Case: Bijender Vs. State Of Haryana

3. Facts of the case are taken from C.A. No.2846 of 2017 (Bijender & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.) need mention, in detail, to appreciate the controversy involved in these appeals.4. The land of the appellants measuring 18362 sq. yds. equivalent to 30 kanal 07 marla being 1122/37/15 share out of total acquired land measuring 100 kanal 11 marla from the total land measuring 185 kanal 15 marla of khewat No.1396 khata nos.1658 and 1659 revenue estate of Safidon, situated at a village Saifdon, District Jind, Haryana was acquired. The land was acquired for the development and utilization of commercial and residential for HUDA Sectors 7, 8 and 9 in Safidon City in Distt. Jind vide three Notifications. Along with the land of the appellants, the State also acquired land belonging to several landowners alike the appellants.5. Notification bearingon 23.08.2007 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act") was issued for the acquisition of 142 acres of land in village Singhpura, for public purpose, namely, for the development of residential, commercial Sector 7, Safidon.6. Notification bearingon 23.08.2007 under Section 4 of the Act was issued for the acquisition of 249.49 acres land in villages Safidon, Singhpura, Rampura, Ratta Khera and Khera Khemawati for public purpose, namely, for the development of residential, commercial sector 8 at Safidon.7. Notification bearingon 23.08.2007 under Section 4 of the Act was issued for the acquisition of 167.79 acres of land in village Safidon, Khera Khemawati for the public purpose, namely, for the development of residential and commercial sector 9 at Safidon.8. The said notifications were published in the newspapers. The objections to the said notifications were also invited. However, the objections filed by the landowners were rejected by Collector finding no merit therein under Section 5A of the Act.9. This was followed by 3 declarations made and published under Section 6 of the Act on 21.08.2008 bearing No.in respect of the land measuring 74.10 acres of land in village Singhpura,in respect of the land measuring 199.57 acres of land in village Safidon, Singhpura, Rampura, Ratta Khera and Khera Khemawati andin respect of the land measuring 150.97 acres in village Safidon and Khera Khemawati.10. The Collector held an enquiry. He applied the Belting System for determining the market rate of land and, accordingly, classified the land in parts. On 19.08.2010, the Collector passed 3 Awards. By Award No.3 in respect of the land in village Singhpura, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 33 lacs per acre for the land up to the depth of 2 acres fromRoad and SafidonRoad and Gair Mumkin and for the land classified as "Nehri, Chahi", he awarded Rs. 18 lacs per acre. The landowners were also awarded 30% solatium and additional amount @ 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the Award as provided under Section 23 of the Act.11. By Award No.4 in respect of the acquisition of land in village Safidon, Singhpura, Rampura, Ratta Khera and Khera Khemawati, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 33 lacs per acre for the land up to the depth of 2 acres fromRoad and SafidonRoad and Gair Mumkin and @ Rs. 18 lacs per acre for "Nehri, Chahi" Land. The landowners were also awarded 30% Solatium and additional amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the award as provided under Section 23 of the Act.12. By Award No.5 in respect of acquisition of land in village Safidon and Khera Khemawati, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 33 lacs per acre for the land upto the depth of 2 acres fromRoad and SafidonRoad and Gair Mumkin and Rs. 18 lacs per acre for "Nehri, Chahi" land. The landowners were also awarded 30% Solatium and additional amount @ 12% p.a. from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the Award as provided under Section 23 of the Act.13. Being dissatisfied with the Awards, the landowners filed Reference Petitions under Section 18 of the Act before the Additional District Judge, Jind praying for enhancement of the compensation contending inter alia that the market value of the land at the time of acquisition was much higher than what was offered by the Collector in his Awards. According to the appellants (landowners), the market value was to the tune of Rs. 5000/per sq. yds.14. The Additional District Judge by its common Award dated 17.12.2013 dismissed all 305 reference petitions and, in consequence, upheld the Awards passed by the Collector. In other words, the Reference Court was of the view that the rate at which the compensation was determined by the Collector by applying the Belting System in working out the compensation was just and proper and as per Section 23 of the Act. The Reference Court, therefore, did not enhance the compensation awarded by the Collector. All the reference petitions were accordingly dismissed.15. Aggrieved by the said Awards, the landowners filed separate Regular First Appeals before the High Court praying for enhancement of the compensation.16. By impugned judgments dated 22.12.2015, 22.03.2016 and 03.05.2016, the High Court partly allowed the appeals. The High Court held that the Awards of the Collector assessing compensation @Rs.33 lacs per acre for the land up to the depth of 2 acres on Safidon Jind Road, Safidonroad does not call for any interference and hence they were upheld. However, so far as the other category of land (Nehri, Chahi) beyond 2 acres from the road was concerned, the High Court modified the Award and enhanced the compensation from Rs. 18 lacs to Rs. 24,75,000/per acre. The High Court determined the market rate at Rs. 48,40,000/per acre and then reducing by 33% worked out to Rs. 32,42,800/per acre, i.e., Rs. 33,00,000/per acre so far asland was concerned. So far as other land for which the Collector had awarded Rs. 18 lacs per acre, the High Court deducted 25% and thus worked out to Rs. 24,75,000/per acre.17. Aggrieved by the said judgments, the landowners have filed these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.

