Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana &amp; Others
by the State were concerned, the case of the State in the appeals was that the Reference Court erred in determining the market rate of the land at the rate of Rs.43,17,841/- per acre. According to the State, it was on higher side as compared to what was fixed by the LAO, i.e., Rs.12,50,000/- per acre which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was just, proper and adequate with no scope of any further enhancement therein.14. By impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the appeals filed by the landowners and as a consequence thereof dismissed the appeals filed by the State. The High Court while partly allowing the landowners appeals further enhanced the rate of acquired land from Rs.43,17,841/- per acre to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.15. In other words, in the opinion of the High Court, the fair market rate of acquired land should be at Rs.62,11,700/- per acre and, therefore, the compensation be paid to each landowner for their acquired lands, at the rate of Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.16. Against this judgment of the High Court, the landowners as well as the State both felt aggrieved and filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.17. So far as the appeals filed by the landowners are concerned, their common case in their appeals is that the High Court was right in enhancing the rate of acquired land but was not right in confining it to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. According to them, the rate of acquired land should have been much more than what was determined by the High Court, i.e., Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.18. So far as the appeals filed by the State are concerned, the case of the State was that the High Court erred in further enhancing the rate of acquired land to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. According to the State, there was no case made out for any further enhancement in the rate of the acquired land and on the other hand, the appeals filed by the State deserved to be allowed by the High Court by reducing the rate of acquired land fixed by the Reference Court and restoring the rate fixed by the LAO that being the fair market rate of the land rightly fixed by the LAO, i.e., Rs.12,50,000/- per acre.19. It is essentially with this factual background, the entire controversy on the question of re-determination of the rate of acquired land payable to the landowners is made the subject-matter of these appeals at the instance of the landowners and the State.20. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in this bunch of appeals, is whether the High Court was right in partly allowing the landowners appeals and thereby was justified in further enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs.43,17,841/- per acre to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. In other words, the question is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the States appeals and thereby was justified in not reducing the rate of acquired land fixed by the Reference Court and restoring the rate (Rs.12,50,000/- per acre) fixed by LAO.21. To put it in yet another words, what is the fair market value of the acquired land in question -(1) Rs.12,50,000/- per acre as fixed by the LAO; or(2) Rs.43,17,841/- per acre as fixed by the Reference Court; or(3) Rs.62,11,700/- per acre as fixed by the High Court or lastly any other rate between Rs.12,50,000/- per acre and Rs.62,11,700/- per acre or more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre prevailing on the date of acquisition i.e. 11.01.2005 and 17.11.2005.22. Heard learned counsel for the parties.23. As mentioned above, the submission of learned counsel for the different landowners in support of their respective appeals was more or less common. According to them, there is overwhelming evidence adduced by the landowners to prove the potentiality of the land on the date of acquisition (11.01.2005 and 17.11.2005) which, in fact, found acceptance to the High Court while enhancing the rate of acquired land.24. It was urged that having regard to the situation, proximity and the surroundings of the acquired area which was already developed much prior to the date of the acquisition coupled with the fact that at least one sale deed out of the four exemplar sale deeds filed by the landowners (Exs-P1, P-10, P-12, P-13 and P-14) to prove the real market value of the acquired land as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act should have been made basis by the High Court for fixing the rate of acquired land and had it been done then the rate of acquired land would have been more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.25. All the learned counsel for the landowners then took us through the evidence with a view to show the potentiality in the acquired land, its situation, location, proximity with the well developed areas and its surrounding places and on that basis urged that a case for further enhancement in the rate of the acquired land, i.e., more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre is made out and, therefore, this Court should allow the appeals filed by the landowners and suitably enhance the rate of acquired land for determining the compensation payable to each landowner.26. In reply, learned counsel for the State of Haryana contended that the High Court erred in allowing the landowners appeals and further erred in dismissing the States appeals.27. According to learned counsel, the landowners appeals were liable to be dismissed whereas the States appeals deserved to be allowed by the High Court by setting aside the award of the Reference Court.28. His submission was that the High Court cursorily disposed of the appeals without deciding any issue though involved in the appeals thereby causing prejudice to the rights of the State in particular.29. Learned counsel then took us through the findings of the High Court and the issues raised by the State for proper determination of the rates of the acquired land and on that basis pointed out the prejudice caused due to casual approach of the High Court in deciding the appeals.
