/2022 INSC 0191/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1765­1767 OF 2022
Jai Parkash Etc Etc            ..Appellant (S)
VERSUS
Union Territory, Chandigarh Etc Etc                   ..Respondent (S)
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1768­1791 of 2022
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1792­1804 of 2022
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1805­1806 of 2022
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of
appeals,   they   are   disposed   of   by   this   common   judgment
and order. 
1

2. The relevant facts which are necessary for determination of
the present appeals in a nutshell are as under: ­
2.1 In   all   these   cases   a   notification   under   Section   4   of   the
Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   was   issued   on   19.03.1999   by
which   the   Chandigarh   Administration   sought   to   acquire
30.78   acres   of   land   situated   in   Village   Hallo   Majra,
Hadbast No.219 and 32.92 acres of land situated in Village
Behlana,   Hadbast   No.231,   Union   Territory,   Chandigarh,
for   use   by   Defence   Security   Forces.   That   a   notification
under   Section   6   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   was
issued   on   23.03.1999.   The   Land   Acquisition   Officer
declared   the   award   dated   18.01.2000   and   assessed   the
market   value   of   the   acquired   lands   of   both   the   villages   @
Rs.6,87,837/­   per   acre.   That   on   reference,   the   learned
Reference   Court   determined   and   enhanced   the   market
value   of   the   acquired   lands   of   both   the   villages   @
Rs.9,65,000/­   per   acre.   The   judgment   and   award   passed
by   the   Reference   Court   determining   the   market   value   of
the lands @ Rs.9,65,000/­ per acre was the subject matter
of appeals before the High Court. 
2

2.2 At   this   stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   before   the
Reference Court, the original claimants – appellants herein
relied upon the sale deeds produced and exhibited as P­43,
P­44   and   P­73   and   P­74.   However,   the   learned   Reference
Court   rejected   the   said   sale   transactions   on   the   ground
that   the   said   sale   transactions   are   pertaining   to   small
plots. Therefore, the learned Reference Court discarded the
same.   Before   the   High   Court   also   the   original   claimants
heavily relied upon the sale instances at exhibit P­43, P­44
and   P­73   and   P­74.   By   the   impugned   common   impugned
judgment   and   order,   the   High   Court   has   held   that   the
Reference   Court   ought   to   have   considered   the   sale
transactions   exhibit   P­73   and   P­74   and   ought   to   have
determined   the   market   value   of   the   lands   acquired,   after
adopting   some   reasonable   cut.   After   taking   the   average
price   of   both   the   sale   deeds   –   exhibit   P­73   and   P­74,   the
High Court determined the average price of Rs.22,57,000/­
per acre. That thereafter after giving a cut of 50%, the High
Court   has   determined   the   market   value   of   the   acquired
3

lands   at   Rs.11,28,580/­  (round   off  to   Rs.11,30,000/­)  per
acre. 
2.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   common
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in
respective   appeals,   determining/assessing   the   market
value of the lands acquired at Rs.11,30,000/­ per acre, the
original claimants have preferred the present appeals.
   
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respective parties at length. 
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the High Court
has   relied   upon   the   sale   instances   exhibit   P­73   and   P­74
against   which   no   appeals   have   been   preferred   by   the
Chandigarh   Administration.   Therefore,   the   findings
recorded   by   the   High   Court   that   the   sale   instances   i.e.
exhibit   P­73   and   P­74   can   be   best   exemplars   and   which
can   be   considered   for   determining   and   assessing   the
market value of the lands acquired, has attained finality.  
5. Now the next question which would arise for consideration,
would   be,   whether   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the
4

case, the High Court is justified in applying a deduction of
50% while determining/assessing market price? 
5.1 It is to noted that as such nothing  has been discussed by
the   High   Court   while   applying   a   deduction   of   50%.
Therefore, in the normal course the appeals are required to
be remanded to the High Court for applying the proper cut.
However,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective parties have  prayed  and requested to  make  the
appropriate percentage of deduction by  this Court instead
of remanding the matters to the High Court. 
6. Having   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective parties and considering the location of the lands
acquired   and   that   part   of   the   acquired   land   abuts   the
National   Highway   No.   21   and   at   the   same   time,   the   sale
instances   exhibit   P­73   &   P­74   pertain   to   comparatively
smaller   plots   as   compared   to   the   acquired   lands   (in   all
approximately   63.70   acres   of   lands)   a   reasonable
percentage   of   deduction   is   required   to   be   made   while
determining/assessing the market price. 
5

7. Looking   to   the   location   and   the   purpose   for   which   the
lands   have   been   acquired,   in   the   peculiar   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   if   a
deduction of 40 % is applied instead of 50% as applied by
the High Court, it will meet the end of justice and it can be
said   to   be   a   fair   market   value   for   the   acquired   lands.
Therefore, if a deduction of 40% is applied, it will come to
Rs.13,54,200/­ per acre. The present appeals are required
to be allowed in part to the aforesaid extent.
8. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   all
these   present   appeals   are   allowed   in   part.   The   impugned
judgments   and   orders   passed   by   the   High   Court   in
respective Regular First Appeals are hereby modified to the
extent   of   awarding   Rs.13,54,200/­   per   acre   towards
compensation   for   the   acquired   lands   (instead   of
Rs.11,30,000/­   per   acre   as   assessed   and   awarded   by   the
High   Court).   The   land   owners   shall   also   be   entitled   to   all
the   statutory   benefits   available   under   the   Act   on   the
enhanced   amount   of   compensation.     However,   it   is
observed   that   so   far   as   the   appellants   in   Civil   Appeal
6

Nos.1805­1806   of   2022,   arising   out   of   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   in   RFA
No.1253 of 2004, is concerned, they shall not be entitled to
any interest on 1033 days’ delay on the enhanced amount
of compensation but solatium is payable on the enhanced
amount of compensation for the period of delay i.e., for the
period   of   1033   days   in   filing   the   Special   Leave   Petition
before   this   Court.   All   these   appeals   are   partly   allowed   to
the aforesaid extent. In view of the above there shall be no
order as to costs. 
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
March 10, 2022.
7