Reasoning:
31. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeals in part and, in consequence, modify the impugned judgments by partially enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants for their acquired land to the extent indicated below.We are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the nature, extent, size, surrounding and location of the acquired land, the Courts below were justified in applying Belting System for determining the market rate of the acquired land.34. One cannot dispute that the Belting System is a judicially accepted method for determining the fair market value of the acquired land. It is applied in appropriate cases when different parcels of lands with different survey numbers belonging to different owners and having different locations are acquired which put together comprises of a large chunk of land. Such chunk cannot be taken as a compact block.35. The acquired land having a frontage abutting the highway/main road always has a better value as compared to the land, which is away from the highway/main road. Indeed, farther the land from the highway/main road, lesser the value of such land. In such a situation, where large pieces of land having different locations are acquired, Belting System is considered apposite for determining the market value of the lands.Keeping the aforementioned well settled principles of law in consideration, let us recapitulate the facts of the case hereinbelow to examine the issue arising in the case.52. As mentioned above, the total land acquired for development and utilization of commercial and residential sector is situated in villages Safidon, Singpura, Rampura, Ratta Khera & Khera Khemawati in District Jind in State of Haryana. The acquired land comprises of more than around 300 acres or so and is thus a very large in chunk. The acquired land belonged to several landowners and obviously so being so large in volume. One side of the acquired land is abutting the road. The land has surrounding with some kind of activities in nearby areas and this shows that the acquired land has some potential.We are of the considered opinion that the Collector was justified in applying the Belting System to the acquired land in question. Since the acquired land was a large chunk of land having its frontage abutting the roadside, the Belting System was rightly applied to the acquired land for determination of its fair market rate.58. It is more so because we find that the appellants too did not raise any objection before the Collector and before the High Court and nor they were able to point out to us as to why it was not possible to apply the Belting System and what was illegal in its application.59. It is for all these reasons, we find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants when he questioned the application of the Belting System to the acquired land for determining its fair marketour opinion, it is not possible to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants though pressed in service vehemently.61. It is for the reason that firstly, the area sold in each sale deed is very small as compared to the acquired land. Secondly, the lands which were sold by these sale deeds is in square yards and ranges from 31.06 square yards to 440 yards whereas the acquired area in question is in acres and comprises of more than 300 acres. Thirdly, out of 59 sale deeds, there are as many as 31 sale deeds wherein the area comprises of less than 100 square yards. Fourthly, except two sale deeds where 60 and 67 square yard of land was sold for Rs. 4,500/per square yard, all other sale deeds value ranges between Rs. 200/to Rs. 2000/per square yard. Fifthly, there can be no comparison between the two lands due to the extent of area which are two extremes and lastly, since no sale deeds were filed by the appellants showing market price of any large chunk of land sold in acres at the relevant time, it is not possible to place reliance on any of these sale deeds for determining the market rate of the acquired land by applying the same rate (Rs.4,500/per square yard). It is, in our opinion, neither permissible and nor proper to rely solely upon the rates of small plots and then determine the compensation for a large chunk of acquired land as in this case.62. We have applied our mind keeping in view all the relevant factors coupled with the law laid down by this Court.