1[ds]31. The need to remand these cases to the Reference Court has occasioned essentially for two reasons. First, it is clear from the perusal of the impugned judgment that the High Court essentially based its decision or, we may say, proceeded to decide the appeals by making the decision of this Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs Pran Sukh & Others [2010 (11) SCC 175  ] to be the basis to examine the question as to whether the rate of acquired land fixed by the LAO and Reference Court is fair or not.In our considered opinion, the approach of the High Court in the facts of these cases does not appear to be right inasmuch as the High Court failed to take into consideration several material issues which arose in these cases and had bearing on determination of the fair market rate of the land in question under Section 23 of the Act.35. First, the acquired land, in these cases, was a huge chunk of land measuring around 520 acres, 2 kanals and 13.5.marlas. Second, the entire acquired land was not situated in village Kasan but it was spread over in 15 villages as detailed above. Third, there is no evidence to show much less any finding of the High Court as to what was the actual distance among the villages against one another, the location, situation/area of each village, whether any development had taken place and, if so, its type, nature and when it took place in any of these villages, the potentiality and the quality of the acquired land situated in each village, its nature and the basis, the market rate of the land situated in each village prior to the date of acquisition or in its near proximity, whether small piece of land or preferably big chunk of land, the actual distance of each village qua any other nearby big developed city, town or a place, whether any activity is being carried on in the nearby areas, their details. Fourth, whether the acquired land in the case of Pran Sukh (supra) in village Kasan and the acquired land in question are similar in nature or different and, if so, how and on what basis, their total distance etc.36. These were, in our view, the issues which had material bearing while determining the rate of the acquired land in question.37. The High Court, in the absence of any evidence on any of these issues, could not have determined one flat market rate of the acquired land in question by applying one isolated rate of one land situated in one village Kasan and adding 8% annual increase from 1994 in such rate and made it applicable to the entire lands situated in 15 different villages.38. In our opinion, it is only when the evidence had been adduced by the parties to the lis on the aforementioned issues, the Court would have been in a position to apply its mind objectively as to which method should be applied for determination of the rate, i.e., whether belting system or flat rate system or different rates for different lands depending upon the quality of land situated in different villages etc.39. The fair market value of the acquired land cannot be decided in isolation on the basis of only one factor. There are several other factors, which govern the determination of the rate. These factors need to be proved with sufficient evidence. It must appear that the Courts have made sincere endeavor to determine the fair market rate of the acquired land and while determining has taken into account all relevant aspects of the case. It is the duty of the landowners and the State to adduce proper and sufficient evidence to enable the Courts to arrive at a reasonable and fair market rate of the acquired land prevalent on the date of acquisition.40. Taking into consideration the aforesaid infirmities, which we have noticed, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial in these cases has not been satisfactory. We cannot countenance the cursory manner in which both the Courts below proceeded to determine the market rate of the acquired land. It has certainly caused prejudice to both the parties.41. We do not blame any party for prosecuting their case in wholly unsatisfactory manner but the fact remains that both the parties failed to adduce sufficient evidence on several material issues, as a result, both the Courts below did not record any finding on any of the material issues arising in the case.42. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find it difficult at this stage to determine the fair market rate of the acquired land for want of sufficient evidence. If we do, it will cause prejudice to the parties. We, therefore, refrain from doing so.
### Instruction:
Estimate the outcome of the case (positive (1) or negative (0) for the appellant) and then give a reasoned explanation by examining important sentences within the case documentation.

