be proved like any other comparative exemplar - In case previous award/judgment is based on exemplar, which is not similar or G acceptable, previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to be binding - Such determination has to be outrightly rejected - Jn case some mistake has been done in awarding compensation, it cannot be followed on the ground of parity as an illegality cannot be perpetuated - Such award/judgment would be wholly irrelevant. H MANOJ KUMAR ETC.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.