2021 INSC 0544                                                             NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.9207 OF 2012 Manmohan Lal Gupta (Dead) Thru Lrs.         .…Appellant(s)                   Versus Market Committee Bhikhi & Ors.        ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T   A.S. Bopanna,J. 1. The   appellant   is   before   this   Court   assailing   the judgment   dated   15.07.2009   of   the   High   Court   of   Punjab and   Haryana   at   Chandigarh,   passed   in   RFA No.1586/2005.   The   said   appeal   was   also   included   in   the common   judgment   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   RFA No.2082/2004 and other analogous appeals. Through the said judgment the High Court has determined the market Page 1 of 14 value   of   the   land   at   Rs.90/­   per   sq.   yard   plus   the   other statutory benefits. The said determination of market value amounts to reduction  from  what  has  been  determined by the  Additional  District Judge, Mansa (hereinafter  referred to   as   the   ‘Reference   Court’).   The   appellant   is   therefore claiming   to   be   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   impugned herein.  2. The   land,   in   all   measuring   31   acres   1   kanal   and   4 marlas was notified for acquisition in order to develop the new   grain   market.   The   preliminary   notification   under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘L.A. Act’) was issued on 30.11.1992. In the total extent notified the   land   measuring   10   kanals   17   marlas   comprised   in khewat/khatauni   No.123/221   bearing   khasra No.1207/2/2, situate in Bhikhi, beside the Highway from Bhatinda   to   Chandigarh,   belonging   to   the   appellant   was also included. After following the due process as provided under   Section   5­A   of   the   L.A.   Act,   the   declaration   under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was notified on 24.12.1993. The Land   Acquisition   Officer   (for   short   ‘LAO’)   through   the award   dated   15.01.1996   determined   the   market   value   of Page 2 of 14 Nehri   land   at   Rs.45019/­   per   acre   and   of   Gair   mumkin land at Rs.59378/­ per acre, plus statutory benefits.  3. The   appellant   as   also   several   other   similarly   placed land   owners   being   aggrieved   by   the   market   value   as determined   by   the   LAO   filed   their   objection   and   sought reference   under   Section   18   of   the   L.A.   Act.   Accordingly, the   consideration   for   enhancement   was   referred   to   the Reference   Court,   Mansa.   In   the   proceedings   before   the Reference   Court,   18   cases   including   that   of   the   land belonging   to   the   appellant   was   taken   up   for   composite consideration. The evidence that was tendered in the lead case   of   Saroj   Rani   was   taken   note   and   a   common determination   of   the   market   value   was   made.   In   the   said process   the   Reference   Court   took   into   consideration   the sale   deed   dated   31.05.1995   and   also  the   sale  deed   dated 03.06.1996   which   were   marked   as   Exhibits   A­1   and   A­2 as   the   sale   exemplars.   In   that   light   having   taken   into consideration   the   location   of   the   property   concluded   that the market value had not been appropriately  fixed by  the LAO.   In   the   said   process   the   Reference   Court   also   took into   consideration   that   the   lands   under   the   subject Page 3 of 14 acquisition   could   be   categorised   as   the   land   which   is adjacent to the Highway, the lands that are abutting those lands   which   are   adjacent   to   the   Highway   and   also   the lands   which   were   situate   thereafter.   The   three   categories were considered as first, second and third lot. Accordingly, the   market   value   of   the   land   situate   in   the   first   lot   was determined   at   Rs.140/­   per   sq.   yard,   the   second   lot   was determined  at  Rs.120/­  per  sq.  yard  and  for   the  third  lot the   market   value   determined   was   Rs.100/­   per   sq.   yard. In addition, the statutory benefits were also ordered to be paid.  4. The   beneficiary   of   the   acquisition,   namely,   Market Committee,   Bhikhi,   District   Mansa   preferred   appeals before   the   High   Court,   among   which   RFA   No.1586/2005 pertained   to   the   appellant   herein.   