[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Prakash Chandra Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 August, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:43925-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 27-06-2025
Judgment delivered on : 29-08-2025
FAM No. 15 of 2020
1. Prakash Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Nathmal Ji Sharma, aged
about 67 years,
2. Mohan S/o Shri Nathmal Ji Sharma, aged about 60 years,
3. Rameshwar S/o Nathmal Ji Sharma, aged about 58 years,
4. Suraj Bai D/o Shri Nathmal Ji Sharma, aged about 55 years,
All are resident of Fawara Chowk, Sattibazar, Raipur, Tahsil and District
Raipur (CG)
5. Dhirendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 48 years, Shri Chainraj Ji
Sharma, R/o Anshu Provision Store, Near Fawara Chowk, Satti Bazar,
Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG)
(Note: Dhirendra Kumar Sharma is legal representative of late Smt.
Shanti & late Shri Shyama Bai, since both died therefore not impleaded
as party) ... Appellants
versus
2
1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur, For Land
Acquisition Officer and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG)
2. Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority,
Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG)
.. Respondents
FAM No. 16 of 2020
M/s Express Way Properties, through Manager/Partner Lalit Kumar
Chopra, aged about 60 years, S/o Manoharchand Chopra, R/o 550,
Sadar Bazar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG)
... Appellant
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur, For Land
Acquisition Officer and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG)
2. Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority,
Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG)
.. Respondents
FAM No. 17 of 2020
Manish Ahluwalia, aged about 35 years, S/o Bharat Bhushan
Ahluwalia, aged about 35 years, R/o Tatyapara, Raipur, Tahsil and
District Raipur (CG)
... Appellant
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur, For Land
Acquisition Officer and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG)
2. Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority,
Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG)
.. Respondents
3
FAM No. 18 of 2020
Ashish Ahluwalia, aged about 47 years, S/o Bharat Bhushan Ahluwalia,
aged about 47 years, R/o Tatyapara, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur
(CG)
... Appellant
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raipur, For Land
Acquisition Officer and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (CG)
2. Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development Authority,
Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG)
.. Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Sourabh Sharma and Mr. Sourabh Gupta,
Advocates.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ
C A V Judgment
Per Rajani Dubey, J
Since all these appeals have been preferred against the
judgments dated 30.9.2019 and 28.9.2019 passed by Fourth Additional
District Judge, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “Reference Court”) in
Land Acquisition Case Nos. 25/2013, 26/2013, 47/2013 and 36/2013,
whereby the reference has been dismissed and the order dated
11.6.2012 of the Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur passed in Land
Acquisition Case No.27/A-82 Year 2010-11 under Section 11 of the
4
Land Acquisition Act has been affirmed, they are being disposed of by
this common judgment.
FA No. 15 of 2020
02. Facts of the case, in brief, necessary for adjudication of this
appeal are that the land of the appellants/applicants situated at Village-
Baroud, PHN 72/15, RNM Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil-Arang, Distt. Raipur
bearing Khasra Nos. 98, 147, 150, 152, 364, 365, 366, 1208, 1228,
1260, 1265, 1288 & 1287, area 0.03, 0.36, 0.71, 0.65, 0.07, 0.1, 4.44,
0.8, 0.24, 3.05, 0.28, 0.36 & 5.58 hectare respectively was acquired by
the respondent authorities for development of Airport in Naya Raipur
and as per award dated 11.6.2012 compensation @ Rs.17 lacs per
hectare was awarded to them. Aggrieved by the said award, the
appellants moved an application under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) before the Collector. Learned
Reference Court vide impugned judgment dated 30.9.2019 dismissed
the said reference.
FA No. 16 of 2020
03. In this case, land of the appellant situated at Village-Baroud,
PHN 72/15, RNM Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil-Arang, Distt. Raipur bearing
Khasra Nos. 1283/1, 1283/2 and 1283/3 area 2.00, 2.00 and 4.34
hectare respectively was acquired by the respondent authorities for
development of Airport in Naya Raipur and the Land Acquisition Officer
by the award dated 11.6.2012 awarded compensation @ Rs.17 lacs
5
per hectare to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the said award, the
appellant filed an application u/s 18 of the Act before the Collector and
the learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment dated
28.9.2019 dismissed the reference.
