Back
2002(8) Supreme 40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
Kasturi & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7139 of 2001
With
C.A.Nos. 7140, 7143, 7142, 7141, 7171, 7145-67, 7144, 7168, 8206/2001,
SLP (C) Nos. 17711/2001, 2107-08, 2111-2112, 2113-2114/2002 and
C.A.Nos. 5777, 5610/2002 and
SLP (C) Nos. 17717, 13563, 21250/2001 and 2109-2110 of 2002
Decided on 12-11-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Anoop G. Chaudhary, S.B. Sanyal, Mahendra Anand, Sr. Advocates, K.K. Mohan, Prem Malhotra, B.S. Mor, S.M. Hooda, Advocate for M.S. Dahiya, Jagat Singh, Tarkeshwar Nath, Advocate for K.K. Rai, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Advocate (NP), Aditya Kr. Chaudhary, Neeraj Kr. Jain, Ms. Hema Sahu, Advocate for J.P. Dhanda, Advocate/Advocates.
Held : There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3 and in some cases less than 1/3. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose. (Para 7)
Held also : Small plots cannot form basis for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (Para 8)
Held : On facts and in the light of the legal position emerging from the various decisions referred to above, it is not possible for us to say that cut of 20% adopted by the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment is wrong or unsustainable. It appears to us having regard to facts and circumstances of the case that the High Court has applied cut of 20% as against the normal 1/3 deduction. We find that the High Court was right and justified in doing so. (Para 14)
Held consequently: May be the acquired land with potentiality for construction of residential and commercial buildings had some advantages, which aspect is taken note of by the High Court in giving cut of only 20% as against 1/3 normal deduction. (Para 16)
(ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Market value of acquired land-High Court reducing it by cut off of 20% as determined by reference court-Land acquired by State for HUDA-HUDA alleged to have charged higher price for alloting acquired lands-Refund was asked from appellants from paid higher compensation-Whether it amounts to unjust enrichment of HUDA? (No)-Result-Appeal dismissed.
Held : We do not find any force in the contention that the HUDA has made unjust enrichment by collecting more money from the allottees after the compensation amount was enhanced by the District Judge and that neither the State nor the HUDA will be put to any loss as they have collected money from the allottees. It is not the case where collection of any tax is involved to bring in the theory of unjust enrichment. Be that as it may, we are not concerned in these cases as to what happened between the HUDA and the allottees. The question for consideration is as to the determination of amount of compensation for the acquired land. Once the proper amount of compensation is finally determined, the land owners will be entitled only to that amount. Having regard to all these aspects, we find no merit in these appeals. Hence, the appeals as well as the special leave petitions are dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. (Paras 18 and 19)
JUDGMENT
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-Since common question of law arises for consideration on similar facts, these appeals and special leave petitions are disposed of by this judgment.
2. A large area of 84.23 acres of land was acquired by the State of Haryana for development of residential and commercial area of Sector 13 and 23 in Bhiwani. A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) was issued on 4th June, 1986 under Section 6, declaration was made on 15.4.1987 and two awards were passed covering the entire area on 10.11.1987 and 31.3.1988 awarding a sum of Rs. 57,500/- per acre and Rs. 55,200/- per acre respectively. The claimants, not being satisfied with the award-amount, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. In all, 151 references were made, the learned District Judge disposed of all these references by awarding uniform rate of compensation @ Rs. 125/- per square yard as against Rs. 11.81 paise per square yard awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. In all, 251 Regular First Appeals were filed in the High Court by the claimants as well as the State of Haryana against the judgment of the Reference Court. In the said appeals, claimants prayed for enhancement of compensation to Rs.500/- per square yard while the State sought for reduction of the compensation amount to Rs.11.81 per square yard as awarded by the Collector. The learned Single Judge, having reviewed and re-appreciated the entire evidence, keeping in view the contention of the parties, for the reasons stated in the judgment, reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.79.98 per square yard. In doing so, the learned Single Judge applied cut of 20% towards development charges. In the result, the learned Single Judge partly allowed the appeals filed by the State and dismissed the appeals filed by the claimants. The claimants, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, filed Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals, affirming the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, these appeals are filed by the claimants.
3. Learned counsel representing the appellants strongly contended that applying cut of 20% on the rate of compensation arrived at on the basis of the sale instances is neither justified nor tenable; the High Court was not right in reducing the rate of compensation from Rs.125/- per square yard to Rs.79.98 per square yard; the HUDA in pursuance of the award of the District Judge raised the rate of allotment of the land to Rs. 536/- per square yard as a result of which total rate of allotment of land worked out to more than Rs.1100/- per square yard, and as such there was no loss to the State or the HUDA so as to ask the appellant to pay back 20% of the amount of compensation already received; according to the learned counsel, if refund is to be made by the appellants, it amounts to unjust enrichment for the HUDA which has already received more money by way of increase in the rate of land from the allottees. The learned counsel finally submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appellants have to make refund now, of the 20% of the compensation amount already received by them, it would result in great hardship to them.
4. Opposing the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent-State argued supporting and justifying the impugned judgment, stating that the learned Single Judge of the High Court did consider the entire material placed before him objectively and has applied 20% cut on the rate of compensation determined following the principles stated by this Court in that regard. He submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is based on the finding of facts, which the Division Bench of the High Court has affirmed and as such the impugned order does not call for
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