In   the   said   appeal   the beneficiary of acquisition had assailed the enhancement of market   value   made   by   the   Reference   Court.   Certain   land owners   had   also   preferred   cross   appeals   seeking   further enhancement   of   the   compensation   among   which   RFA No.2053/2004   was   the   appeal   filed   by   the   appellants herein seeking enhancement of the market value.   Page 4 of 14 5. The   High   Court   having   clubbed   the   appeals,   on consideration   was   of   the   opinion   that   the   reliance   placed by   the   Reference   Court   on   the   sale   deeds   which   were   at Exhibits  A­1 and A­2  was not justified, inasmuch  as, the said   sale   deeds   were   relating   to   transactions   subsequent to   the   notification   for   acquisition.   On   discarding   the   said documents   the   High   Court   while   taking   note   of   the remaining   documents   has   opined   that   the   sale   deed marked   at   Exhibits   A­17   to   A­27   relating   to   the   very properties   under   acquisition   would   be   the   proper exemplars to be taken into consideration. In that light, the sale   consideration   paid   under   Exhibit   A­22   was   taken   as the   basis   and   on   arriving   at   the   price   per   square   yard, added   increase   at   12   per   cent   for   every   year   and   also added an additional sum of Rs.12/­ per sq. yard, thereby arriving   at  the   market   value   of   Rs.90/­   per   sq.  yard.   The High   Court   also   concluded   that   the   classification   of   the properties in question into three lots was not appropriate since all the lands had the road running beside it and had the same advantages. Hence, the said determined market value   of   Rs.90/­   per   sq.   yard   was   made   uniformly Page 5 of 14 applicable   in   respect   of   all   the   lands   which   were   the subject   matter   of   the   acquisition   initiated   under   the preliminary   notification   dated   30.11.1992.   The   appellant land   losers   therefore   being   aggrieved   by   the   reduction   in market value has filed this appeal.  6. Dr.   Romesh   Gautam,   learned   senior   counsel appearing   for   the   appellant   referred   to   the   appeal   papers including the judgments passed by the Reference Court as also   the   High   Court.   The   contention   is   that   the   land belonging to the appellant is situate adjacent to the main road   which   had   high   commercial   potential   and   as   such the   determination   as   made   by   the   Reference   Court   itself was   on   the   lower   side,   which   in   fact   required   further enhancement. In that situation when the Reference Court had determined the market value of the land at Rs.140/­ per sq. yard the same ought not to have been reduced by the High Court, instead it should have been enhanced. It is  contended  that   it  is  common   knowledge  that  the   value of immovable property will always appreciate and in such situation,   appropriate   market   value   was   required   to   be determined   by   keeping   this   aspect   in   view.   The   land Page 6 of 14 belonging to the appellant is Gair mumkin land which was considered   as   the   land   to   which   higher   compensation than   Nehri   land   was   payable,   even   according   to   the determination   made   by   LAO.   In   such   event   the   market value now determined by the High Court is on lower side which   calls   for   interference   and   if   not   further enhancement of the market value from what is determined by   the   Reference   Court,   at   least,   the   award   of   Reference Court should be restored.  7. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, learned counsel appearing for the beneficiaries of the acquisition seeks to justify the judgment   passed   by   the   High   Court.   It   is   contended   that as rightly noticed by the High Court the sale exemplars at Exhibits   A­1  and   A­2   relied  upon   by  the   Reference   Court related to the sale transactions which were subsequent to the   date   of   the   acquisition   notification.   The   sale consideration under such documents cannot be the basis to   determine   the   market   value.   