Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 -- Acquisition of land – Market Value of -- Market Value of average has been taken of a larger chunks of lands which are of 1 acre 15 marlas, 4 acres 7 kanals 7 marlas and similarly of 7 acres 6 kanals 13 marlas -- Sale deeds would go to show that the value per acre was Rs.50,28,571/-, Rs.27,10,163/- and Rs.32,50,055/- respectively -- On the said amounts 12% simple increase has been granted to assess the market value by taking the average and thereafter, applying a development cut of 1/3^rd – Held, landowners have to be given their dues which is as per prevalent market rate and once they have brought on record sufficient evidence to show the value of the land by the above said exemplars which has been mentioned above, no fault as such can be found in the impugned award -- Rs.39 Lakhs per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector – No ground is made out to interfere in the well-reasoned award and the appeals are dismissed.

(Para 8-12)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 23 -- Market value of acquired land – Assessment of –

(i)   Once the land which was situated by side of an industrial belt and was capable for use of such as non-agricultural purpose, it necessarily has to be treated as non-agricultural land for determination of compensation.

(ii)  The location of land that was sandwiched between two major roads can, thus, be highlighted and, therefore, it can be safely concluded that it was urbanizable land situated near developed villages with close access to all infrastructure facilities.

 (iii) Once the market value had been assessed for the notification 7 years earlier, the Corporation cannot turn around and say that the land values had decreased.

(iv)  Onus of proving the market value u/s 23 always lies upon the land owners. It is for them to prove on record relevant sale instances and other evidence. Principle that has to be kept in mind is on the basis of the price the willing purchaser is likely pay and the price which the land owner is willing to receive -- Burden, thereafter, has shifted to the State to produce contrary evidence.

(v)   Reliance upon the allotment letters as such of various industrial plots or the auction instances of whatever sizes would not be a safe parameter/ exemplars to assess the market value, as on the date of Section 4 notification.

(vi)  An element of guess work while fixing the market value would always remain, but principle has to be kept in mind that what a willing purchaser and a willing vendor are likely to exchange and the Court has to consider whether purchaser is willing to purchase a large chunk of land, if so at what price.

(Para 76-102)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 23 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Market value of acquired land – Additional evidence -- Onus having been shifted by the land owners, they could not be given second opportunity as such to start leading evidence afresh, as they cannot be given a premium for the negligence on their part.

(Para 121)

C. B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 23 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 8-A – Market value of acquired land – Subsequent allottee – Right of -- Locus standi as such of the post-acquisition allottee to file an application for determining the compensation under the 1894 Act is sheer abuse of the process of law.

(Para 125-126)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6, 11-A – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) – Acquisition of land – Lapse of proceedings -- Crucial difference between lapse under Section 11A of the 1894 Act and that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is that the former is a pre-award situation whereas the latter is post-award – What gets lapsed u/s 11A of the 1894 Act is the ... “entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land”, whereas, under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, what gets lapsed is the land acquisition proceedings initiated under The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which has culminated in passing of an award under Section 11 but where either possession is not taken or compensation not paid within five years prior to 01.01.2014.

(Para 13)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6, 11 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) – Acquisition of land – Lapse of proceedings -- After passing the award u/s 11 of the 1894 Act, no compensation has been paid and the possession also has not been taken within five years prior to 01.01.2014 -- Therefore, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act has to operate, and the acquisition proceedings in respect of respondents’ lands where award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act had been passed, have lapsed.

(Para 16)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Acquisition of land -- Locus standi to challenge -- Once the land is sought to be acquired in favour of the respondent-society and notifications issued u/s 4(1) and 6(1) of the L.A. Act regarding the same, the respondent-Society acquires the right to challenge the quashing of the acquisition proceedings by a court of law.

(Para 25)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 3(f)(vi) – Acquisition of land -- Public purpose -- Framing of scheme by the respondent-Society and approval of the same by the State Government as required under Section 3 (f)(vi) of the L.A. Act is absent – No details are forthcoming from the original file regarding the details of the scheme, and the application of mind by the state government to approve the same – Acquisition proceedings cannot be said to be one for ‘public purpose’.