FA No. 17 of 2020
04. In this case, the land of the appellant situated at Village-Baroud,
PHN 72/15, RNM Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur bearing
Khasra Nos. 1276, 1277, 1278 and 1280 area 0.94, 1.79, 1.01 and
1.35 hectare was acquired by the respondent authorities for
development Airport in Naya Raipur and as per award dated 11.6.2012
he was awarded compensation in lieu of acquisition of his land @
Rs.17 lacs per hectare. It was challenged by the appellant by moving
an application u/s 18 of the Act. However, the learned Reference Court
by the impugned judgment 28.9.2019 dismissed the reference.
FA No. 18 of 2020
05. In the present case also, land of the appellant situated at Village
Baroud, PHN 72/15, RNM Mandir Hasoud, Tahsil Arang, Distt. Raipur
bearing Khasra Nos. 1262, 1279 and 1282, area 0.14, 2.33 and 4.02
hectare was acquired by the respondent authorities for development of
Airport in Naya Raipur and the Land Acquisition Officer by award dated
11.6.2012 awarded compensation @ Rs.17 lacs per hectare which was
challenged by the appellant by moving an application u/s 18 of the Act.
6
However, learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment dated
28.9.2019 dismissed the reference.
06. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
impugned judgments passed by learned Reference Court are perverse,
contrary to the facts and evidence on record and as such liable to be
set aside. Learned trial Court erred in law while passing the award on
the basis of rate prescribed in the guidelines. It is well settled principle
of law that market value cannot be assessed on the basis of
guidelines. The guidelines are the minimum rates prescribed by the
office of Registrar and in fact it is not the actual rate of the land and it is
only for the purpose of valuation of the stamp duty. Ex.P/1 to P/13 filed
by the appellants have not been considered at all by the learned
Reference Court whereas the same pertain to the year 2010 and
alleged notification was issued in the month of August, 2011. NRDA
purchased land @ Rs.35 lacs per hectare through registered sale deed
which was produced before the trial Court but the same were not
considered. It is well settled that market value has to be determined on
the date of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and
the post notification and guidelines cannot be considered for
determining the compensation. Section 23(1) provides that the
compensation has to be determined by the reference Court based
upon the market value. However, the learned Reference Court based
upon post notification i.e. prior to August, 2011 when Section 4(1)
7
notification was published, assessed compensation @ Rs.17 lacs per
hectare which is illegal. Learned Court also failed to consider that the
land is irrigated land and adjoining the highway/main road with all
facility for agricultural activity and without appreciating all these facts
the award was passed granting compensation @ Rs.17 lacs per
hectare only whereas it should have been at least @ Rs.35 lacs per
hectare which is the market value for the irrigated land.
Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the
learned Reference Court committed a grave error in not awarding
interest as per Section 34 of the Act. It ought to have first assessed the
total compensation as per Section 23 and thereafter on total
compensation, interest @ 15% pa ought to have been granted.
[
Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Barla Ram Reddy Vs. State of
Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 878.
07. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
supporting the impugned judgment would submit that pursuant to the
requisition made by NRDA vide letter dated 26.5.2011 for acquisition of
95.72 hectares of land for expansion of Raipur Airport, the State
Government issued notifications under Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act on 8.8.2011 and it was published in Hari Bhoomi
and Nai Duniya newspapers on 13.8.2011 and in the official gazette on
8
26.8.2011. No objection was received under Section 5A. Out of the
total land, 2.79 hectares of land was acquired by mutual consent. The
remaining 92.93 hectares of land was acquired compulsorily for which
Section 6 declaration was issued on 21.10.2011 with newspaper
publication on 23.10.2011 and gazette notification on 18.11.2011. It
was republished on 24.5.2012 due to correction in Khasra No.770. He
would submit that award under Section 11 was passed on 11.6.2012 by
the Land Acquisition Officer determining the compensation based on
2011-12 guidelines i.e. Rs.17 lacs per hectare for fallow and unirrigated
dhanha land and Rs.18.25 lacs per hectare for irrigated dhanha land.