When   there   was   no   other appropriate exemplar available, the High Court keeping in view   the   earlier   decisions   of   this   Court   has   taken   into consideration   the   very   sale   deeds   under   which   the   land Page 7 of 14 owners   had   purchased   the   lands   and   has   in   fact   taken into consideration the appreciation at a higher percentage. In such event the appellants cannot have any grievance in this regard. He therefore seeks the dismissal of the above appeal.  8. In the light of the rival contentions, we have perused the   appeal   papers.   The   nature   of   consideration   made   by the   Reference   Court   would   indicate   that   the   Reference Court   has   taken   into   consideration   the   documents   at Exhibits A­1 and A­2 as the exemplar sale deeds. The sale consideration   under   the   said   documents   at   Rs.70,000/­ (Rupees   seventy   thousand   only)   and   Rs.1,44,000/­ (Rupees   one   lakh   forty­four   thousand   only)   was   taken note; keeping in view the extent purchased under the said sale   deeds   had   worked   out   the   sale   consideration   at Rs.400/­   per   sq.   yard.   From   the   said   amount   reduction was made for the difference in time gap and the value was determined   at   Rs.140/­,   Rs.120/­   and   Rs.100/­   per   sq. yard   in   respect   of   the   three   lots   of   the   properties   which had been classified and bifurcated by keeping in view the location   of   the   property   from   the   main   road.   Though   the Page 8 of 14 formula adopted to determine market value was justified, the reliance on the said documents at Exhibits A­1 and A­ 2   cannot   be   sustained   since   the   sale   deeds   being   dated 31.05.1995   and   03.06.1996   had   come   into   existence much   later   than   30.11.1992,   the   date   on   which   the preliminary   notification   was   issued   and   the   same   was published   in   the   newspapers   on   11.12.1992   and 14.12.1992.   This   Court,   in   the   order   dated   13.09.2021 passed in C.A. Nos.3875­3876 of 2009 has referred to the turbulent   period   in   Punjab   prior   to   1992   when   the   land value   had  crashed  due  to   exodus.   Since   the   position   had improved   only   after   1992   the   comparison   of   land   value subsequent thereto to the value prior thereto would not be appropriate.   Therefore,   the   sale   consideration   under   the said   documents   cannot   be   the   basis   to   determine   the market   value   of   the   property   in   question,   for   which   the date of the preliminary notification would be relevant.  9. In   that   view,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the   High Court   was   justified   in   discarding   the   sale   exemplars   at Exhibits   A­1   and   A­2.   Further   the   High   Court   having taken   into   consideration   the   nature   and   location   of   the Page 9 of 14 property   was   also   of   the   opinion   that   the   classification made by the Reference Court as first, second and third lot was   not   justified.  When  the   different   items   of   property   in the   different   survey   number   were   acquired   for   the   same purpose   of   establishing   the   market   yard   and   as   observed by the High Court since all the lands had the road passing beside   it,   a   common   determination   of   the   market   value was   the   appropriate   course.   In   that   view,   the   said observation   of   the   High   Court   is   justified.   In   that background, the determination of the market value which would   be   applicable   to   all   the   lands   which   were   the subject matter of the acquisition was to be made when the various   land   owners   had   also   filed   their   appeals.   The determination   of   the   common   market   value   which   is applicable   to   all   the   lands   as   made   by   the   High   Court   is justified.  10. In   that   regard   to   arrive   at   the   appropriate   market value, the High Court having discarded the documents at Exhibits   A­1   and   A­2   had   taken   note   of   the   remaining documents. In order to rely upon Exhibits A­17 to A­24 as also   Exhibit   A­27   i.e.,   the   sale   deeds   under   which   the Page 10 of 14 properties   were   purchased   by   the   land   owners   the   High Court   has   referred   to   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   The Dollar   Company,   Madras   vs.   Collector   of   Madras (1975) 2 SCC 730 and in  V. Subrahmanya Rao vs. Land Acquisition   Officer   (2004)   10   SCC   640.   