(Para 34)

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Acquisition of lands at the instance of middleman – Challenge to -- Acquisition of lands of two different villages in exercise of its eminent domain power at the instance of a middleman amounts to a malafide exercise of power by the state government -- Impugned notifications issued u/s 6(1) of the L.A. Act are bad in law, the same are liable to be quashed.

 (Para 36, 37)

D. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6 – Acquisition of lands – Challenge to – Sale of land during the pendency of proceedings -- Transactions of the sales made during the pendency of the proceedings are wholly illegal and void ab initio in law and therefore the same cannot be allowed to sustain in law.

(Para 44)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6, 11, 31 -- Acquisition of land – Payment of compensation – Vesting in Government -- Collector must be armed with the amount of compensation payable to persons interested as soon as the award is made -- Award is only an offer which may be accepted or rejected by the claimants -- If accepted, whether under protest or otherwise, it is the duty of the Collector to make payment as soon as possible after making the award -- It is only in a situation where the persons interested refuse consent to receive monies payable, or there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to title to receive compensation or its apportionment, then the Collector has to deposit the amount of compensation in the reference court – Then only Collector may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances.

(Para 10)

B. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013), Section 24(2) --  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6, 11, 31 -- Lapse of acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act -- Section 24(2) gets attracted if the acquisition proceeding is not completed within five years after pronouncement of the award -- This may happen either because physical possession of the land has not been taken or because compensation has not been paid, within the said period of five years.

(Para 14)

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 11, 11-A, 12, 31 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013), Section 24(2) -- Acquisition of land – Award  for compensation -- Deposit in treasury – Deemed to be lapsed -- Lapse of proceedings – Deposit in the treasury is referable only to Section 31(1) and cannot ever be a substitute for deposit before the reference court as provided under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act – L.A.C. did nothing whatsoever to offer the said sum or pay it to the original owners – The expression used in Section 24(2), namely, “deemed to have lapsed” is of great significance and differs from the use of the expression “lapsed” in Section 11A – Court have to give effect to the deeming fiction contained in Section 24(2).

(Para 19-27)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 23 – Acquisition of land – Agreed compensation to landowner – Right to challenge --Agreed compensation amount is accepted without protest with a clear stipulation not to claim any additional amount -- In such circumstances agreed amount has to be treated as a just compensation permitting no addition or substitution whatsoever -- Not only the remedy under the Act of seeking enhancement is lost but the substantive cause of action also vanishes.

 (Para 11)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6,11 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013), Section 24(2) – Acquisition of land – Sale of land by owner thereafter – Lapse of proceedings – Right of -- Previous owners having relinquished their right in favour of the State, in all probabilities must have received the compensation -- Subsequent sale deeds are nothing but null and void transactions which cannot transfer any title in the land/property as the vendors did not possess any such title -- Since the vendors were never the owners of the land, the petitioners cannot claim benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

(Para 5-7)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6, 11 –  Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013),Section 24(2) – Acquisition of land under 1894 Act – Lapse of acquisition proceedings -- Where an Award u/s 11 of the 1894 Act has been passed and in case compensation has not been paid to the land owner or deposited before the Court in terms of the requirements under the 1894 Act, the acquisition proceedings get lapsed, as if there is no acquisition.

(Para 5)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6, 11 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013), Section 24(2) –Acquisition of land for green belt under 1894 Act – Lapse of acquisition proceedings -- Non-payment of award amount -- Stand of HUDA that amount was ready and it is for the land owner to come and receive the payment is not permissible under the law – Held, it is for the authorities concerned to pay the money and take the land and in case there is any dispute as to whom the money should be paid, then the same has to be deposited in Court -- No compensation has been paid to the appellants in terms of the Award passed in the year 2005 -- Proceedings for acquisition of land and Award referred to above stand set aside as having been lapsed – Authorities are at liberty to proceed under 2013 Act.

