(Arun Mishra and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.)
State of Haryana and Another ____________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Gobind and Another _____________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal Nos. 11695-11727 of 2017 [Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12680-12712/2017]
With
C.A. Nos. 11365-11374/2017 @ SLP(C) Nos. 13383-13392/2017
Samender Singh etc. etc.
v.
State of Haryana and Another etc. etc.
And
C.A. Nos. 14149-14156/2017 @ SLP(C) Nos. 24933-24940/2017 @ CC 21657-21664/2016
Kundna and Others etc. etc.
v.
State of Haryana and Others etc.
Civil Appeal Nos. 11695-11727 of 2017; (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12680-12712/2017); C.A. Nos. 11365-11374/2017; SLP(C) Nos. 13383-13392/2017; C.A. Nos. 14149-14156/2017; SLP(C) Nos. 24933-24940/2017; and CC 21657-21664/2016, decided on September 5, 2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. C.A. Nos. 14149-14156/2017 @ SLP(C) Nos. 24933-24940/2017 @ CC…..21657-21664/2016 are taken on board.
3. Substitution allowed.
4. Leave granted.
5. Delay condoned.
6. These are the appeals preferred against a common judgment passed by the High Court. The acquisition had taken place by the issuance of various notifications under Section 4 on 04.02.2008. The lands are situated in different villages.
7. The main question urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties is that no deduction has been made by the High Court and certain sale deeds have been excluded on the ground that they were for the lesser amount than determined by the Land Acquisition Collector and rate prescribed by the Collector for the area in question, by virtue of applying the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. It was urged on behalf of the State that the exclusion of sale deeds cannot be said to be proper. Whereas it was contended on behalf of the claimants, who have come up for enhancement of compensation by filing appeals, that the High Court was fully justified in not making deduction towards the development. The exemplars which have been taken into consideration respectively at Exhibits P.9 and P. 16, are for a larger chunk of land, i.e., one acre and 1.6 acres approximately. Thus the High Court is justified in not making any deduction, as a lot of development has taken place around the acquired land, which is situated between Gurgaon (Now Gurugram) and Dwarka township of New Delhi.
8. We are convinced that the land had immense potentiality and development has also taken place in the nearby area. However, at the same time, we are constrained to observe that the High Court could not have discarded the sale deeds for the lesser amount on the ground that they were excluded by operation of Section 25 of the Act. No doubt that the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector could not be reduced by Reference Court, in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. However, at the same time, the sale deeds are required to be taken into consideration and thereafter considered decision has to be rendered, proper reasons are to be assigned for not accepting the sale deeds though the Court cannot reduce compensation. It would not mean that sale deeds are to be wholly excluded as to adjudge the value of the land. In these cases, there are certain exemplars, which are of much higher value than the one taken into consideration by the High Court, but they belong to smaller plots. Thus, the sale deeds which have been ignored, related to very small plots, and the valuation was more than 3-4 times as determined by the High Court, the High Court was right in excluding the said sale deeds which were of smaller plots but at the same time, the sale deeds, which were for larger area, were taken into consideration, which appears to reflect the proper valuation of the area in question at the relevant point of time. We find the valuation arrived at by the High Court to be acceptable. At the same time, the High Court has erred in not deducting the amount, which was required to be reduced towards the development.
9. In our opinion, the deduction of 15% towards development would have been sufficient, which ought to have been made in the instant cases, in the peculiar facts of the case, considering the potentiality of the area in question and the development which has taken place all around. This order not to be treated as a precedent in any other case. Thus, we modify the determination made by the High Court to the above extent only. Let deduction be made accordingly.
10. The appeals filed by the State are partly allowed and those preferred by the owners are dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. The amount be paid within four months from today.
———
