Bijender vs State Of Haryana on 27 October, 2017

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.2846 OF 2017

Bijender Ors. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Haryana Anr. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2847-2848,
2849, 2850, 2851, 2852, 2853- 2872,
2873-2877, 2878-2882, 2883-2887,
2888-2893, 2894, 2895, 2896,2897, 2898,
2899, 2900-2904, 2905, 2906, 2907-2910,
2911, 2912, 2913-2914, 2915, 2916,2917,
2918-2929, 2930, 2931-2932, 2933-2950,
2951,2952-2954,2955 OF 2017
AND
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.17338-17354 OF 2017
@ S.L.P.(c) Nos.29181-29197 of 2016

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2017.10.28
13:15:59 IST
Reason:

1
JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted in the special leave petitions.

2) These appeals are directed against the

common final judgments and orders dated

22.12.2015, 22.03.2016 and 03.05.2016 passed by

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in R.F.A. Nos.5300, 2807-2809, 2806,

4762, 4764, 4756, 3751, 3759, 3760, 3766, 3768,

3776, 3777, 3785, 3788, 3794, 3798, 3800, 3805,

4839, 4841, 4842, 4843, 4844, 7299, 8756, 4840,

4846, 4838, 3767, 4757, 4752, 4746, 4744, 7323,

1515, 4753, 5980, 4751, 4745, 4809, 2549, 2548,

5910, 4810, 4754, 5911, 5913, 5912, 6307, 6283,

5542, 5908, 4747, 4760, 4758, 4763, 4759, 6308,

6309, 4748, 4749, 4755, 6306, 5909, 3999/2014,

314 809/2015, 3600, 2779, 4750, 3762, 3767,

3791, 3792, 3795, 3797, 3801, 4837, 4838, 4840,

4845, 4846, 4771, 4766, 4767, 2778, 2808, 2940,

2
2941, 2942, 2943, 2945, 2946, 3085, 3120, 3121,

3997, 3998, 4000, 4001, 4003, 5226, 7214, 4264,

7253, 3988, 2547, 4263, 1516, 2771, 2772, 2773,

2774, 2775, 2777, 3687, 4307, 4416, 4417, 4418,

4419, 4421, 2776, 2778 4808/2014 whereby the

High Court while disposing of the said appeals

partly allowed the appeals and upheld the awards of

the Land Acquisition Officer insofar as it relates to

assessment of compensation @ Rs.33,00,000/- per

acre for the land up to the depth of 2 acres in

Safidon-Jind Road, Safidon bye-pass and Gair

Mumkin kind of land whereas it enhanced the

compensation from Rs.18,00,000/- per acre to

Rs.24,75,000/- per acre from for the land beyond 2

acres.

3) Facts of the case are taken from C.A. No.2846

of 2017 (Bijender Ors. vs. State of Haryana

Anr.) need mention, in detail, to appreciate the

controversy involved in these appeals.

3

4) The land of the appellants measuring 18362

sq. yds. equivalent to 30 kanal 07 marla being

1122/37/15 share out of total acquired land

measuring 100 kanal 11 marla from the total land

measuring 185 kanal 15 marla of khewat No.1396

khata nos.1658 and 1659 revenue estate of Safidon,

situated at a village Saifdon, District Jind, Haryana

was acquired. The land was acquired for the

development and utilization of commercial and

residential for HUDA Sectors 7, 8 and 9 in Safidon

City in Distt. Jind vide three Notifications. Along

with the land of the appellants, the State also

acquired land belonging to several landowners alike

the appellants.

5) Notification bearing

No.LAC(H)-2007-NTLA/376 on 23.08.2007 under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as the “the Act”) was issued

for the acquisition of 142 acres of land in village

4
Singhpura, for public purpose, namely, for the

development of residential, commercial Sector 7,

Safidon.

6) Notification bearing

No.LAC(H)-2007-NTLA/379 on 23.08.2007 under

Section 4 of the Act was issued for the acquisition of

249.49 acres land in villages Safidon, Singhpura,

Rampura, Ratta Khera and Khera Khemawati for

public purpose, namely, for the development of

residential, commercial sector 8 at Safidon.