(Para 6-10)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6, 11 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013), Section 24 -- Acquisition of land under 1894 Act – Non-passing of award – Effect of 2013 Act -- Where the land acquisition proceedings had already been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award was passed till the date the new Act came into force, the acquisition proceedings could continue; but the compensation will have to be determined under the scheme of 2013 Act.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6, 11 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013), Section 24 -- Acquisition of land under 1894 Act – Non-payment of compensation – Effect of 2013 Act -- Where the Award has been passed but neither the owner has been dispossessed nor has he been paid the compensation, there is a statutory lapse of the proceedings.

(Para 6)

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6, 11 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013), Section 24 -- Acquisition of land under 1894 Act – Effect of 2013 Act -- Where award under the 1894 Act had already been passed prior to coming into force of the 2013 Act, but payment is yet to be made and possession is yet to be taken -- In that case, the further proceedings after the award could continue under the old Act of 1894; but if either payment or possession has not taken effect in five years prior to the 2013 Act, then proceedings will lapse.

(Para 6)

D. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6, 11 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013), Section 24 -- Acquisition of land under 1894 Act – Non-payment of compensation -- Effect of 2013 Act – Stand of the Authority that it had deposited 80% of the compensation with the land acquisition officers and hence it was for the owner to collect the money, cannot be appreciated -- That is a matter between the Requisitioning Authority and the Acquisitioning Authority -- There is no question of ‘come and get' the compensation while compulsorily acquiring the land; the approach required under law is ‘go and give' – Since no award has been passed and the land value has not been given to the owner -- Appellant and the Acquisitioning Authority are directed to complete the acquisition proceedings by passing an award under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

(Para 8)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 4 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6 -- Acquisition of shamlat deh -- Shamlat deh vest in Gram Panchayat -- Individual proprietors or residents of the village have no claim qua such land except that the same is required to be used for common purposes -- In the event of its acquisition, it is the Gram Panchayat who alone is entitled to seek compensation -- Petitioners have no vested right to seek benefit under the rehabilitation policy merely on the ground of raising construction on shamlat land.

(Para 9)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,5-A,6 – Acquisition of land – Objections – Report of Collector – Consideration of -- Government has to consider the report of the L.A.C. while making declaration of acquisition of land u/s 6 of the Act -- If the government is coming to a conclusion which is contrary to the report, then the government has to provide appropriate reason for the same -- Declaration made by the Government for acquisition of land of the appellant u/s 6 of the Act does not provide any reason for arriving at a decision contrary to that of the report produced by the L.A.C. -- Therefore, the basic protection to which the landowners are entitled to under the Act through Section 5A is violated -- Consequently, the process of acquisition of the land of the appellant is tainted with mala-fide and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

(Para 10, 11)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 23(1-A) – Acquisition of land -- Market price – Relevant date - Relevant date for determination of market price of the land was same when notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued -- Relying upon two allotment letters were of subsequent dates which were issued more than 17 months after the date of issuance of Section 4 notification was totally misplaced.

(Para 8)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 23(1-A) – Acquisition of land -- Market price – 12% per annum increase can be applied on the value of land determined as Rs.520/- per square yard in the year 1993, upto the year 2001 when the Notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued – There was a period when instead of increase in the land price, there was attrition in the land rates -- Value enhanced by applying the formula of 12% per annum increase for a period of 4 years, instead of taking entire period 1993 and 2001 (and this would not be treated as a precedent) -- Valuation of the land in the year 2001 shall come to Rs.770/- per square yard -- After making a deduction of one-third therefrom the net valuation comes to Rs.514/- per square yard -- Compensation @ Rs.514/- per square yard is fixed for the acquired land of the appellants.

(Para 10,11)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 18, 30 -- Award by Collector – Dispute regarding apportionment of -- Reference u/s 18 of the Act – Limitation to start from – Right to receive compensation under the Award would crystallize after apportionment is made in favour of a claimant -- It is only thereafter that a reference u/s 18 for enhanced compensation can be legitimately sought by the claimant in whose favour the order of apportionment is passed either by the Court in the reference u/s 30 or in the civil suit, as may be.

