RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 912 · Decided: 15-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 912
912
RAVINDER KUMAR GOEL
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1173 of  2023)
FEBRUARY 15, 2023
[A. S. BOPANNA AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : ss. 4, 6, 17(2) – Land Acquisition
– Enhancement of compensation – On facts, land of the appellants
acquired for the construction of Express Highway – Though land
acquired on large scale, however, the appellants were land owners
of small extent of lands – Award passed and the market value fixed
at Rs. 12,50,000/- per acre which was enhanced by the Reference
Court to Rs. 43,17,841 and then by the High Court to Rs. 62,11,700/
- per acre – Thereafter, on remand of the matter to the Reference
Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence and materials available
on record, the Reference Court determined the market value of the
acquired lands at Rs.22,00,754/-, however, the High Court reduced
the market value to Rs.14,52,010/- per acre – On appeal, held:
High Court not justified in merely relying on the circular providing
for the floor rates despite other evidence being available on record
– Reasoning assigned by the Reference Court in discarding the sale
exemplars relied upon by the State Industrial and Infrastructure
Development Corporation since they depict the market value of the
land which is lower than the amount awarded by the Collector, not
justified – When large extent of lands are acquired and if the sale
exemplar, also for the large extent is available on record it would
be safer to rely on the same if they are comparable transactions –
Sale instances of smaller extents cannot be ignored – It can be
relied upon subject to appropriate deduction being provided towards
development charges – Since small extents of land belonging to the
land losers, having non-agricultural potential in an urban area
was notified for acquisition, the sale exemplar dated 07.12.2004
can be considered as comparable – Reference Court justified in
reckoning the same – Hence, it would be appropriate to reckon the
deduction towards development cost at 25 per cent of the value
taken into consideration under the document Ex. PX dated
07.12.2004 – Thus, the market value would be Rs.25,20,000/- per
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
913
acre, payable with all statutory benefits as compensation for the
lands acquired – Furthermore, if any excess amount has been
received by any of the land losers than the extent of the compensation
determined herein, the excess amount, in any event, is recoverable.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector at
the first instance while passing the award dated 10.05.2006 kept
in view the circular dated 03.11.2005 issued by the Collector
providing for the floor rates at Rs.12,50,000/-per acre and has,
accordingly, determined the compensation. When the parties were
before this Court in the first round of litigation, this Court having
taken note of the governing factors as to the determination of
market value had remanded the matter for fresh consideration
though the circular relating to the floor rates was also available
to the benefit of this Court to be noticed and applied if need be.
In that view, in the light of the said circular, without relying on
the same, this Court had directed that the evidence be tendered
by the parties before the Reference Court so as to make such
evidence the basis for fresh determination to be made. Despite
the same, the High Court in the instant round has merely relied
on the circular providing for the floor rates despite other evidence
being available on record. Such determination is thus, not justified.
From the records, it is pointed out that the sale exemplars were
brought on record to aid the Court to determine the market value,
the consideration of which was required to be made to arrive at
an appropriate market value. [Para 9][922-F-H; 923-A-B]
1.2. The Reference Court before appreciating the evidence,
has kept in view the parameters laid down by this Court while
considering a reference for the purpose of determining the market
value of the acquired lands to arrive at the just compensation.
The Reference Court kept in view that the sale instances of small
pieces of land cannot be ignored while determining the
compensation for a large extent of land acquired. The rule of
deduction on development charges would not be uniformly
applicable was also taken into consideration. It is in that light,
the Reference C

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