SURENDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 581 · Decided: 25-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
581
SURENDER SINGH
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 885 of 2018)
JANUARY 25, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Acquisition of
large chunk of land measuring around 520 acres 02 Kanals and
13.5 Marlas situated in 15 villages – Compensation determined at
uniform rate applicable to entire acquired land – On appeals by
land owners for seeking further enhancement and by the State
seeking restoration of order of LAO, held: High Court erred in
determining one flat market rate of the acquired land without
considering the potentiality and the quality of acquired land situated
in each village, its nature and the basis, the market rate of the land
situated in each village prior to the date of acquisition or its near
proximity, the size of the land, the actual  distance of each village
qua any other nearby big developed city, town or areas – Fair market
value of acquired land cannot be decided in isolation on the basis
of only one factor – Matter remanded to reference court for fresh
adjudication – Since matter is remanded for fresh adjudication,
landowners are held entitled to refund of court fee paid by them –
Court Fees Act, 1870 – s.13.
Disposing of the appeals and remanding the matter to
Reference Court, the Court
HELD:  1.1 In the impugned judgment, the High Court
essentially based its decision or, proceeded to decide the appeals
by making the decision of this Court in  Pran Sukh case to be the
basis to examine the question as to whether the rate of acquired
land fixed by the LAO and Reference Court was fair or not.   The
High Court, however, noticed from the facts involved in the case
of Pran Sukh that the land situated in one village-Kasan along
with its some adjoining villages was acquired on 15.11.1994 by
the State and this Court determined the compensation payable
to the landowners of Kasan village at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/-
per acre.  The High Court felt that Rs.20,000,00/- per acre should
581
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 581
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
be taken as the base price for determining the rate of acquired
land in question. The High Court perhaps did this after having
noticed that some part of the acquired land in these appeals was
situated in Kasan village and, therefore, took the rate of Kasan
village land as basis for determining the rate of acquired land
also. The High Court accordingly gave annual increase of 8% to
Rs.20,00,000/- and worked out the rate at Rs.62,11,700/- per acre
for the entire acquired land in question by applying one uniform
rate. [Paras 31 to 33] [590-C-G]
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v.
Pran Sukh & Others (2010) 11 SCC 175 – referred to.
1.2 The approach of the High Court in the facts of these
cases does not appear to be right inasmuch as the High Court
failed to take into consideration that the acquired land, in these
cases, was a huge chunk of land measuring around 520 acres, 2
kanals and 13.5.marlas. Second, the entire acquired land was not
situated in village Kasan but it was spread over in 15 villages.
Third, there was no evidence to show much less  any finding of
the High Court as to what was  the actual distance among the 15
villages against one another, the location, situation/area of each
village, whether any development had taken place and, if so, its
type, nature and when it took place in any of these villages, the
potentiality and the quality of the acquired land situated in each
village, its nature and the basis,  the market rate of the land
situated in each village prior to the date of acquisition or in its
near proximity, whether small piece of land or preferably big chunk
of land, the actual distance of each village qua any other nearby
big developed city, town or  a place, whether any activity is being
carried on in the nearby areas, their details.  Fourth, whether the
acquired land in the case of Pran Sukh in village Kasan and the
acquired land in question are similar in nature or different and, if
so, how and on what basis, their total distance etc. These were
the issues which had material bearing while determining the rate
of the acquired land in question. [Paras 34 to 36] [590-G-H; 591-
A-D]
1.3 The High Court, in the absence of any evidence on any
of these issues, could not have determined one flat market rate
of the acquired land in question by applying one isolated rate of
one land situated in one village Kasan and adding 8% annual
A

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