As per the revenue records, 23.14 hectares of land was fallow land,
64.73 hectare was unirrigated and 2.34 hectare was irrigated.
08. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further argued that as per
clause 4 of the CG Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, the higher of the
average market rate of the preceding three years or the guideline value
is to be adopted. Owing to the embargo on sale/purchase, no three
years average data was available, therefore, the Land Acquisition
Officer rightly relied on the guideline value prepared by the Deputy
Registrar. The compensation was determined based on 2011-12
guidelines which is appropriate as per Section 23(1) of the Act. The
relevant date for assessing market value is the date of issuance of
notification u/s 4 of the Act i.e. 26.8.2011. The appellants did not submit
any documentary proof to establish the nature of their lands or fencing,
9
electrical installations etc either before the Land Acquisition Officer or
the Reference Court.
09. So far as 13 sale deeds including those executed by NRDA and
the private developers referred to by the appellants are concerned, the
learned Reference Court rightly observed that the appellants failed to
establish geographical proximity or similarity in features; sale deeds
pertained to different khasras and were not contemporaneous with
Section 4 notification; sale values vary due to land use, development
level, soil quality and location-specific factors and that as per
rehabilitation policy, guideline rates suffice where sale exemplars are
not applicable. As per Schedule 3 Rule 7 of the Guideline Rules,
valuation is per square meter when the parcel is under 500 square
meter. All the acquired lands, except Khasra No.98 (0.03 hectare),
exceed that size. For Khasra No.98, compensation was correctly
calculated @ Rs.430/- per square meter, amounting to Rs.1,87,853
including interest. The findings recorded by learned Reference Court
are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
and in consonance with the provisions of the relevant Rules and the
Acts. Therefore, the instant appeals being devoid of any substance are
liable to be dismissed.
Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matters of Tarlochan Singh & another Vs.
State of Punjab and others, (1995) 2 SCC 424; Basant Kumar and
10
others Vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 11 SCC 542; and Barla
Ram Reddy Vs. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 878.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State duly
assisted the Court.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
12. It is not in dispute in all the four cases that the respondent State
and New Raipur Development Authority (NRDA) acquired the lands of
the landowners for development of Airport and Land Acquisition Officer
passed award on 11.6.2012 in all the cases against which reference
was made by the landowners and learned Reference Court by the
impugned judgments dated 28.9.2019 and 30.9.2019 confirmed the
award dated 11.6.2012 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer holding
it to be just and proper.
13. The main objection of learned counsel for the appellants is that
as per some sale deeds (Ex.P/1 to P/13), the lands were purchased by
Demerar Developers Pvt. Ltd. and NRDA and other purchasers which
were executed in the year 2010. Exs.P/3C, P/5C, P/7C, P/9C, P/10C,
P/12C and P/13C are from same Village Baroud and as per these sale
deeds, the learned Reference Court did not appreciate value of their
land at the relevant time.
11
14. Learned Reference Court prepared a comparative charge in all
the matters i.e. at para 20 in Land Acquisition Case No.26/13, at para
21 in Land Acquisition Case No.25/13, at para 20 in Land Acquisition
Case No.47/13 and at para 20 in Land Acquisition Case No.36/13,
which is as under:
क. पक्षकार मूल्य ग्राम दिनांक प्रदर्श
विक्रे ता/पट्टादाता के ता/पट्टा
ग्रहिता
1. ओमेक्स लिमि. व डिमेरर 10,44,78,880 रु नकटी 31.03.2010 प्रदर्श 1 सी
अन्य डेव्हलपर्स 7.29 हेक्टेयर
प्रा.लि.