(Para 9-14)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 6, 48 -- Acquisition of land – De-notification of – Challenge to – Sale of land – Right of purchaser -- It is not permissible to argue that merely because there was no interim order in the appeal, petitioners had a right to purchase the land during the pendency of the litigation and would not be bound by the order of this Court quashing the de-notification of acquisition proceedings.

(Para 5)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 -- Doctrine of lis pendens -- Doctrine of lis pendens is based on legal maxim ‘ut lite pendente nihil innovetur’ (During a litigation nothing new should be introduced) – Principle of ‘lis pendens’ is in accordance with the equity, good conscience or justice because they rest upon an equitable and just foundation that it will be impossible to bring an action or suit to a successful termination if alienations are permitted to prevail -- A transferee pendente lite is bound by the decree just as much as he was a party to the suit -- A litigating party is exempted from taking notice of a title acquired during the pendency of the litigation -- Mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject matter of the suit -- Law simply postulates a condition that the alienation will, in no manner, affect the rights of the other party under any decree which may be passed in the suit unless the property was alienated with the permission of the Court -- Transferee cannot deprive the successful plaintiff of the fruits of the decree if he purchased the property pendente lite.

(Para 6)

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4 -- Notification u/s 4 issued – Sale of property – Right of purchaser -- A person who purchases land subsequent to the issuance of notification u/s 4, is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor’s title.

(Para 11)

D. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 6,16,17,48 – Acquisition of land -- Release of land -- Possession of the suit land had been taken -- In such a fact-situation, question of de-notifying the acquisition of land could not arise -- Upon possession being taken u/s 16 or 17 of the Act 1894, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances -- In case possession of the land has been taken, application for release of land from acquisition is not maintainable -- Once the land is vested in the State free from encumbrances, it cannot be divested.

(Para 13)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 51-A – Registered sale deed -- Authenticity of the registered dale deeds had not been questioned -- Reference Court and the High Court could not have ignored the provisions of Section 51-A and discarded majority of the sale deeds.

(Para 21)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 23 – Market value of acquired land – Sale deed -- Sale deeds executed after the issue of notification u/s 4 cannot be relied upon for determination of the amount of compensation.

(Para 22)

C. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4, 23 – Market value of acquired land – Neither pleaded nor any evidence before the Reference Court to prove that the sale transactions were not genuine or that the vendor and vendee had colluded to inflate value of the land with oblique motive – It is also not the case of the respondents that the lands specified in other exhibits was sold with ulterior motive to get higher compensation in the subsequent acquisitions – Sale transactions can safely be rely upon for determining the amount of compensation.

(Para 25)

D. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 23 – Market value of acquired land – Three-tier deduction -- In the first place, 25% was deducted in the name of leaving out portions of the acquired land for the purpose of laying roads, drains, sewer line, parks, electricity line etc. -- Thereafter, 25% deduction was made towards expenses for development work -- Finally, 50% deduction was made because of smallness of the plots sold relied upon – Held, 25% deduction under two different heads is legally unsustainable – Deduction of 50% approved.

(Para 26-30)

E. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 23 – Market value of acquired land – If one set of sale deeds are relied upon and 50% deduction is made on account of smallness of the land sold, the amount of compensation would come to Rs.8.93 per sq. ft. -- If other set of sale deeds are taken into consideration and 50% deduction is made due to smallness of the plots, the appellants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.4.04 per sq. ft. – First mode adopted and appellants were held entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.8.93 per sq. ft.

(Para 31, 32)

A. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6, 23 -- Purchase of land – Acquisition of land – Market value of land -- Consideration paid by the owner only a few months ago presents bonafide evidence of value subject to certain exceptions such as relationship of the parties, market conditions and terms of sale and the date of sale -- In case a purchaser has not shown the exact amount of consideration paid by him in the sale deed to save the stamp duty under the Registration Act, 1908, such dishonest vendee is not required to be protected by the court.

(Para 13,14)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), Section 4,6, 23 -- Purchase of land – Acquisition of land – Market value of land -- A cumulative increase of 10 to 15 per cent per year in the market value of the land may be accepted unless the State agencies or acquiring authority prove otherwise.

(Para 15)