Case: PIYARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeals relate to acquisition of various plots of land in village Sirsa in Haryana. The Section 4 Notification with which we are concerned in one group of cases was issued on 19.12.2002, whereas the Section 4 Notification in the second group of cases was issued on 30.11.2004. By an award dated 16.12.2005 by the Land Acquisition Collector, an amount of Rs. 125/- per square yard was awarded which was enhanced by the District Judge to Rs. 525/- per square yard for village Khairpur and Rs. 490/- per square yard for village Vaidwala. 3. In appeal to the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2015, the High Court referred to the potential of the acquired land as follows: It is admitted case of the parties that the acquired land is situated within the municipal limits of Sirsa town. Sector-20, Part-I, Sirsa and HSIDC colony are adjoining to the acquired land. Government offices like Mini Secretariat, Court complex, banks, etc. are close to the acquired land. The basic amenities were available close to the acquired land. It is sandwiched between Hisar-Sirsa road (NH No. 10) and Sirsa-Barnala road leading to Punjab, a State highway. Bus Stand, Sirsa, Shahid Bhagat Singh Stadium, Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, are in the vicinity of the acquired land. 4. Ultimately insofar as the acquisition of 2002 was concerned, the High Court relied upon two sale-deeds namely Exts. P5 and P6 which were sale deeds registered on 15.11.2000 for sale of land measuring one kanal each at an average price of Rs. 823 per square yard. The High Court then went on to add at the rate of 12 per cent per annum(simple)for a period of two years which would make it a sum of Rs. 1020/- per square yard and then went on to apply a cut of 40 per cent on the ground that the aforesaid sale-deeds were for a small area of one kanal each whereas the acquisition was for 305 acres. This being the case, the High Court ultimately arrived at a figure of Rs. 612/- per square yard for lands acquired under the notification dated 19.12.2002. Insofar as the second acquisition was concerned, namely, under the Notification dated 30.11.2004, the High Court worked upwards for a period of 2002-2004 this time granting an increase of 12 per cent per annum on a cumulative basis which amount came to a figure of Rs.768/-. In the appeals before us, Shri Manoj Swarup, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that an increase of 15 per cent per annum cumulatively have been granted subsequently by the High Court given the potential of the land as has been held by the High Court itself. Further, the nearness to a National Highway and State Highway was also highlighted by the learned counsel. He also went on to state relying upon G.M., Oil and Natural Gas v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008)14 SCC page 745 that the increase should have been granted on a cumulative basis from the start and that no cut at all was warranted on the facts of the present case inasmuch as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 were sale of one kanal from the acquired property itself and then therefore this would correctly reflect the market value of the very property in the year 2000. According to him, for the 2004 acquisition there should also be increase at an exponential rate inasmuch as post acquisition of the same area of 2002, prices tend to increase and then, therefore, the 2004 notification should be given a percentage increase which is higher. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand sought to defend the judgment by relying upon two charts in which it was stated that ultimately only about 49 per cent of the entire property could be developed and handed over for the purposes of allotment and that huge expenditure had to be made for water supply sewerage, roads, police stations, primary schools, dispensaries etc. and that the expenditure per acre till date had come to a staggering figure of 87.5 lakhs to 111.2 lakhs in sectors 19 and 20 respectively. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the justice of these cases will be met if 12 per cent increase is granted cumulatively from the year 2000 itself and if no cut at all is applied. We are of this view inasmuch as the High Court itself recognises the potential of this land which has been set out by us earlier in this judgment. Also, the reasoning of the High Court for applying a cut of 40 per cent does not commend itself with us for the simple reason that what has been acquired is only roughly 1 kanal to 1 acre per person which ultimately totes up to 305 acres which is acquired by the State. Therefore, it is clear that there is no small versus large chunks of land on the facts of the present case. The Ex. P5 and P6 which are sale instances of one kanal, the same amount for the land as has been acquired will ,therefore, have to be applied without applying any cut.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the justice of these cases will be met if 12 per cent increase is granted cumulatively from the year 2000 itself and if no cut at all is applied. We are of this view inasmuch as the High Court itself recognises the potential of this land which has been set out by us earlier in this judgment. Also, the reasoning of the High Court for applying a cut of 40 per cent does not commend itself with us for the simple reason that what has been acquired is only roughly 1 kanal to 1 acre per person which ultimately totes up to 305 acres which is acquired by the State. Therefore, it is clear that there is no small versus large chunks of land on the facts of the present case. The Ex. P5 and P6 which are sale instances of one kanal, the same amount for the land as has been acquired will ,therefore, have to be applied without applying any cut.