2. ओमेक्स लिमि. व इनडेकोर 49,30,000 रु बनरसी 31.03.2010 प्रदर्श 2 सी
अन्य इंटरनेशनल 0.344 हेक्टेयर
3. ओमेक्स लिमि. व इनडेकोर 5,05,77,160 रू. बरौदा 31.03.2010 प्रदर्श 3 सी
अन्य इंटरनेशनल 3.529 हेक्टेयर
4. ओमेक्स लिमि. व इनडेकोर 1,17,91,400 रू. बरौदा 31.03.2010 प्रदर्श 4 सी
अन्य इंटरनेशनल 0.823 हेक्टेयर
5. ओमेक्स लिमि. व प्लेनेट अर्थ 6,33,85,300 रू. बरौदा 03.05.2010 प्रदर्श 5 सी
अन्य रियल बिल्ड 4.379 हेक्टेयर
लि.
6. ओमेक्स लिमि. व रिचा 2,19,14,370 रू नकटी 04.05.2010 प्रदर्श 6 सी
अन्य रियलकॉन 1.514 हेक्टेयर
प्रा.लि.
7. ओमेक्स लिमि. व डिमेरर 3,71,27,980 बरौदा 03.05.2010 प्रदर्श 7 सी
अन्य डेव्हलपर्स 2.565 हेक्टेयर
प्रा.लि.
8. ओमेक्स लिमि. व प्लेनेट अर्थ 7,27,50,310 बनरसी 03.05.2010 प्रदर्श 8 सी
अन्य रियल बिल्ड 5.026 हेक्टेयर
लि.
9. ओमेक्स लिमि. व इनडेकोर 22,81,08,580 रु बरौदा 03.05.2010 प्रदर्श 9 सी
अन्य इंटरनेशनल 15.759 हेक्टेयर
10. ओमेक्स लिमि. व आरआर. 9,06,70,180 रू. बरौदा 03.05.2010 प्रदर्श 10
अन्य रियलकॉन 6.264 हेक्टेयर सी
प्रा.लि.
12
11. ओमेक्स लिमि. व प्लेनेट अर्थ 5,05,27,970 रु. रमचंडी 17.05.2010 प्रदर्श 11
अन्य रियल बिल्ड 3.507 हेक्टेयर सी
लि.
12. श्रीमती जसमीत एन.आर.डी. 83,25,000 रु बरौदा 21.06.2010 प्रदर्श 12
कौर ए. 3.460 हेक्टेयर सी
13. हरमिंदर सिंह होरा एन.आर.डी. 79,98,750 रू बरौदा 24.06.2010 प्रदर्श 13
ए. 3.20 हेक्टेयर सी
Leaned Reference Court found that the appellants/claimants did
not file any document to show that these lands are adjacent to their
lands and hence rejected the contention of the appellants that
valuation of their lands is to be made at the same rate. In para 23 of
the impugned judgment in Land Acquisition Case No.26/2013, the
learned Reference Court observed as under:
“(23) आवेदक ललित कु मार चोपड़ा (आ.सा.1) ने अपने प्रतिपरीक्षण में यह
स्वीकार भी किया है कि, उसके द्वारा प्रस्तुत किये गये विक्रय विलेख एवं लीज डीड
उसकी जमीन से संबंधित नहीं है। अतः इन दस्तावेजों के आधार पर आवेदक की
भूमि का बाजार मूल्य निर्धारित किया जाना संभव नहीं है। यह भी ध्यान देने योग्य
विषय है कि आवेदक ने इन विक्रय पत्रो/लीजडीड में उल्लेखित भूमि को उसकी
अर्जित भूमि के समीप होने के संबंध में कोई दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है।
यह आवश्यक नहीं है कि नया रायपुर क्षेत्र में स्थित सभी भूमि का बाजार दर एक ही
हो। अतः आवेदक की ओर से प्रस्तुत उपरोक्त विकय पत्र/लीजडीड के आधार पर,
उसकी भूमि का मूल्य निर्धारित नहीं किया जा सकता। अतः आवेदक की यह
आपत्ति भी मान्य योग्य होना दर्शित नहीं होता है।”
Further, in para 26 the learned Reference Court observed thus:
“(26) इस प्रावधान से यह स्पष्टतया दर्शित है कि भूमि के अर्जन होने के पश्चात,
उस भूमि के उपयोग के परिणाम से, अर्जित भूमि के मूल्य में कोई वृद्धि होती है, उसे
विचार में नहीं लिया जावेगा। आवेदक के द्वारा प्रस्तुत की गयी आपत्ति कि उसकी
भूमि के आस-पास आवासीय कॉलोनी बनने एवं एयरपोर्ट का विस्तार होने के कारण
भूमि के मूल्य में होने वाली वृद्धि के आधार पर उसे अधिक मुआवजा दिलाये जाने
13का निवेदन किया गया है, परंतु भविष्यगत वृद्धि को विचार में लिया जाना उपरोक्त
प्रावधान के पालन में संभव नहीं है। इसलिये आवेदक की यह आपत्ति भी अमान्य
की जाती है।”
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Barla Ram Reddy
(supra) held in para D.1.1, D.2.2 and D.3 as under:
“D.1.1 General Principles
11. Before endeavouring to determine whether this sale
exemplar would be the right fit, we must recapitulate the general
principles which would steer this adjudication.
