Case title:
BESCO LIMITED
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS
Date of Order:
August 23, 2023
Bench:
Justice B.R. GAVAI
Justice S.V.N. BHATTI
Parties:
BESCO LIMITED ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS ... RESPONDENT(S)
SUBJECT
- The Civil Appeals, filed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1893, involve landowners claiming enhanced compensation under the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
- The SC held the High Court’s approach as rightful and called for correct application of precedents and exemplars using the same method and mode.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Land Acquisition Act, 1893
- Section 4(1)
- Section23
- Section 24
OVERVIEW
- The State of Haryana plans to acquire land in Village Malpura, Sub Tehsil Dharuhera, District Rewari for an integrated industrial complex and public utilities. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) has determined compensation for landowners, including landowners, the State, LAO, and HSIDC.
- Landowners claim market value for acquired land in a controlled area in Haryana, near industrial estates and schools. The land is situated in Sector 15, Dharuhera, and is near National Highway No. 8, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, and industrial sectors. Development activities have occurred in and around the land, with industrial units like Penam Labs, U.B. Group, and Hero Motors Ltd. Within a radius. The land cannot be treated as agricultural.
- The second Respondent/LAO accepted the market rate determined by a Divisional Level Land Rates Fixation Committee, but has not determined the market value or compensation for the land acquired in compliance with Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, as the determination was referred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rewari.
- The Reference Court enhanced compensation from Rs. 66,00,000/- to Rs. 67,12,050/- per acre for 12 Kanal and 2 Marlas in Malpura Village. The court deducted 60% of the value in Ex. PW 4/3 and granted a 10% increment per annum from the date of sale until the date of Sec. 4 (1) Notification. Landowners filed appeals before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which determined the market value for the lands at Malpura at Rs. 1,21,33,320/-.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the acquired land can be treated as an agricultural land or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The counsel for the landowners argue that the High Court violated the principle of Lal Chand v. Union of India by applying a 60% deduction on the exemplar, which is considered illegal and untenable. The court should have applied a practical, pragmatic, and realistic percentage of deduction to arrive at the market value.
- The counsel argues that the High Court’s determination of market value payable as compensation is flawed, as it did not adopt a correct percentage of deduction for reaching market value. The High Court found no clear-cut boundary between Malpura and Kapriwas villages and the land acquired through the Notification and covered by Ex. P-4/3 dt. 13.08.2008.
- The counsel suggests that the High Court should have accepted Ex. P-Y, an upward land value increase in the locality.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The Respondents argue that the High Court’s market value is higher than the total extent acquired through Sec. 4(1) Notification dt. 13.05.2010, which is 153 acres. They recommend applying the belting system to determine compensation for lands near the National Highway.
- He seeks to modify the High Court's compensation or confirm the Reference Court's higher-than-estimated compensation.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The subject lands are acquired under a single notification, and the plan on record demonstrates the location and proximity to development in and around the acquired site.
- As a result, determining the area for valuation would be wrong.
- The area, already developed with nearby industries, has potential for industrial use. The CLU certificate ensures land is not agricultural, allowing a standard deduction of 1/3 on exemplar value.
- The appeals do not establish a compensation principle for subject acquisition, but call for correct application of precedents and exemplars using the same method and mode.
Conclusion
The High Court has rightfully disagreed with the Reference Court’s approach, but failed to factor in a deduction, and Ex-P-2 and P-4/3 are not suitable exemplars for appreciating the market value.