7) Notification bearing

No.LAC(H)-2007-NTLA/382 on 23.08.2007 under

Section 4 of the Act was issued for the acquisition of

167.79 acres of land in village Safidon, Khera

Khemawati for the public purpose, namely, for the

development of residential and commercial sector 9

at Safidon.

8) The said notifications were published in the

newspapers. The objections to the said notifications

5
were also invited. However, the objections filed by

the landowners were rejected by Collector finding no

merit therein under Section 5A of the Act.

9) This was followed by 3 declarations made and

published under Section 6 of the Act on 21.08.2008

bearing No. LAC(H)-2008-NTLA/423 in respect of

the land measuring 74.10 acres of land in village

Singhpura, LAC(H)-2008-NTLA/426 in respect of

the land measuring 199.57 acres of land in village

Safidon, Singhpura, Rampura, Ratta Khera and

Khera Khemawati and LAC(H)-2008-NTLA/429 in

respect of the land measuring 150.97 acres in

village Safidon and Khera Khemawati.

10) The Collector held an enquiry. He applied the

Belting System for determining the market rate of

land and, accordingly, classified the land in parts.

On 19.08.2010, the Collector passed 3 Awards. By

Award No.3 in respect of the land in village

Singhpura, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded

6
compensation @ Rs.33 lacs per acre for the land up

to the depth of 2 acres from Safidon-Jind Road and

Safidon Bye-Pass Road and Gair Mumkin and for

the land classified as “Nehri, Chahi”, he awarded

Rs. 18 lacs per acre. The landowners were also

awarded 30% solatium and additional amount @

12% per annum from the date of notification under

Section 4 of the Act till the Award as provided under

Section 23 of the Act.

11) By Award No.4 in respect of the acquisition of

land in village Safidon, Singhpura, Rampura, Ratta

Khera and Khera Khemawati, the Land Acquisition

Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.33 lacs per acre

for the land up to the depth of 2 acres from

Safidon-Jind Road and Safidon Bye-Pass Road and

Gair Mumkin and @ Rs.18 lacs per acre for “Nehri,

Chahi” Land. The landowners were also awarded

30% Solatium and additional amount @ 12% p.a.

from the date of notification under Section 4 of the

7
Act till the award as provided under Section 23 of

the Act.

12) By Award No.5 in respect of acquisition of land

in village Safidon and Khera Khemawati, the Land

Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.33

lacs per acre for the land upto the depth of 2 acres

from Safidon-Jind Road and Safidon Bye-pass Road

and Gair Mumkin and Rs.18 lacs per acre for

“Nehri, Chahi” land. The landowners were also

awarded 30% Solatium and additional amount @

12% p.a. from the date of notification under Section

4 of the Act till the Award as provided under Section

23 of the Act.

13) Being dissatisfied with the Awards, the

landowners filed Reference Petitions under Section

18 of the Act before the Additional District Judge,

Jind praying for enhancement of the compensation

contending inter alia that the market value of the

land at the time of acquisition was much higher

8
than what was offered by the Collector in his

Awards. According to the appellants (landowners),

the market value was to the tune of Rs.5000/- per

sq. yds.

14) The Additional District Judge by its common

Award dated 17.12.2013 dismissed all 305 reference

petitions and, in consequence, upheld the Awards

passed by the Collector. In other words, the

Reference Court was of the view that the rate at

which the compensation was determined by the

Collector by applying the Belting System in working

out the compensation was just and proper and as

per Section 23 of the Act. The Reference Court,

therefore, did not enhance the compensation

awarded by the Collector. All the reference petitions

were accordingly dismissed.

15) Aggrieved by the said Awards, the landowners

filed separate Regular First Appeals before the High

Court praying for enhancement of the

9
compensation.

16) By impugned judgments dated 22.12.2015,

22.03.2016 and 03.05.2016, the High Court partly

allowed the appeals. The High Court held that the

Awards of the Collector assessing compensation

@Rs.33 lacs per acre for the land up to the depth of

2 acres on Safidon Jind Road, Safidon bye-Pass

road does not call for any interference and hence

they were upheld. However, so far as the other

category of land (Nehri, Chahi) beyond 2 acres from

the road was concerned, the High Court modified

the Award and enhanced the compensation from

Rs.18 lacs to Rs.24,75,000/- per acre. The High

Court determined the market rate at Rs.

