Back
2003(7) Supreme 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.N. Variava and H.K. Sema, JJ.
Bhim Singh & Ors. etc. etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Haryana & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8609-8613 of 2001
With
C.A.Nos. 8614-8641/2001, C.A.Nos. 8657-8680/2001, C.A.Nos. 8642-8652/2001, C.A.No. 8682/2001, C.A.No. 8655/2001, C.A.No. 8653/2001, C.A.No. 8656/2001, C.A.Nos. 8693-8725/2001, C.A.Nos. 8726-8735/2001, C.A.No. 8685/2001, C.A.No. 8686/2001, C.A.No. 8688/2001, C.A.No. 8687/2001, C.A.No. 8691/2001, C.A.No. C.A.No. 1388/2002, C.A.Nos. 2777-2779/2002, C.A.Nos. 4298-4299/2002, C.A.Nos. 8032-8036/2003 @ SLP (C) Nos. 14627-14631/2002, C.A.No. 8037/2003 @ SLP (C) Nos. 12988/2002, C.A.No. 621/2003, C.A.No. 8038/2003 @ SLP (C) No. 2909/2003, C.A.Nos. 8048-8057/2003 @ SLP (C) Nos. 6543-6552/2003, C.A.No. 3712/2003, C.A.No. 3712/2003. C.A.No. 4061/2003 & C.A.Nos. 8040-8047/2003 @ SLP (C) Nos.
3436-3443/2003
Decided on 24-9-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : A.K. Ganguli, S.B. Sanyal, P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocates, Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Abhishek Maratha, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, R.C. Kohli, Rao Ranjit, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Mayur R. Shah, Shanker Divate, Rajesh Mittra, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Ms. Kavita Wadia and Vinay Kumar Garg, Advocates.
Held : When compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in earlier proceedings and when in one such proceeding this Court has already approved the rate fixed then in our view the best method would be to look at the earlier Judgments and Awards. Therefore the High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier Judgments. (Para 6)
Undoubtedly the land now acquired is adjacent to the land acquired under the earlier Notification. However in that case some of the lands were abutting the National Highway. Thus lands abutting the National Highway were given the rate of Rs. 213 per square yards. Adopting a belting system lands away from the Highway, depending upon the distance from the Highway, were fixed at Rs. 160 and Rs. 106. We have seen the location of the lands now acquired. They abut the land which was granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 106. Thus if averaging was not to be done and the earlier rate was to be adopted then the figure of Rs. 106 would have had to be taken. Instead the High Court has adopted a more favourable method for the claimants and by taking a mean adopted the figure of Rs. 160. The claimants can hardly be aggrieved by this method. If it all it is the State who could have complained. (Para 7)
JUDGMENT
Variava, J.-Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.
All these Appeals can be disposed of by this common order as all these Appeals challenge Judgments passed by the High Court in land acquisition proceedings arising out of the same Notification.
2. The facts are identical. Facts as taken from C.A.Nos. 8657-8680/2001 are as follows :
The State of Haryana has been acquiring large areas for development of Gurgaon. A number of acquisition proceedings have been initiated since 1983. We are concerned with acquisition proceedings arising out of a Section 4 Notification issued on 20th April 1990. The lands proposed to be acquired were as follows :
Village Area (in acres)
Jharsa 475.51
Kanhai 579.81
Binderpur 43.81
Shamashpur 49.78
Section 6 Notification was issued on 18th April, 1991. The Award was passed on 23rd March 1993. A number of claimants were dissatisfied with the amounts awarded and preferred References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In all 152 References were filed. In all the References more or less, common evidence was led and common questions of law were argued. All these References were answered by the District Judge/Additional District Judge, Gurgaon by 31 Judgments. In the Judgments with which we are concerned, irrespective of the nature of the land, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 265 per square yard i.e. at the rate of Rs. 12,82,600 per acre.
3. Against these Judgments 281 First Appeals were filed. The State of Haryana challenged the Judgments on the ground that the compensation awarded was excessive. The claimants prayed for further enhancements. These Appeals were disposed of by various Judgments. In these Appeals the High Court noted that the Reference Court had relief upon earlier Judgments in respect of earlier acquisitions for the same purpose. The High Court noted that in arriving at the compensation payable the Reference Court had relied upon Judgments in the cases of M/s. Standard Rubbers versus State of Haryana and Smt. Gunga Devi versus State of Haryana. The High Court noted that the compensation awarded in these cases had been reduced in Appeals and by adopting a belting system, (in relation to lands located in Jharsa) compensation, at the rate of Rs. 213, Rs. 160 and Rs. 106 was awarded. The High Court noted that in the present acquisition the lands were not abutting any National or main State highway. The High Court thus rightly concluded that the belting system could not be applied in this case. The High Court then took a mean of the above-mentioned three figures to arrive at a figure of Rs. 160. The High Court noted that these figures were in respect of an acquisition of the year 1987 whereas the present acquisition related to the year 1990. The High Court held that the claimants would therefore be entitled to increase. The High Court held that there had to be some deductions because acquisition was of a huge area and there would be development costs. The High Court held that the deductions should be a minimum deductions and applied a deduction of 20 percent, as against the usual deduction of 33 1/3 percent. On the above basis the High Court held, in Suraj Bhan s case, that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 212 per square yard i.e. Rs. 10, 26,080 per acre.
4. It must also be mentioned that in the other Judgments the High Court took note of Suraj Bhan s case and awarded Rs. 212 per square yard. In some of the Judgments the High Court has taken note of the fact that in respect of earlier acquisitions some matters had come to this Court and this Court had approved the rate fixed by the High Court in those matters. It was rightly held that when this Court had fixed rates in respect of earlier acquisitions for the same purpose it was better to adopt those rates with suitable increases then to rely upon sale instances.
5. All the Letters Patent Appeals have been dismissed by the impu
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