12. It is a settled position that computation of compensation for
acquisition must be guided by the “market value of the land as
on the date of publication of the Section 4 notification”. This
principle is mandated by Section 23(1) of the 1894 Act. This
court has, time and again, interpreted ‘market value’ to represent
‘the price that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller in light
of the land’s condition and potentiality’ (State of Gujarat V.
Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Vaghela, (1968) 3 SCR 692; Kapil
Mehra V. Union of India, (2015) 2 SCC 262.)
13. Of course, in ordinary circumstances, the best way to identify
this price is by considering instances of sale of similar or
comparable lands. Such exemplars can serve as a foundation for
determining compensation, so long as they fulfil the following
requirements:
i. The sale exemplar depicts a genuine, open-market transaction;
ii. The land covered by the sale deed is in the vicinity of the
acquired land;
iii. The land covered by the sale deed is similar in nature to the
acquired land; and
14iv. The sale was executed at a time proximate to the date of
the notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
14. Any sale exemplar which is presented to the Court ought to
be considered on the touchstone of these requirements, so that
the most representative sale instance can be determined.
15. Sale instances, however, cannot guide us to the market
value of the land with exactitude. In some cases, direct examples
of sale of comparable land may not be available, while in other
cases, there may be relevant distinguishing features between the
sale exemplar and the acquired land. In such cases, Courts
adopt the process of guesstimation to apply, the evidence and
arrive at an equitable price for the acquired land. (New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority Vs. Harnand Singh, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1691.)D.2.2 Set C Exhibits
34. The Set C Exhibits comprise seven sale deeds, which were
executed between 11.02.2004 and 04.02.2005. Parcels of land in
Survey Nos. 187-202 in Narsingi village were purchased by M/s
Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd., at rates ranging from INR
20,00,000 to 31,00,000 per acre.
36. The lands sold in these exhibits are adjoining the acquired
lands. In fact, parts of these Survey Nos. were also acquired
through the same Section 4 notifications. Unlike the Set B
Exhibits, these lands are on the same side of the Express
Highway. Most importantly, these sale deeds are the only
exhibited sale instances which took place prior to the publication
of the Section 4 notifications, with a time gap of not more than 26
months. Keeping in view the above considerations, we are of the
opinion that these sale exhibits would be the only reliable
foundation to determine the market value of the acquired lands.
15
37. Before dealing with the rest of the sale deeds, it is clear that
Ex.A6 depicts a substantially lower sale price for lands at
effectively the same time as Ex.Al and Ex.A2. It, therefore,
follows that Ex.A6 must have been a distress sale, motivated by
some extraneous factors, and it is, thus, liable to be discarded.
