REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  859­899 OF 2023
(@SLP (C) Nos. 13992­14032 of 2020)
State of Haryana & Anr.                        ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Subhash Chander & Ors.          …Respondent(s)
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 900 OF 2023
(@SLP (C) No. 2971 of 2023)
(@D. No. 12754 of 2020)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common judgment and order  dated 18.10.2019 passed by
the   High   Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   at   Chandigarh   in
Regular First Appeal (RFA) No. 1100/2013 and other allied
first   appeals,   by   which,   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the
said   first   appeals   in   part   preferred   by   the   original   land
owners and has enhanced the amount of compensation for
the   lands   acquired   at   Rs.   2,98,54,720/­   per   acre   with   all
1

other   statutory   benefits,   the   State   of   Haryana   has
preferred the present appeals. 
2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeals   in   a   nutshell   are
as under: ­
2.1 That   approximately   58   acres   of   large   chunk   of   lands
situated   at   village   Kherki,   Majra   came   to   be   acquired   for
the   public   purpose   under   the   provisions   of   the   Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The land acquisition officer declared
the   awards.   At   the   instance   of   the   original   land   owners,
references   under   Section   18   of   the   Act,   1894   were   made.
The   reference   court   enhanced   the   compensation   for
notification   dated   13.01.2010   to   Rs.   1,56,24,000/­   per
acre   from   Rs.   60   lakhs   per   acre   as   awarded   by   the   land
acquisition   officer.   The   appeals   preferred   by   the   State
against   the   judgment   and   award   passed   by   the   reference
court   determining   the   compensation   at   Rs.   1,56,24,000/­
came   to   be   dismissed.   However,   by   the   impugned
judgment  and  order   taking  into consideration  the amount
of compensation enhanced by the High Court which came
to be modified by this Court to Rs. 2,38,00,000/­ per acre
with   respect   to   the   lands   acquired   in   the   month   of
January, 2008 and granting 12% cumulative increase, the
2

High Court has partly allowed the appeals preferred by the
land   owners   and   determined   and   awarded   the
compensation at Rs. 2,98,54,720/­ per acre. 
2.2 Dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed
by   the   High   Court   determining   and   awarding   the
compensation   for   the   lands   acquired   vide   notification
dated 13.01.2010 at Rs. 2,98,54,720/­ per acre, the State
of Haryana has preferred the present appeals. 
3. We   have   heard   Shri   Nikhil   Goel,   learned   AAG,   appearing
on   behalf   of   the   State   of   Haryana   and   learned   counsel
appearing on behalf of the respective original land owners. 
4. Shri  Nikhil   Goel,   learned   AAG,  appearing   on   behalf  of   the
State   has   vehemently   submitted   that   while   determining
the   compensation   at   Rs.   2,98,54,720/­   per   acre   for   the
lands   acquired   vide   notification   dated   13.01.2010,   the
High   Court   has   materially   erred   in   taking   into
consideration   and/or   relying   upon   the   judgment   of   this
Court passed in   Civil Appeal Nos. 11814­11864 of 2017
[State  of  Haryana  Vs.  Ram  Chander  (2017  SCC  OnLine
SC   1869)]   with   respect   to   the   lands   acquired   vide
notification issued in the month of January, 2008.  
3

4.1 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by
this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 11814­11864 of 2017, this
Court   has   specifically   observed   and   held   that   the
determination   of   compensation   vide   the   said   judgment   at
Rs.   2,38,00,000/­   per   acre   shall   not   be   treated   as   a
precedent in any other case. It is submitted that therefore,
while passing the impugned judgment and order  the High
Court has materially erred in taking into consideration the
amount   awarded   by   this   Court   vide   judgment   and   order
passed   in   Civil   Appeal   Nos.   11814­11864   of   2017   at   Rs.
2,38,00,000/. 
4.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Nikhil   Goel,   learned   AAG,
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   that   in   the   present   case
the   prices   of   the   land   were   decreasing   which   was   taken
note of by this Court. 
4.3 It is further submitted that even otherwise considering the
fact that with respect to the very village, lands came to be
acquired   from   2008   onwards   and   therefore,   the   prices   of
the   lands   were   artificially   increased.   It   is   submitted   that
therefore,   the   High   Court   has   materially   erred   in   giving
4

12%   rise   on   Rs.   2,38,00,000/­   per   acre   which   has   been
awarded for notification dated 25.01.2008.
4.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the above
decision, it is prayed to allow the present appeals. 
5. While   opposing   the   present   appeals,   learned   counsel
appearing on behalf of the land owners has submitted that
once   the   appeals   preferred   by   the   State   were   dismissed
and   the   impugned   common   judgment   and   order   was
passed   in   the   appeals   preferred   by   the   land   owners,   it   is
not   open   for   the   State   now   to   challenge   the   impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court.   
5.1 It is further submitted that even otherwise considering the
sale   instances   produced   on   record   right   from   09.03.2007
till 31.03.2008 there was increase in prices and therefore,
the   High   Court   has   not   committed   any   error   in   granting
the enhancement of 12% on Rs. 2,38,00,000/­ per acre. It
is   submitted   that   as   such   no   concrete   evidence   has   been
laid   down   or   no   contrary   sale   instance   were   placed   on
record   by  the   acquiring  body   showing   the   decrease  in   the
market value between 2008 and 2010. 
5

5.2 Making the above submissions and relying upon the recent
decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Ramrao   Shankar
Tapse   Vs.   Maharashtra   Industrial   Development
Corporation   and   Ors.;   (2022)   7   SCC   563 ,   by   which,   it
was observed that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per
year   in   the   market   value   of   land   may   be   accepted,   it   is
prayed to dismiss the present appeals.  
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective   parties   at   length.   We   have   gone   through   the
impugned   common   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High Court and we have also gone through and considered
the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Civil Appeal
Nos.   11814­11864   of   2017   by   which   with   respect   to   the
lands   acquired   vide   notification   dated   25.01.2008,   this
Court   determined   the   compensation   at   Rs.   2,38,00,000/­
per   acre.   In   the   said   judgment   and   order,   this   Court   has
specifically   observed   that   the   said   judgment   may   not   be
treated as a precedent. However, it is required to be noted
that   even   on   merits   also,   this   Court   considered   and
accepted the sale instances produced on behalf of the land
owners   ranging   between   2007   and   2008.   Therefore,   as
6

such   determination   of   the   compensation   at   Rs.
2,38,00,000/­   per   acre   with   respect   to   the   land   acquired
vide   notification   issued   on   25.01.2008   can   be   said   to   be
the   base   and   considering   the   time   gap   between   2008
notification and 2010 notification, a suitable enhancement
ranging   between   8%   to   15   %   is   given   which   is   held   to   be
permissible   as   per   the   catena   of   decisions   of   this   Court
right   from   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Pehlad   Ram   Vs.
HUDA;   (2014)   14   SCC   778   up   to   the   recent   decision   of
this Court in the case of  Ramrao Shankar Tapase (supra) .
However, at the same time considering the fact that in the
present   case   with   respect   to   the   very   village,   the
acquisition  proceedings  came to   be  initiated  in  the  month
of   January,   2008,   it   will   not   be   safe   and/or   prudent   to
grant   the   cumulative   increase   of   12%.   In   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case   and   even   considering   the   sale
instances produced on record, we are of the opinion that if
instead   of   12%   enhancement   on   Rs.   2,38,00,000/­,   10%
increase   is   accepted   it   can   be   said   to   be   a   just
compensation and it may meet the ends of justice. 
7

7. In that view of the matter, the market value of the land in
question   for   the   lands   acquired   vide   notification   dated
13.01.2010 will be at Rs. 2,87,98,000/­ per acre. 
8. Resultantly,   the   impugned   common   judgment   and   order
passed by the High Court is required to be modified to the
aforesaid   extent   by   awarding   the   compensation   at   Rs.
2,87,98,000/­ per acre. Present appeals are partly allowed
to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the original land
owners   shall   be   entitled   to   the   compensation   at   Rs.
2,87,98,000/­   per   acre   with   all   other   statutory   benefits
which   may   be   available   under   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,
1894. The appellant – State of Haryana is hereby directed
to   deposit   and/or   pay   the   compensation   to   the   original
land   owner(s)   at   the   market   value   of   Rs.   2,87,98,000/­
along with all other statutory benefits within a period of six
weeks   from   today   after   deducting   whatever   amount   is
already   paid.   Present   appeals   are   partly   allowed   to   the
aforesaid extent. No costs.      
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2023 [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
8