Case: Manmohan Lal Gupta (Dead) Thru Lrs Vs. Market Committee Bhikhi &amp; Ors

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 formula adopted to determine market value was justified, the reliance on the said documents at Exhibits A-1 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.3875-3876 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 A-1 and A-2. Further the High Court having taken into consideration the nature and location of the 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 A-1 and A-2 had taken note of the remaining documents. In order to rely upon Exhibits A-17 to A-24 as also Exhibit A-27 i.e., the sale deeds under which the 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 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 A-17 to A-27 has taken the document at Exhibit A-22 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 twenty-five thousand only) as the basis. On taking the said price into consideration, the amount was worked to Rs.1,31,931/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one 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 A-1 and A-2 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 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 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]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 A-1 and A-2 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 forty-four 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 formula adopted to determine market value was justified, the reliance on the said documents at Exhibits A-1 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.3875-3876 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 A-1 and A-2. Further the High Court having taken into consideration the nature and location of the 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 A-1 and A-2 had taken note of the remaining documents. In order to rely upon Exhibits A-17 to A-24 as also Exhibit A-27 i.e., the sale deeds under which the 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 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 A-17 to A-27 has taken the document at Exhibit A-22 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 twenty-five thousand only) as the basis. On taking the said price into consideration, the amount was worked to Rs.1,31,931/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one 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 A-1 and A-2 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 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 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.