48,40,000/- per acre and then reducing by 33%

worked out to Rs.32,42,800/- per acre, i.e.,

Rs.33,00,000/- per acre so far as Safidon-Jind land

was concerned. So far as other land for which the

Collector had awarded Rs.18 lacs per acre, the High

1
Court deducted 25% and thus worked out to

Rs.24,75,000/- per acre.

17) Aggrieved by the said judgments, the

landowners have filed these appeals by way of

special leave before this Court.

18) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

19) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants

(landowners) while assailing the legality and

correctness of the impugned judgments mainly

argued three points.

20) In the first place, learned counsel argued that

the High Court having accepted in principle that the

acquired land is a developed land and has

potentiality in all respects coupled with the fact that

it is surrounded by upcoming activities in any town

erred in not properly determining the market value

of the land as required under Section 23 of the Act

read with law laid down by this Court in several

cases.

1

21) In the second place, learned counsel argued

that the appellants (landowners) had filed as many

as 59 Sale deeds of the adjacent and nearby areas

having a similar quality of land alike the acquired

land before the Reference Court. Learned counsel

urged that out of 59 sale deeds, two pieces of land

were sold at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per square yard

whereas remaining lands were also sold at different

rates ranging between Rs.200/- to Rs.4,500/- per

square yard.

22) It was, therefore, his submission that since the

highest rate in the comparable sales is usually

preferred for determining the market value of the

acquired land, the High Court should have taken

Rs.4,500/- per square yard to be the basis for

determining the market value of the acquired land.

23) In the third place, learned counsel argued that

the Collector, Reference Court and the High Court

erred in applying the Belting System for determining

1
the market value of the acquired land which,

according to learned counsel, wrongly resulted in

classifying the acquired land in two parts and, in

consequence, resulted in applying two rates for two

parcels of the lands. One rate was for the land

which is abutting the main road, whose rate was

more as compared to the other land, and the land

which is in interior from the main road, whose rate

was less.

24) It was his submission that the Collector and

the Reference Court failed to give any justifiable

reasons as to why they choose to apply the Belting

System for determining the market value of the

acquired land. Similarly, according to learned

counsel, the High Court also did not deal with this

issue though raised by the appellants before the

High Court in their appeals.

25) In reply, learned counsel for the respondent

(State) supported the impugned judgments and

1
contended that the market value of the acquired

land determined by the High Court which resulted

in partially enhancing the rate in relation to one

class of land which is in interior from Rs.18 lacs to

Rs.24,75,000/- per acre, is just and proper and

does not call for any further enhancement and nor

the other class of land (Rs.33,00,000/- per acre)

calls for any further enhancement and the same

was rightly upheld by the High Court.

26) Learned counsel then pointed out several

infirmities in the 59 comparable sale deeds relied on

by the appellants and contended that these sale

deeds should not be relied on for determining the

market rate of the acquired land for the following

reasons.

27) First, all the 59 sale deeds pertained to very

small pieces of land wherein the lands were sold in

square yards, whereas the acquired land in question

is very large and measures in acres (around 300

1
acres or so). In other words, according to learned

counsel, there is no comparison between the lands,

which is the subject matter of the sale deeds relied

on by the appellants (claimants), and the acquired

land in question.

28) Second, some claimants, whose lands were

acquired in these acquisition proceedings, had sold

their part of the acquired lands in very small

measures few months before the date of acquisition

only with an intention to create evidence so that

they may get the compensation for their acquired

land at the same rate at which they sold their land.

29) In other words, according to the learned

counsel, such sales could not be regarded as

genuine sales between the seller and the buyer and

were, in fact, the bogus sales brought into existence

with a sole purpose to claim more compensation for

their acquired lands.

30) Learned counsel, lastly, contended that there

1
is no case made out by the appellants (landowners)

to question the Belting System applied by the

Courts below for determining the market rates of

the acquired land inasmuch as having regard to the

nature of the land and other factors, the Belting

System was properly applied. Learned counsel,

therefore, contended that the impugned judgments

deserve to be upheld calling no interference.

31) Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to allow the appeals in part and, in

consequence, modify the impugned judgments by

partially enhancing the compensation payable to the

appellants for their acquired land to the extent

indicated below.

32) Coming first to the question as to whether the

Courts below were justified in applying the “Belting

System” for determining the market rates of the

acquired land in question?

1

33) We are of the considered opinion that keeping

in view the nature, extent, size, surrounding and

location of the acquired land, the Courts below were

justified in applying Belting System for determining

the market rate of the acquired land.

34) One cannot dispute that the Belting System is

a judicially accepted method for determining the fair

market value of the acquired land. It is applied in

appropriate cases when different parcels of lands

with different survey numbers belonging to different

owners and having different locations are acquired

which put together comprises of a large chunk of

land. Such chunk cannot be taken as a compact

block.

35) The acquired land having a frontage abutting

the highway/main road always has a better value as

compared to the land, which is away from the

highway/main road. Indeed, farther the land from

the highway/main road, lesser the value of such

1
land. In such a situation, where large pieces of land

having different locations are acquired, Belting

System is considered apposite for determining the

market value of the lands. (see – Union of India

Ors. vs. Mangatu Ram Ors. 1997 (6) SCC 59 and

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure

Corporation Limited vs. G. Mohan Reddy Ors.

2010 (15) SCC 412).

36) In Belting System, the acquired land is usually

divided in two or three belts depending upon the

facts of each case. The market value of the front

belt abutting the main road is taken to fetch

maximum value whereas the second belt fetches

two third or so of the rate determined in relation to

the first belt and the third belt, if considered proper

to carve out, fetches half or so of the maximum. It

is again depending upon facts of each case.

37) Similarly, this Court has consistently held on

the question as to what is fair and reasonable

1
market value of any acquired land on the date of its

acquisition. It is held that such a question is always

a question of fact and its answer depends on the

nature of evidence, circumstances and probabilities

appearing in each case.

38) It is held that one of the guiding factors in

such cases is the conduct of a hypothetical willing

vendor, who would offer the land and a willing

purchaser in normal human conduct, would be

willing to buy the land as a prudent man in normal

market condition on the date of the notification

under Section 4(1) of the Act but not an anxious

buyer dealing at arm’s length nor facade or fictitious

sales brought about in quick succession or

otherwise to inflate the market value.

39) It is held that when the Courts are called upon

to fix the market value of the land in compulsory

acquisition, one of the types of evidence of the value

of the property is the sale of the acquired land to

1
which the claimant is a party and in its absence,

the sale of the neighboring lands.

40) It is held that the transactions relating to

acquired land of recent dates or in the

neighbourhood lands that possessed of similar

potentiality or fertility or other advantageous

features are considered to be relevant piece of

evidence.

41) It is held that in proof of the sale transactions,

the relationship of the parties to the transactions,

the market conditions, the terms of the sale and the

date of the sale are to be looked into. These

features need to be established by examining either

the vendor or vendee and if they are not available,

the attesting witnesses who have personal

knowledge of the transaction etc. The original or

certified copies of the sale deeds are required to be

tendered in evidence to prove such facts. One of the

underlying principles to fix a fair market value with

2
reference to comparable sale is to reduce the

element of speculation.

42) It is held that in comparable sale, the features

are (1) it must be within a reasonable time of the

date of the notification (2) it should be a bona fide

transaction (3) it should be a sale of the land

acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired and

(4) it should possess similar advantages.

43) These factors should be established by

adducing material evidence by examining the

parties to the sale or persons having personal

knowledge of the sale transactions. The proof

thereof focuses on the fact whether the transactions

relied on are genuine and bona fide transactions or

not.

44) It is further held that it is the paramount duty

of the Courts of facts to subject the evidence to

close scrutiny with a view to objectively assess the

evidence tendered by the parties on proper

2
considerations thereof in its correct perspective to

arrive at a reasonable market value. The attending

facts and circumstances in each case always

furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the

acquired land. The neighbourhood lands possessed

of similar potentialities or same advantageous

features/circumstances available in each case are

also to be taken into account.

