IMPORTANT POINT
The amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian, J.

Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12495 of 2015

2. Around 46.93 acres of Land was acquired by the respondent-State of Haryana initiating the proceedings by Notification dated 19.09.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The purpose of acquisition is residential and commercial for Panchkula, Sector-21. The acquired property is in Village Fatehpur. In respect of the same development, we have seen that this court in many cases has based the fixation of the land value based on acquisition proceedings initiated in 1981 in Village Judian. Those properties in village Judian had access to State Highway and the value fixed by this Court is Rs. 250/- per square yard. In respect of properties situated in the adjoining village of the appellants namely, Devi Nagar, we have fixed land value at the rate of Rs. 250/- per square yard that was the acquisition initiated in the year 1987 and that property had extensive national highway frontage.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in all the adjoining villages for the properties acquired for the same purpose, this court having fixed the land value at Rs. 250/- per square yard and above, the appellants may also be granted the same value.

4. Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State of Haryana however points out that even according to the appellants, their claim was only Rs.125/- per square yard and in any case the land of the appellants does not have the same advantage when compared to other properties for which this court had fixed the land value at Rs.250/- per square yard and above.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants however points out that in the matter of fixation of just and fair compensation, the Court is not bound by claim made by the owner. It is for the Court, in the facts and circumstances of each case, to award just and fair compensation.

6. Prior to amendment Act 68 of 1984, the amount of compensation that could be awarded by the Court was limited to the amount claimed by the applicant. Section 25 read as under:-

“Section 25. Rules as to amount of compensation –

(1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.

(2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.

(3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector.”

The amended Section 25 reads as under:-

“Section 25. Amount of compensation awarded by Court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector-The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.”

The amendment has come into effect on 24.09.1984.

7. The pre-amended provision put a cap on the maximum; the compensation by court should not be beyond the amount claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, put a cap on the minimum; compensation cannot be less that what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner.

8. Although in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court in Sanjay Batham v. Munna Lal Parihar, (2010)