### Input:
by the State were concerned, the case of the State in the appeals was that the Reference Court erred in determining the market rate of the land at the rate of Rs.43,17,841/- per acre. According to the State, it was on higher side as compared to what was fixed by the LAO, i.e., Rs.12,50,000/- per acre which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was just, proper and adequate with no scope of any further enhancement therein.14. By impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the appeals filed by the landowners and as a consequence thereof dismissed the appeals filed by the State. The High Court while partly allowing the landowners appeals further enhanced the rate of acquired land from Rs.43,17,841/- per acre to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.15. In other words, in the opinion of the High Court, the fair market rate of acquired land should be at Rs.62,11,700/- per acre and, therefore, the compensation be paid to each landowner for their acquired lands, at the rate of Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.16. Against this judgment of the High Court, the landowners as well as the State both felt aggrieved and filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.17. So far as the appeals filed by the landowners are concerned, their common case in their appeals is that the High Court was right in enhancing the rate of acquired land but was not right in confining it to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. According to them, the rate of acquired land should have been much more than what was determined by the High Court, i.e., Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.18. So far as the appeals filed by the State are concerned, the case of the State was that the High Court erred in further enhancing the rate of acquired land to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. According to the State, there was no case made out for any further enhancement in the rate of the acquired land and on the other hand, the appeals filed by the State deserved to be allowed by the High Court by reducing the rate of acquired land fixed by the Reference Court and restoring the rate fixed by the LAO that being the fair market rate of the land rightly fixed by the LAO, i.e., Rs.12,50,000/- per acre.19. It is essentially with this factual background, the entire controversy on the question of re-determination of the rate of acquired land payable to the landowners is made the subject-matter of these appeals at the instance of the landowners and the State.20. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in this bunch of appeals, is whether the High Court was right in partly allowing the landowners appeals and thereby was justified in further enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs.43,17,841/- per acre to Rs.62,11,700/- per acre. In other words, the question is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the States appeals and thereby was justified in not reducing the rate of acquired land fixed by the Reference Court and restoring the rate (Rs.12,50,000/- per acre) fixed by LAO.21. To put it in yet another words, what is the fair market value of the acquired land in question -(1) Rs.12,50,000/- per acre as fixed by the LAO; or(2) Rs.43,17,841/- per acre as fixed by the Reference Court; or(3) Rs.62,11,700/- per acre as fixed by the High Court or lastly any other rate between Rs.12,50,000/- per acre and Rs.62,11,700/- per acre or more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre prevailing on the date of acquisition i.e. 11.01.2005 and 17.11.2005.22. Heard learned counsel for the parties.23. As mentioned above, the submission of learned counsel for the different landowners in support of their respective appeals was more or less common. According to them, there is overwhelming evidence adduced by the landowners to prove the potentiality of the land on the date of acquisition (11.01.2005 and 17.11.2005) which, in fact, found acceptance to the High Court while enhancing the rate of acquired land.24. It was urged that having regard to the situation, proximity and the surroundings of the acquired area which was already developed much prior to the date of the acquisition coupled with the fact that at least one sale deed out of the four exemplar sale deeds filed by the landowners (Exs-P1, P-10, P-12, P-13 and P-14) to prove the real market value of the acquired land as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act should have been made basis by the High Court for fixing the rate of acquired land and had it been done then the rate of acquired land would have been more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre.25. All the learned counsel for the landowners then took us through the evidence with a view to show the potentiality in the acquired land, its situation, location, proximity with the well developed areas and its surrounding places and on that basis urged that a case for further enhancement in the rate of the acquired land, i.e., more than Rs.62,11,700/- per acre is made out and, therefore, this Court should allow the appeals filed by the landowners and suitably enhance the rate of acquired land for determining the compensation payable to each landowner.26. In reply, learned counsel for the State of Haryana contended that the High Court erred in allowing the landowners appeals and further erred in dismissing the States appeals.27. According to learned counsel, the landowners appeals were liable to be dismissed whereas the States appeals deserved to be allowed by the High Court by setting aside the award of the Reference Court.28. His submission was that the High Court cursorily disposed of the appeals without deciding any issue though involved in the appeals thereby causing prejudice to the rights of the State in particular.29. Learned counsel then took us through the findings of the High Court and the issues raised by the State for proper determination of the rates of the acquired land and on that basis pointed out the prejudice caused due to casual approach of the High Court in deciding the appeals.