45) Indeed, it is held that the object of the

assessment of the evidence is to enable the Courts

to arrive at a fair and reasonable market value of

the lands and in that process, sometimes the Courts

are required to trench on the border of the

guesswork but mechanical assessment has to be

eschewed.

46) It is also held that Judges are required to draw

from their experience and the normal human

conduct of the parties as to which transaction is

bona fide and genuine sale transaction because that

2
is one of the guiding factors in evaluating the

evidence.

47) It is also held that the amount awarded by the

Land Acquisition Collector forms an offer and that it

is for the landowners to adduce relevant and

material evidence to establish that the acquired

lands are capable of fetching higher market value

and the amount offered by the Land Acquisition

Collector is inadequate and that he proceeded on

wrong principle. (See – Periyar and Pareekanni

Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1991(4) SCC 195).

48) This Court also examined the question as to

how the Courts should judge the potentiality of the

acquired land and what are the relevant

consideration, which should be taken into

consideration for deciding the potentiality of the

land.

49) It is held that potentiality means capacity or

possibility for changing or developing into state of

2
actuality. The question as to whether the land has

a potential value or not is primarily one of fact

depending upon its condition, situation, user to

which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put

and whether it has any proximity to residential,

commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The

existing amenities such as water, electricity,

possibility of their further extension, whether near

about town is developing or has prospect of

development need to be taken into consideration.

50) It is also held that the value of the smaller

plots, which is always on the higher side, is usually

not taken into consideration for determining the

large block of the land. One of the reasons being

that the substantial area of the large block is used

for development of sites like laying out the roads,

drains sewers, water and electricity lines and

several civic amenities and to provide these

facilities, lot of time is consumed. The deduction is,

2
therefore, made, which ranges from 20% to 50% or

in appropriate cases even more. (See – Atma

Singh(Dead) Thr. L.Rs. Ors. vs. State of

Haryana Anr. 2008 (2) SCC 568).

51) Keeping the aforementioned well settled

principles of law in consideration, let us recapitulate

the facts of the case hereinbelow to examine the

issue arising in the case.

52) As mentioned above, the total land acquired

for development and utilization of commercial and

residential sector is situated in villages Safidon,

Singpura, Rampura, Ratta Khera Khera

Khemawati in District Jind in State of Haryana.

The acquired land comprises of more than around

300 acres or so and is thus a very large in chunk.

The acquired land belonged to several landowners

and obviously so being so large in volume. One side

of the acquired land is abutting the road. The land

has surrounding with some kind of activities in

2
nearby areas and this shows that the acquired land

has some potential.

53) The Collector, therefore, taking into account all

these factors considered it proper to classify the

land on the basis of 2004-2005 revenue records in

two heads for determining the compensation. The

first head was in the name Nehri Chahi, i.e.,

canalling irrigated/water supplied from pipes in

which land measuring 82-49 acres was included

whereas the other parcel of land measuring around

117.08 acres, which is abutting the road, was

included in other head in the name – To the depth of

2 acres from Safidon-Jind Road Safidon bye pass

Road and Gair Mumkin. – (see Award of the

Collector dated 19.8.2010 (annexure P-3). The

Collector made this classification by applying the

Belting System. It is pertinent to mention that it

was not objected by the landowners as would be

clear from Para 3 of the Award dated 19.8.2010.

2

54) Since the land included under the head, i.e.,

Safidon- Jind Road and Safidon Bye pass Road and

Gair Mumkin was abutting the road, the Collector

fixed its market rate at Rs.33,00,000/- (Thirty

Three Lacs) per acre up to the extent of the land

going inside 2 acres from the road.

55) So far as the land included in the first head,

i.e., Nehri- Chahi beyond 2 acres was concerned,

the Collector fixed its market rate at Rs.18,00,000/-

(Eighteen Lacs) per acre.

56) The Reference Court dismissed the reference

and upheld the rates fixed by the Collector. The

High Court, however, in an appeal filed by the

appellants (claimants), in the impugned judgments,

upheld the rate, i.e., Rs.33,00,000/- per acre so far

as it relates to the land included in the head. –

Safidon – Jind Road and Safidon Bye pass Road and

Gair Mumkin saying that this does not need any

enhancement but enhanced the rate from

2
Rs.18,00,000/- per acre to Rs.24,75,000/- per acre

insofar as it pertained to land beyond 2 acres

included in the head – Nehri Chahi.