38. This Court has, on various occasions, held that among
multiple reliable sale instances, the exemplar which depicts the
highest market value ought to be used. The exception to this
general rule is that an average of the rates can be taken when
they are within a narrow margin. {Kapil Mehra (supra) [18-20];
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432;
Himmat Singh Vs. State of MP, (2013) 16 SCC 392}
39. In the present appeals, the six remaining sale exemplars
depict rates within the range of INR 30,00,000 – 31,00,000 per
acre. This may preliminarily appear to be narrow enough to
invoke the exception to the ‘highest sale exemplar’ rule.
However, this perspective fails when we take into account the
details of these sale instances. Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A7, and Ex.A8,
which are at the lower end of the range, were executed a
considerable amount of time after Ex. Al and Ex.A2, which are at
the high end of the range. To counter this anomaly and after
accounting for rise in value due to efflux of time, Ex.Al and Ex.A2
depict a substantially higher value compared to the other
exhibits. We are, accordingly, satisfied that these two instances
should be the foundation for computation of market value of the
acquired lands.
D.3 Issue III: Computing the Market Value
42. As has already been held, the market value of the acquired
lands at the time of the acquisition would be based on the sale
instances in Ex.Al and Ex.A2. It has not missed our attention that
16
these sale deeds were executed in early 2004, almost two years
before the publication of the Section 4 notifications. Due to
passage of time, the value of the land would have increased
during this period. So, we would also need to escalate the rates
in the exemplars to meet the rise in prices over time. The
escalation, of course, cannot be decided with exactitude, and
some level of guesstimation has to be incorporated within our
reasoning. {New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs.
Harnand Singh (supra)}
43. Ordinarily, this Court has applied an escalation of 10-12%
per year to account for the time gap {Himmat Singh v. State of
M.P., (2014) 14 SCC 466; Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana,
(2015) 15 SCC 200}. At this stage, we must take note of the
submission on behalf of the landowners that there was rapid
development in the area during this period. Concomitantly, there
must have also been a steep rise in the price of land. We find
force in this argument of the learned Counsel. The area in
acquisition is close to the municipal limits of Hyderabad city and
witnessed setting up offices of major multinational IT and
financial sector organisations, even prior to the acquisition. The
acquired lands are also admittedly close to the Hyderabad
Airport. As such, even if the land may not be within the municipal
limits of Hyderabad city, the area must be treated as an
extension of the metropolitan area. It follows, then, that the
escalation for each year must also be higher. The concept of
higher escalation in metropolitan areas was also accepted by
this Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patelia (2008)
14 SCC 745 (13). Considering all circumstances, we are of the
opinion that a compounding escalation at the rate of 20% for
each year would be just and equitable to account for the rise in
prices over time.
17
44. Applying 20% compounding escalation for 2004 and 2005 to
the base rate of INR 31,00,000 per acre, we find that the market
value of the acquired lands at the time of the publication of the
notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act would be INR
44,64,000 per acre.”