The   said decisions have been extracted in detail and noted. It is to be noted that such sale exemplars of the very property in question would in a normal circumstance be appropriate if the   sale  instance  is closer   to  the  period  of  acquisition.   In the   case   which   was   referred   by   the   High   Court   the   sale instances   were   around   ten   months   prior   to   the notification. Be that as it may, in the absence of such sale instances which were closer to the date of the notification in   the   instant   case,   the   High   Court   has   taken   guidance from the decisions of this Court in  Shakuntalabai (Smt.) and   Ors.   vs.   State   of   Maharashtra   (1996)   2   SCC   152 and   Om   Prakash   (Dead)   by   LRs.   &   Ors.   vs.   Union   of India   &  Anr.   (2004)  10  SCC  627  whereunder  this  Court had   indicated   the   percentage   of   appreciation   to   be considered per year when earlier sale instances are taken Page 11 of 14 into   consideration   and   the   acquisition   notification   is   of   a subsequent date.  11. It   is   in   that   light,   the   High   Court,   from   the documents   at   Exhibits   A­17   to   A­27   has   taken   the document   at   Exhibit   A­22   i.e.,   a   sale   deed   dated 04.06.1981 whereunder  the  price paid for  the extent of  1 kanal   and   9   marlas   at   Rs.25,000/­   (Rupees   twenty­five thousand only) as the basis. On taking the said price into consideration,   the   amount   was   worked   to   Rs.1,31,931/­ (Rupees   one   lakh   thirty­one   thousand   nine   hundred   and thirty­one   only)   per   acre,   which   on   being   divided   would work out to Rs.34/­ per sq. yard. To the said amount the High   Court   has   added   12   percent   appreciation   per   year from   1981   to   1992   and   arrived   at   the   market   value   at Rs.78/­   per   sq.   yard.   An   additional   value   of   Rs.12/­   per sq.   yard   was   added   as   escalation   by   taking   note   that  the reference   to   Exhibits   A­1   and   A­2   would   indicate   that there was steep increase of the prices in Punjab after the situation had improved. Therefore, the total market value was   arrived  at   Rs.90/­  per   sq.  yard,  in   addition   to   which the   statutory   benefits   were   also   ordered.   The Page 12 of 14 consideration as made by the High Court is in accordance with   law,   which   would   not   call   for   interference.   The method   followed   would   indicate   that   the   contentions raised   by   the   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   appellant would   stand   answered   since   the   location   of   the   property, the   potentiality   of   the   property   and   appreciation   of   the value   has  been   kept   in   perspective   while  determining  the market value with reference to the date of notification. 12. In   addition   to   the   above,   it   is   also   brought   to   our notice   that   one   other   land   owner,   namely,   Shri   Sudesh Kumar  whose  appeal bearing  RFA No.2092/2004 was also considered   under   the   same   common   judgment   dated 15.07.2009   impugned   herein   was   before   this   Court   in SLP(C)   No.15535/2010   assailing   the   very   impugned judgment.   This   Court   by   the   order   dated   29.04.2011   has dismissed   the   special   leave   petition   in   limine.     Further, though   the   appeal   filed   by   the   appellants   herein   in   RFA No.2053/2004 (O&M) against the very judgment passed by the   Reference   Court   dated   20.02.2004   was   pending   before the   High   Court   without   being   tagged   with   RFA No.1586/2005   filed   by   the   Market   Committee   against   the Page 13 of 14 same   judgment   of   the   Reference   Court,   the   said   RFA No.2053/2004   has   however   subsequently   been   dismissed by the High Court on 25.05.2015.  13. Therefore,   having   noted   all   the   above   aspects   of   the matter   we   see   no   reason   to   interfere   with   the   impugned judgment   dated   15.07.2009   passed   by   the   High   Court   in RFA   No.1586/2005.   Accordingly,   the   above   appeal   being devoid of merit stands dismissed with no order as to costs.  14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. ……………………….J.                                                 (M.R. SHAH) ……………………….J.                                                   (A.S. BOPANNA) New Delhi, September 20, 2021 Page 14 of 14