Suraj Bhan & ORS v. State Of Haryana & Orts
2
"
$%
'
(
$* $$
)%
$
+ ) $ $+ +
, ' -
' &
)( /
# (
$ % *
'++
)
(
$ $
(+ ) )$
0$ ) *
-
'
)(
(
$ +
% *
2+
$
-
!
$ $$ 3
*4
) *) 4+)
5)$++ )
*)
- + +
)%
)
5 $$
$
:;* '$8 -
<
$
3
$+$
8 =6 " In the instant case, there are multiple sale deeds of smaller plots, and these represent the best available evidence for estimating compensation. Since there is no legal impediment to considering such sale deeds, the logical progression in the compensation estimation process would be to identify the most suitable sale deed(s) for determining the market value and subsequently, to apply adequate deductions on the same. The solution to this state of flux may thus be found in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab,12 where this Court laid down as follows: "It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted.
When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition."
[Emphasis supplied] This view has been reiterated in Sh. Himmat Singh v. State of M.P.,13 where a threejudge bench of this Court consolidated various precedents to affirm that in circumstances where there are multiple sale deeds available for consideration, the Court shall rely on the highest valued exemplars unless the prices fall within a narrow range, in which case calculating an average of the values therein may be more congruous.
In these extenuating circumstances, there exists significant disparity among the sale exemplars presently under consideration. Amongst these sale exemplars, being Ex. P2P8 and Ex. P10, the highest sale instance values the land at Rupees 1,81,33,867 per acre, whereas the lowest values it at Rupees 16,94,000 per acre. Given this wide range and in light of the judicial precedents cited above, we are of the opinion that we should rely upon the highest sale exemplar, which
4 is Ex. P5, rather than solely depending upon an average of the multiple sale deeds produced before us.
Despite the Respondents' vehement contention that Ex. P5 should not be relied upon owing to it being a significantly smaller parcel of land the detailed analysis conducted above indicates no reason why Ex. P5 cannot be utilised to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to the Appellants for the acquired land."6 , $
)
* * $$
)( *
:
*)
$
-
* ) +% + * )
>
$$+ * $6! *)
*
)+ $
)$ )
+
*% *
)$ )
* $
)$%
, ! *)
8)% )
+% -
: *)
-
(
6 6
$ $ $
$$8)%
(
1 (
$
- $$
$
* *
5 )
$
+ + $$ *(
* *)
) *
$+ )
(
* $
) * ) $ =6
9 &##
)
33 .
3 6
6
.3 6
9 &.
6 33 3 6&
6
.3 6
&
6 33
6.
3 6&
6
.3 6
136 .1 .
1
6 33
6.
3 6&
6
.3 6
#
6 33
6.
3 6&
6
.3 6
1 11136 9# #.
6 3 6
9.
#&
6
6
3#
6
(
3
6
#&
(
6.6 3
'
$ *
6 6
$
$ $ $
$
6
) *
2
$
+
$ )
) +
) * + )% +
8$ :;* !$) - ! "# '
)
$ )
?
* $
% ( $ * +
bonafide
@
1
- $
( % $ )(+ )$
'
$
)+ $
)$ )
)
:
) % $
*
$8)% )$ )
5
)$ )
* % ) $ 8% $$
'
$ % $
$$8) () *
7
>
96
) + +
* $ $
+ +
$
*
:
+ $
(
96 $
%
* $$
)
2
() * )+ $
96
* $$
? $)
* $$ $
$$
+
'+%
*
)(
$ $+
96
)
* % *
+ * )
5
$$ 3
*4
$%
$$
! *% )
2
) % $
+
6+ $
* *+
%
* + 8)$
8 $$
)
*+ +
+ $
6 *4 % )% )
1
9+ $$
%
$
#
!
(
"# C $(+3 = D 3? C $*= D ? !
?
- ?
2'6#1. 6 >"E
2'6.
&6 1 >"E
2'6. 6 1 >"E
2'6.6 1 >"E
2'6.6 1 >"E
2'6. 6 1 >"E
2'6. 6 1 >"E
2'6.16 1 >"E
2'6.#6 1 >"E
F6>*461 6-56 1
2'6..6 1 >"E
2'6. 6 1 >"E
F6>G6##6-56 1 2'6.&6 1 >"E
F>G61 6-56 1
2'6. 6 1 >"E
2'6 1 6 >"E
1 2'6 1 6 >"E
# 2'6&16 >"E
.
2'6& 6 >"E
2'6&1& 6 >"E
& 2'6&1& 6 >"E
2'6&1&16 >"E
#
!
(
"#