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
31. The need to remand these cases to the Reference Court has occasioned essentially for two reasons. First, it is clear from the perusal of the impugned judgment that the High Court essentially based its decision or, we may say, proceeded to decide the appeals by making the decision of this Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation vs Pran Sukh & Others [2010 (11) SCC 175  ] to be the basis to examine the question as to whether the rate of acquired land fixed by the LAO and Reference Court is fair or not.In our considered opinion, the approach of the High Court in the facts of these cases does not appear to be right inasmuch as the High Court failed to take into consideration several material issues which arose in these cases and had bearing on determination of the fair market rate of the land in question under Section 23 of the Act.35. First, the acquired land, in these cases, was a huge chunk of land measuring around 520 acres, 2 kanals and 13.5.marlas. Second, the entire acquired land was not situated in village Kasan but it was spread over in 15 villages as detailed above. Third, there is no evidence to show much less any finding of the High Court as to what was the actual distance among the villages against one another, the location, situation/area of each village, whether any development had taken place and, if so, its type, nature and when it took place in any of these villages, the potentiality and the quality of the acquired land situated in each village, its nature and the basis, the market rate of the land situated in each village prior to the date of acquisition or in its near proximity, whether small piece of land or preferably big chunk of land, the actual distance of each village qua any other nearby big developed city, town or a place, whether any activity is being carried on in the nearby areas, their details. Fourth, whether the acquired land in the case of Pran Sukh (supra) in village Kasan and the acquired land in question are similar in nature or different and, if so, how and on what basis, their total distance etc.36. These were, in our view, the issues which had material bearing while determining the rate of the acquired land in question.37. The High Court, in the absence of any evidence on any of these issues, could not have determined one flat market rate of the acquired land in question by applying one isolated rate of one land situated in one village Kasan and adding 8% annual increase from 1994 in such rate and made it applicable to the entire lands situated in 15 different villages.38. In our opinion, it is only when the evidence had been adduced by the parties to the lis on the aforementioned issues, the Court would have been in a position to apply its mind objectively as to which method should be applied for determination of the rate, i.e., whether belting system or flat rate system or different rates for different lands depending upon the quality of land situated in different villages etc.39. The fair market value of the acquired land cannot be decided in isolation on the basis of only one factor. There are several other factors, which govern the determination of the rate. These factors need to be proved with sufficient evidence. It must appear that the Courts have made sincere endeavor to determine the fair market rate of the acquired land and while determining has taken into account all relevant aspects of the case. It is the duty of the landowners and the State to adduce proper and sufficient evidence to enable the Courts to arrive at a reasonable and fair market rate of the acquired land prevalent on the date of acquisition.40. Taking into consideration the aforesaid infirmities, which we have noticed, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial in these cases has not been satisfactory. We cannot countenance the cursory manner in which both the Courts below proceeded to determine the market rate of the acquired land. It has certainly caused prejudice to both the parties.41. We do not blame any party for prosecuting their case in wholly unsatisfactory manner but the fact remains that both the parties failed to adduce sufficient evidence on several material issues, as a result, both the Courts below did not record any finding on any of the material issues arising in the case.42. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find it difficult at this stage to determine the fair market rate of the acquired land for want of sufficient evidence. If we do, it will cause prejudice to the parties. We, therefore, refrain from doing so.
