RESPONDENT(S) With Civil Appeal No of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4872/2022) Civil Appeal No of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4996/2022) Civil Appeal No of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14506/2022)
Civil Appeal No of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.6893/2023) Civil Appeal No of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14507/2022) Civil Appeal No of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5574/2023) Civil Appeal No of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5546/2023) Civil Appeal No of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5549/2023) Civil Appeal No of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.__________) (@ Dy. 4(1)
Notification under the Act, proposing to acquire land measuring 1222 Kanal, 6 Marla for establishing and developing an integrated industrial complex and other public utilities in Village Malpura, Sub Tehsil Dharuhera, District Rewari. The landowners based on the potential of the acquired land claim commensurate market value as of 13.05.2010. Further, land sectors 8, 9, 10, 12 & 13 are opposite the industrial sectors of 17 and 16 across National Highway No 8. The rates determined by the committee are excerpted hereunder: (a)Chahi/GM land Rs.40,00,000/- per acre.
The rates determined by the Divisional Level Land Rates Fixation Committee, which is no more integra res, do not reflect the market value of the property acquired or basis for awarding compensation. State of Gujarat, (2005)4 SCC 789; Dilbagh Singh and others Vs State of Haryana, 1016(1) RCR (Civil) 736”, deducted 60 per cent of the value in Ex. The landowners aggrieved by the deduction of 60 per cent from exemplar; and non-consideration of available sale exemplars of developed lands and grant of a minimum increase in value at 10 per cent per annum, filed regular first appeals before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.F.A No 1232 of 2019 and batch. 1,21,33,320/- per acre is excerpted here under: “Since the most appropriate sale exemplar appears to be Ex. The Court is required to determine the market value of the acquired land as on 13.05.2010. 1,21,33,320/- per acre”.
1,21,33,320/- per acre”. The High Court taking note of the potentiality of the land acquired; the development in the (2009) 15 SCC 769 neighbourhood and the purpose of acquisition rightly held that a 60 per cent deduction on the exemplar relied on by the trial court in Ex. The High Court recorded a finding of fact that there is no clear-cut boundary or division between Malpura and Kapriwas villages, and on another hand, the land acquired through the Notification and the land covered by Ex.
He prays for either modifying the compensation determined by the High Court or confirm the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. (i)
The High Court substantially accepted that the land under acquisition is in the neighbourhood of a developing area; (ii) the sale exemplars do not deal with small plots or parcels of land; (iii) the deduction of 60 per cent on sale consideration covered by Ex. 1,21,33,320/- on a reference for determination of market value, the Judgment substantially decides the method, mode and the final market value payable to the lands under acquisition.
Lal Chand (supra): “The percentage of ‘deduction for development’ to be made to arrive at the market value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land (with potential for development), with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the lay out in which the exemplar plots are situated. The Development Authority will also incur considerable expenditure for development of undeveloped land into a developed layout, which includes the cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads, underground drainage and sewage facilities, laying waterlines, electricity lines and developing parks and civil amenities, which would be about 35% of the value of the developed plot. On the other hand, if the residential plot is in an unauthorised private residential layout, the percentage of deduction for development’ may be far less. ), and as there will be very limited civic amenities and no playgrounds, the area to be set apart for development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be incurred for development will also be marginally less, with the result the deduction to be made from the cost of a industrial plot may range only between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65 to 75% for residential plots.
Even among the layouts formed by DDA, the percentage of land utilized for roads, civic amenities, parks and play grounds may vary with reference to the nature of layout – whether it is residential, residential- cum-commercial or industrial; and even among residential layouts, the percentage will differ having regard to the size of the plots, width of the roads, extent of community facilities, parks and play grounds provided. Krishan Kumar : “Having regard to the fact that the acquired lands were in a semi- developed area within the Ganaur municipal limits, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to apply an aggregate deduction of 45% from the value of residential plots (2011) 15 SCC 297 (towards the land for development and the cost of development) to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands. Therefore, the market value will be Rs 225 less 45% per square yard, that is, Rs 140 per square yard or Rs 6,77,600 per acre.” F. This Court noticed the following 5 factors while assessing a fair market value of the acquired land: (i) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (ii) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of 14 issue of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, (iii) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (iv) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (v) that the size of plot of land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. P-4/3 is anterior in point of time, and the extent of land is 12 Kanal 2 Marlas, which cannot be treated as a small residential or commercial plot. We are convinced that Ex P-2 and P-4/3 are not appropriate exemplars to rely on and are taken into consideration for appreciating the upward increase in market value in the subject village. The land under acquisition cannot be completely treated as agricultural land, and at the same time, the land cannot also be treated as forming part of a developed or approved layout. Ex P-Y has been brought on record as additional evidence before the High Court. P-Y is 5 Kanal, 2 Marla.
P-Y is on the western side beyond National Highway No 8 [Delhi-Jaipur Highway].
Case Title: BESCO LTD. Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA
Case Number: C.A. No.-005376-005376 / 2023