57) We are of the considered opinion that the

Collector was justified in applying the Belting

System to the acquired land in question. Since the

acquired land was a large chunk of land having its

frontage abutting the roadside, the Belting System

was rightly applied to the acquired land for

determination of its fair market rate.

58) It is more so because we find that the

appellants too did not raise any objection before the

Collector and before the High Court and nor they

were able to point out to us as to why it was not

possible to apply the Belting System and what was

illegal in its application.

59) It is for all these reasons, we find no merit in

the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellants when he questioned the application of

2
the Belting System to the acquired land for

determining its fair market value.

60) This takes us to examine the next question as

to whether the highest rate of Rs.4500/- per square

yard of the land of the nearby area out of 59 sale

deeds should be made basis for determining the

market rate of the acquired land. In our opinion, it

is not possible to accept this submission of the

learned counsel for the appellants though pressed

in service vehemently.

61) It is for the reason that firstly, the area sold in

each sale deed is very small as compared to the

acquired land. Secondly, the lands which were sold

by these sale deeds is in square yards and ranges

from 31.06 square yards to 440 yards whereas the

acquired area in question is in acres and comprises

of more than 300 acres. Thirdly, out of 59 sale

deeds, there are as many as 31 sale deeds wherein

the area comprises of less than 100 square yards.

2
Fourthly, except two sale deeds where 60 and 67

square yard of land was sold for Rs.4,500/- per

square yard, all other sale deeds value ranges

between Rs.200/- to Rs.2000/- per square yard.

Fifthly, there can be no comparison between the two

lands due to the extent of area which are two

extremes and lastly, since no sale deeds were filed

by the appellants showing market price of any large

chunk of land sold in acres at the relevant time, it is

not possible to place reliance on any of these sale

deeds for determining the market rate of the

acquired land by applying the same rate (Rs.4,500/-

per square yard). It is, in our opinion, neither

permissible and nor proper to rely solely upon the

rates of small plots and then determine the

compensation for a large chunk of acquired land as

in this case.

62) We have applied our mind keeping in view all

the relevant factors coupled with the law laid down

3
by this Court. Taking into consideration all the

relevant factors emerging from the evidence and the

findings of the Courts below on the issues such as –

the location of the acquired land, its surroundings,

nature, potentiality, rates of small plots, the

purpose of acquisition, development cost needed,

non availability of the sale deeds for large areas sold

in acres, etc., we are of the considered opinion that

just, fair and proper market value of the acquired

land in question on the date of issuance of Section 4

notification is determined at Rs.45,00,000/- (Forty

Five Lacs) per acre in place of Rs.33,00,000/-

(Thirty Three Lacs) per acre for the lands described

in detail in column 2 of the Award of the Collector

dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) at page 32 of the

SLP paper book of C.A.No. 2846/2017 and

Rs.35,00,000/- (Thirty Five Lacs) per acre in place

of Rs.24,75,000/- (Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Five

Thousand) per acre for lands described in detail in

3
column 1 of the said Award. In other words, the

appellants are held entitled to receive compensation

for the acquired land as described hereunder:

Class of Land Awarded
S. Amount
No.
1. Nehri, Chahi Rs.35 lacs
2. To the depth of 2 Rs.45 lacs
acres from
Safidon-Jind Road
Safidon Bye
Pass Road and
Gair-mumkin land

63) In addition to the aforesaid, the appellants are

also held entitled to statutory compensation as

provided in the Act and which the Courts below had

already awarded to the appellants. We uphold the

Award of such compensation. The two rates which

we have determined above would apply to entire

acquired land of all the appellants.

64) In the light of foregoing discussion, the appeals

succeed and are allowed in part. The impugned

judgments are partially modified in appellants’

3
favour by enhancing the compensation payable to

appellants (claimants/landowners) in respect of

their acquired land to the extent indicated above.

……………………………………..J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]

……………………………………….J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;

October 27, 2017

3

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *