Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6251 of 2010

Bhule Ram …Appellant

Versus

Union of India & Anr. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1.This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated

8.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Land

Acquisition Appeal No. 154 of 2007 by which the High Court has

assessed the market value of the land @Rs.6,51,000/- per acre

modifying the award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) under which the land had

been assessed @Rs.5,99,850/- per acre. The appellant claimed that

his land ought to have been assessed @Rs.10,00,000/- per acre.

2.Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

A.Land comprised in Khasra Nos. 752(4-16), 753(4-16), 765(4-

16), in all 24 bighas, in which the appellant had 1/3

rd

share and Khasra

Page 2 Nos. 757 (6-15), 758(4-17) and 761(4-16), in all 16 bighas 8 biswas

(full share), situated in revenue village Aali, Delhi, stood notified

under Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of construction of Ash

Pond at Badarpur Thermal Power Station on 16.10.1992 alongwith a

huge tract of land belonging to other persons in different villages.

B.In respect of the said land, a declaration under Section 6 of the

Act was made on 23.3.1993. The award under Section 11 of the Act

was made on 6.6.1994 assessing the market value of the land of the

appellant @Rs.4,65,000/- per acre.

C.Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a reference under Section 18

of the Act and the Reference Court made the award dated 10.1.2007

assessing the market value of the land @Rs.5,99,850/- per acre with

other statutory benefits.

D.Appellant preferred appeal under Section 54 of the Act before

the High Court claiming further enhancement contending that his

land ought to have been assessed @Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. The High

Court disposed of the appeal vide impugned judgment and order dated

8.12.2009 assessing the market value of the land @Rs.6,51,000/- per

acre placing reliance on other judgments in appeal before the High

Court.

2

Page 3 Hence, this appeal.

3.Ms. Shobha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and

Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned counsel appearing in other connected

appeals have raised serious issues that the land ought to have been

assessed at the rate on which the land covered by the same notification

under Section 4 of the Act in the neighouring village have been

assessed. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

4.Appeal is opposed by Mr. Puneet Taneja and Ms. Rachna

Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitting

that the market value of the land of the appellant cannot be assessed

on the basis of compensation paid in the adjacent village for the

reason that the land is not similar in any circumstance, either in

quality or geographical situation/location, and thus, there is nothing

on record on the basis of which it can be held that the appellant is

entitled for the same compensation which had been given to other

claimants in different villages. Thus, the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

5.We have considered the rival submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3

Page 4 6.The scheme of the Act is that every man’s interest is to be

valued rebus sic stantibus, just as it occurs at the time of the

notification under Section 4(1). Thus, the assessing authority must

take into consideration various factors for determining the market

value, but exclude the advantages due to the carrying out of the

purpose of acquisition and remote potentialities. It is the duty of the

claimant that he must produce the relevant evidence for determining

the market value while filing his claim under Section 9 of the Act

atleast before the trial court or before the reference court for the

reason that the appellate court may not permit the party to adduce

additional evidence in appeal.

7.The market value of the land is to be assessed as per Section 23

of the Act. Valuation of immoveable property is not an exact science,

nor it can be determined like algebraic problem, as it abounds in

uncertainties and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down for

arriving at exact market value of the land. There is always a room for

conjecture, and thus the court must act reluctantly to venture too far in

this direction. The factors such as the nature and position of the land

to be acquired, adaptability and advantages, the purpose for which the

land can be used in the most lucrative way, injurious affect resulting

4

Page 5 in damages to other properties, its potential value, the locality,

situation and size and shape of the land, the rise or depression in the

value of the land in the locality consequent to the acquisition etc., are

relevant factors to be considered. Section 23 mandates that the market

value of the land is to be assessed at the time of notification under

Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, value which has to be assessed is the

value to the owner who parts with his property and not the value to the

new owner who takes it over. Fair and reasonable compensation

means the price of a willing buyer which is to be paid to the willing

seller. Though the Act does not provide for “just terms” or “just

compensation”, but the market value is to be assessed taking into

consideration the use to which it is being put on acquisition and

whether the land has unusual or unique features or potentialities.

(Vide: Raja Vyricheria Narayana Gajapatraju Bahadur

Garu v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, AIR 1939 PC

98; and Adusumilli Gopalkrishna v. Spl Deputy Collector (Land

Acquisition), AIR 1980 SC 1870).

8.The concept of guess work is not unknown to various fields of

law as it applies in the cases relating to insurance, taxation,

compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as under

5

Page 6 the Labour Laws. The court has a discretion applying the guess work

to the facts of the given case but it is not unfettered and has to be

reasonable having connection to the facts on record adduced by the

parties by way of evidence. The court further held as under:

“‘Guess’ as understood in its common parlance is an

estimate without any specific information while

“calculations” are always made with reference to

specific data. “Guesstimate” is an estimate based on a

mixture of guesswork and calculations and it is a process

in itself. At the same time “guess” cannot be treated

synonymous to “conjecture”. “Guess” by itself may be a

statement or result based on unknown factors while

“conjecture” is made with a very slight amount of

knowledge, which is just sufficient to incline the scale of

probability. “Guesstimate” is with higher certainty than

mere “guess” or a “conjecture” per se.”

(See also: Thakur Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976

SC 2219; Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda & Ors.,

AIR 2010 SC 2322; and Charan Das & etc. etc. v. H.P. Housing &

Urban Development Authority & Ors. etc., (2010) 13 SCC 398).

9.In Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr., AIR

2011 SC 2458, this Court held that in case the parties do not lead any

evidence on record it is difficult for the court to award compensation

merely on the basis of imagination/conjectures, etc. The Act provides

for compensation for acquisition of land and deprivation of the

property which is reasonable and just. The court must avoid relying on

6

Page 7 a sham transaction which lacks bona fide and which had been

executed for the purpose of raising the land price just before the

acquisition to get more compensation for the reason that fraudulent

move or design should not be considered as a proof in such cases

though such a conclusion can be inferred from the facts and

circumstances of the case.

10.The market value of the land should be determined taking into

consideration the existing geographical situation of the land, existing

use of the land, already available advantages, like proximity to

National or State Highway or road and/or notionally or intentionally

renowned tourist destination or developed area, and market value of

other land situated in the same locality or adjacent or very near to

acquired land and also the size of such a land. (Vide: Viluben

Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 2214;

Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board v. Land

Acquisition Officer & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 781; Bilkis & Ors. v.

State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 646 and Sabhia

Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Special Land

Acquisition Officer & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2709).

7

Page 8 11.Where huge tract of land had been acquired and the same is not

continuous, the court has always emphasised on applying the principle

of belting system for the reason that where different lands with

different survey numbers belonging to different owners and having

different locations, cannot be considered to be a compact block. Land

having frontage on the highway would definitely have better value

than lands farther away from highway. (Vide: Andhra Pradesh

Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. G. Mohan

Reddy & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 412).

12.In Ashrafi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2013 SC

3654, this Court emphasised on belting system and observed that

while determining the market value of the land, the court must be

satisfied that the land under exemplar is a similar land.

(See also: Sher Singh etc. etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR

1991 SC 2048).

13.In Executive Engineer (Electrical), Karnataka Power

Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner &

Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 60, this

Court held that in towns and urban areas, distance of half kilometer to

one kilometer makes considerable difference in price of the land.

8

Page 9 Therefore, the court has to determine the market value on the basis of

the material produced before it keeping in mind that some of the lands

were more advantageously situated.

14.In Ramanlal Deochand Shah v. State of Maharashtra &

Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3452, this Court held that the burden of proof lies

on the land owner and in case he does not lead any evidence in

support of his claim to prove the inadequance of market value fixed of

the land acquired, the court cannot help him.

(See also: Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer,

Adilabad, A.P. & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 595; and Land Acquisition

Officer & Sub-Collector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Bhoopal (Smt) &

Anr., (1997) 9 SCC 628).

15.In view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect

that the market value of the land is to be assessed keeping in mind the

limitation prescribed in certain exceptional circumstances under

Section 23 of the Act. A guess work, though allowed, is permissible

only to a limited extent. The market value of the land is to be

determined taking into consideration the existing use of the land,

geographical situation/location of the land alongwith the

advantages/disadvantages i.e. distance from the National or State

9

Page 10 Highway or a road situated within a developed area etc. In urban area

even a small distance makes a considerable difference in the price of

land. However, the court should not take into consideration the use

for which the land is sought to be acquired and its remote potential

value in future. In arriving at the market value, it is the duty of the

party to lead evidence in support of its case, in absence of which the

court is not under a legal obligation to determine the market value

merely as per the prayer of the claimant.

There may be a case where a huge tract of land is acquired

which runs though continuous, but to the whole revenue estate of a

village or to various revenue villages or even in two or more states.

Someone’s land may be adjacent to the main road, others’ land may

be far away, there may be persons having land abounding the main

road but the frontage may be varied. Therefore, the market value of

the land is to be determined taking into consideration the geographical

situation and in such cases belting system may be applied. In such a

fact-situation every claimant cannot claim the same rate of

compensation.

16.The instant appeal is required to be examined in light of the

aforesaid settled legal propositions.

10

Page 11 The appellant has not put on record as what was his claim under

Section 9 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector. The award

had been made relying upon some other awards. In his application for

reference under Section 18 of the Act, the appellant has inter-alia

taken the following grounds:

“(iii)That the land acquisition is very closed and

surrounded by the developed and posh colonies

and industrial area such as Tughlakabad, Railway

Station, Sarita Vihar, Badarpur Town and other

colonies …..

(iv)That the Revenue Estate of Aali is surrounded by

adjacent villages such as Badarpur, Madanpur

Tekhand and Tughlakabad.

(iii) That the land of village Aali is better

situated and has more potential value village

Jaitpur as the land of village Aali is near to

Delhi and main Mathura Road.

(iv) That the Land Acquisition Collector should

have assessed the market value of the land in

question on the basis of the judgment of the

courts of surrounding villages as

Tughlakabad, Tekhand, Badarpur,

Madanpur Khadar. Several awards of the

Collector or courts are based on the sale

11

Page 12 transactions of each other being same area

and same potential value.”

17.The Reference Court while determining the market value of the

land recorded the following findings:

“Since the instances of sale in land in village Aali

relied by respondents and referred by LAC in the Award

are available the sale prices of the land in village Jasola,

Tughlakabad and Badarpur is not required to be looked

into. Further it has not been proved on record in case the

potentiality and quality of land in village Jasola and

Tughlakabad is the same as that of village Aali and as

such the sale deeds pertaining to aforesaid villages

cannot be relied upon to assess the market value in

village Aali. It has further come on record in other cases

pertaining to same award the village Madanpur Khadar

is located between village Jasola and Aali and

distance between two villages is about 3 Kms. Further

Mathura Road is stated to be about 6 Kms. from the

acquired land. Even village Tughlakabad and

Badarpur are more beneficially located than village

Aali. For the foregoing reasons, the rate of land in village

Jasola, Badarpur and Tughlakabad cannot be compared

to assess the rate of land in village Aali and Ex.P7, 8, 9

and 10 are not relevant.

It may also be observed that the acquired land on

the date of notification under Section 4 was being

12

Page 13 utilized for agricultural purposes and no electrical

and municipal connection for water was available.

Even the purpose of acquisition in adjacent land, falling

in village Jaitpur was for construction of ash pond and as

such there could not have been any substantial

appreciation of prices, as no building activities could

have taken place. In view of above, the land in village

Aali cannot be compared with villages Jasola and

Tughlakabad.” (Emphasis added)

The Court further held that the three sale deeds referred to by

the Land Acquisition Collector in his award could not provide a

proper guideline for determining the market value of the land acquired

as they relate to land so sought to be acquired where value is less than

land free from encumbrance.

18.Before the High Court, learned counsel for the appellant relied

solely upon the judgment dated 10.4.2008 passed in appeal preferred

by Bishamber Dayal & Ors. from the same village as is evident from

the impugned judgment. The relevant part thereof reads as under:

“Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case is

covered by a judgment dated 10.4.2008 passed in an

appeal registered as LAA 399/2007 entitled Bishamber

Dayal & Ors. v. UOI & Anr., wherein the compensation

payable to the land owners in respect of the same village

13

Page 14 under the same award was enhanced from Rs.5,99,850/-

per acre to Rs.6,51,000/- per acre with proportionate

statutory benefits including interest on the amount of

additional compensation and solatium on the lines of the

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v.

Union of India reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569.”

19.Thus, it is evident that the High Court in the instant case

awarded the compensation as per the demand of the appellant himself.

There is nothing on record to show that any other argument had been

advanced at his behest.

20.Before us, what is being argued are the same issues which have

already been rejected by the Reference court pointing out the distance

of the appellant’s land from the Mathura Road and non-suitability of

comparing with other lands. We do not see any cogent reason to

interfere as the Reference Court has clearly held that the appellant’s

land so acquired had been at a distance of 6 Kms. from the Mathura

Road, while other lands relied upon by the appellant before us are

adjacent to Mathura Road, and thus the lands are surrounded by

hospitals and residential and commercially developed areas.

21.Land of the appellant is situated in revenue estate Aali and

appellant claims compensation at the rate which has been awarded in

14

Page 15 revenue estate Jaitpur. No site plan has been produced showing the

distance between the land in Jaitpur and the appellant’s land, nor any

other evidence is shown to compare the lands and to determine as to

whether the award in respect of the land in Jaitpur could be used as an

exemplar as only on a comparison would it be possible to arrive at a

conclusion that both the lands are similarly situated in all respects.

22.In view of the above, we do not think that the judgments in

RFA No.416 of 1986 dated 6.10.1986, Ram Chander & Ors. v.

Union of India in respect of the land situated in Jasola; and in Hari

Chand v. Union of India, 91 (2001) DLT 602 in respect of the land

situated in Tughlakabad have any relevance in the present appeal.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It

lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

…………......................J.

(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

……….........................J.

(J. CHELAMESWAR)

NEW DELHI

March 28, 2014.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

15

Page 16 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4620 of 2009

Raja Ram & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

Union of India & Anr. …Respondents

With

CA Nos.4622, 4624, 4623/2009, SLP(C) Nos.18981, 18982, 18983

and 18984/2008

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.6251 of 2010, the

abovesaid appeals and special leave petitions are accordingly

dismissed.

…………......................J.

(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

……….........................J.

(J. CHELAMESWAR)

NEW DELHI

March 28, 2014.

16