SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 1124

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M. Lodha, CJI., Jasti Chelameswar, Arjan Kumar Sikri, JJ.
Ranjit Singh - Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 7657, 7680-7681, 7691, 8924, 7661, 7660, 7675, 7676, 7678, 7679, 7658-7659, 7684-7688, 7662, 7683, 7689, 7690, 7692, 7663 of 2012; 250-256 of 2013; Civil Appeal Nos. 7385, 7387, 7388 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22324 of 2013, 5405, 16788 of 2014; Civil Appeal No. 7386 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21298 of 2014 @ CC No. 12129 of 2013)
Decided On : 31-07-2014

Headnote:

Challenging judgment and decree - Permanent injunction and damages – Employment and services - A Decree of Permanent Injunction be issued to restrain Defendants jointly and severally their director partners distributors representatives servants and agents from passing off their business services and goods as and for that of Plaintiffs by use of word "BEKER" or any other word deceptively similar thereto as a trade make or as trading style – Held, Having considered notarizations which are duly sealed and Court are of view that High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that said documents do not authorize the filing of suits in question so render said suits not maintainable law - High Court itself its order has recorded that far as Power of Attorney Exhibit concerned the same does carry due certification and authentication from the Notary Public - Similarly High Court itself has that far Power of Attorney Exhibit concerned same does carry the seal of the Notary Public along with notarial certificate - On basis of findings recorded by the High Court itself eventual conclusions reached does not appear to be tenable - Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents has urged that High Court has framed question with regard to issue of dual capacity of a Power of Attorney Holder who was also counsel to file suit finding on said question of High Court is against the present Respondents submits that the said finding is patently unacceptable – Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

R.M. Lodha, J.

1. Delay in filing applications for substitution is condoned.

2. Applications for substitution are allowed.

3. Permission to file special leave petitions is granted.

4. Delay in filing the special leave petitions is condoned.

5. Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 22324 of 2013, 5405 of 2014, 16788 of 2014 and S.L.P.(C)@ CC No. 12129 of 2013.

6. In this group of appeals, the question for consideration is whether there is any scope for enhancement of compensation with regard to the subject lands.

7. The subject lands pertain to five different notifications published on 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982, 05.07.1982 and 10.02.1983 and are located in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 Part-I near Karnal bypass and so also Karnal Kunjpura Road.

8. Learned senior Counsel and learned Counsel appearing for many of the Appellants heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the group of matters, lead matter being Civil Appeal No. 2187 of 2013 arising from Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17615 of 2008, 'Subhash Subhash Chander and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.' given on 19.02.2013. They submitted that matter in Subhash Chander's case (supra) pertains to four notifications dated 04.06.1980 (Sector-6), 13.03.1981 (Sector-3), 22.06.1982 (Sector 9) and 05.07.1982 (Sectors-7 and 8). Most of the subject lands were acquired under the notifications which were under consideration in the matter of Subhash Chander (supra).

9. As regard notification dated 10.02.1983 (Sector 12, Part-I), learned Counsel submits that the subject land therein is within the municipal area and has a better potential than the land in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

10. In Subhash Chander's case (supra), this Court noted the judgment of the High Court to the following extent:

In absence of sufficient material of comparable rates, the market price can be determined by periodical increase formula approved by the Apex Court in the case of Sahaswan, District Badaun (supra). If the formula approved by the Apex Court in Sahaswan, District Badaun (supra) is to be applied with 1973 year as the base, the market value of the land in the year 1980 comes to Rs. 58.45/-, in the year 1981 comes to Rs. 66.21/- and in the year 1982 comes to Rs. 76.21/-. The land being big chunk, 1/3rd of the development purposes, for roads, parks and public utilities. Therefore, the rate per square yard comes to Rs. 39.17/- as on the date of notification dated 4.6.1980 and Rs. 44.37/- per square as on the date of notification dated 13.3.1981 and at Rs. 51.07/- per square yard as on the dates of notifications dated 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982. Accordingly, the market price of the land under different acquisition notifications is assessed at Rs. 39/- per square yard in respect to land acquired for Sector 6 (represented by notification dated 4.6.1980) and Rs. 44/- for Sector 3 (represented by the notification dated 22.6.1982 and 5.7.1982). These appeals are accordingly allowed with costs and Respondents are directed to calculate the compensation for the acquired land at the above rates. The Appellants are also entitled to solatium and interest as determined by the Reference Court on the amount determined herein.

11. As per Subhash Chander's decision, the market value of the land in the year 1980 was determined at Rs. 58.45 per square yard, year 1981 at Rs. 66.21 per square yard, and year 1982 at Rs. 76.21 per square yard.

12. In the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 22324 of 2013, learned Counsel for the Appellant placed before us a list of dates, which refers to a sale deed (Exhibit P-6) dated 09.04.1980 for sale of 15 bighas for Gurudwara on G.T. Karnal Road Bypass, at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per bigha, i.e., at the rate of Rs. 46.54 per square yard. The acquisition of land pursuant to the notification dated 04.06.1980 is in very close proximity with the sale deed dated 09.04.1980. If that is taken as a comparable exemplar for determination of market value for the land acquired u





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top