16. In the present case also, it is clear from the chart prepared by
the learned Reference Court that some sale deeds are related to same
village which are as under:
Sr. Ex. Parties between Khasra No. Sale Rate Sale Village Date of
No No. Sale Deed of Land Rate of Execution
executed Land
Per
Hectare
1. A-3 Omax Limited and 140 5,05,77,16 1,43,31,8 Baroud 31.03.2010
others and Indecore 0/- for 67.4
International 3.529
hectare
2. A-4 Omax Limited and 68,69,70,71, 1,17,91,40 1,43,27,3 Baroud 31.03.2010
others and Indecore 72/1,72/2,76 0/- for 39/-
International 0.823
hectare
3. A-5 Omax Limited and 2/1,2/2,3/1,3/ 6,33,85,30 1,44,74,8 Baroud 03.05.2010
others and Planate 3,¾,4,5/1,9/1 0/- for 34.4
Earth Real Build ,19/2, 21/1, 4.379
Ltd. 21/2,31, 33/2 hectare
4. A-7 Omax Limited and 93/1,93/2,94/ 3,71,27,98 1,44,74,8 Baroud 03.05.2010
others and Dimerar 1,94/3,94/4, 0/- for 46/-
Developers 94/5,95/1 2.565
hectare
5. A-9 Omax Limited and 32/1,33/4, 22,81,08,5 1,44,74,8 Baroud 03.05.2010
others and Indecore 37,38/2,39/1, 80/- for 13.1
International 39/3,39/4, 15.759
40/1, 40/2,
18
40/3, 41, hectare
43/1, 43/2,
44/1, 44/2,
45/1, 45/2,
46/1,47,50,
51,64/1,64/2,
77/1,77/2,
77/3,79,80,
81,82,83,84,
85/1,85/2,
85/5,86,87,
91/1,91/3,92/
1,92/2
6. A-10 Omax Limited and 168, 169/2, 9,06,70,18 1,44,74,8 Baroud
others and RR 170/2, 172/2, 0/- for 05.2
Realcon 172/3, 178/1, d6.264
180, 183, hectare
185, 186,
187, 188,
189, 191,
192, 194,
196, 197,
202/1, 202/2,
204, 205/2
7. A-12 Smt. Jasmeet Kaur 1231, 1230, 83,25,000/ 24,06,06 Baroud 21.06.2010
and NRDA 1393, 1433, - for 3.460 9.36
1438, 1502/1 hectare
8. A-13 Harmindarsingh 1207, 1226, 79,98,750/ 24,99,60 Baroud 24.06.2010
Hora and NRDA 1426, 1421, for 3.20 9.38
1490, 1491, hectare
1549, 1420,
1402, 1403,
1445, 1467,
2059, 1389,
1451
19
It is, thus, clear from the above chart that all these sale deeds
related to same village Baroud and the same were executed in the
year 2010. As per these sale deeds, the sale rate of land per hectare is
different i.e. ranging from 24,06,069 to 1,44,74,846/-. The main
objection of the respondents is that at the relevant point of time, sale
was banned, so these sale deeds are not relevant for open market
value. However, it is clear from Ex.A/12 and A/13 that that NRDA itself
was a purchaser in these sale deeds and the same were executed on
21.6.2010 and 24.6.2010 @ Rs.24,06,069.36 and Rs.24,99,609.38
respectively. Learned Reference Court found that the appellants did not
file any document which could show that their lands are adjacent to
these lands but it is clear from all these sale deeds that Exs. A/3, A/4,
A/5, A/7, A/9, A/10, A/12 & A/13 are from same village Baroud and in
sale deeds Ex.A/12 & A/13, NRDA itself is a purchaser.
17. As per guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the best way to
identify this price is by considering instances of sale of similar or
comparable lands, and the sale was executed at a time proximate to
the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The
Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that any sale exemplar which is
presented to the Court ought to be considered on the touchstone of
these requirements so that the most representative sale instance can
be determined.
20
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in
view the aforesaid guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the sale
deeds referred to above, in particular sale deeds of Ex.A/12 & A/13, we
decide the sale rate of land @ Rs.25 lacs per hectare in all these
cases. In addition thereto, the appellants/landowners are held entitled
to additional amount @ 12% pa and solatium @ 30% as part of the
compensation, as well as interest on the entire compensation @ 9% pa
for the first year after taking over of possession, and 15% pa for the
period thereafter till the amount is paid to the landowners or deposited
with the Court. The compensation amount shall be paid to the
appellants along with all statutory entitlements and interest within six
months from the date of passing of this judgment.
19. In the result, the impugned judgments of the learned Reference
Court are hereby set aside and the appeals stand allowed to the above
extent. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly.
Sd/ Sd/
(Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Judge
Khan
[ad_2]
Source link