Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 287
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
RAMESHWAR DASS – Appellant(s)
Vs.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 3024 of 2019 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5513 of 2014) with Civil Appeal No. 3028 of 2019 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17144 of 2014); Civil Appeal No. 3026 of 2019 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8073 of 2014; Civil Appeal No. 3029 of 2019 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 29928 of 2014; Civil Appeal No. 3027 of 2019 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 8098 of 2014 and Civil Appeal No. 3025 of 2019 (Arising Out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6261 of 2014
Decided on : 14-03-2019
for the Appellant :Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate, Mr.Rounak Nayak, Advocate, Mr.Anshul Chowdhary, Advocate, Mr.Atul Agarwal, Advocate and Mr. O.P. Bhadani, Advocate
For the State :Ms. Uttara Babbar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation granted by High Court after taking all aspects into account cannot be interfered with.
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – Compensation – High Court taking into account all aspects and then working out rates of lands after giving appropriate deduction/escalation – Following rates of compensation for similarly situated lands in its earlier decision – No infirmity. (Para 17, 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
This appeal along with other connected appeals arises out of determination of the compensation made by the High Court in relation to the appellant's land that was acquired in land acquisition proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeals except Civil Appeal No. 3025 of 2019 dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 5513/2014
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No. 1943 of 1996.
3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts hereinbelow.
4. The appellant is a landowner of the land in question whereas the respondent is the State of Punjab. This appeal along with other connected appeals arises out of determination of the compensation made by the High Court in relation to the appellant's land that was acquired in land acquisition proceedings.
5. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the State (respondent herein) acquired the total land measuring around 14.49 acres on 29.03.1988 for execution of public purpose, namely, "construction of Satluz-Yamuna canal". It was followed by publication of declaration as required under Section 6 of the Act on 03.05.1988.
6. The acquired land (14.49 acres) is situated in 9 villages, namely, (1) Jandpur, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (2) Dharak Khurd, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (3) Pamour, Tahsil Sirhind, District Patiala; (4) Majat, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (5) Matran, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar; (6) Bhago Majra, Tahsil Kharar, District Roopnagar; (7) Siampur, Tahsil Kharar, District Roopnagar; (8) Mataur, Tahsil Mohali, District Kharar; and (9) Manak Majra, Tahsil Kharar, District Ropar. So far as theappellant's land is concerned, it is located in the village Bhago Majra
7. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) under Section 11 of the Act initiated the proceedings for determination of compensation payable to the landowners of the aforementioned 9 villages. So far as the village of Bhago Majra is concerned, by his award dated 21.08.1990, the LAO determined the compensation payable to the landowners in relation to claim of land as under:
S.No.
Class of land
Rate per acre awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer
1.
Chahi
Rs. 55,000/-
2.
Barani
Rs. 55,000/-
3.
Gair mumkin
Rs. 40,000/-
8. The landowners including the appellant herein felt aggrieved by the offer made by the LAO, as mentioned above, sought reference to the Civil Court for re-determination of the rate of the compensation in respect of the acquired land. In relation to the land belonging to the appellant, the Civil Court by its award dated 17.04.1996 re-determined the compensation and enhanced the rates of the land as under:
S.No.
Class of land
Rate per acre awarded by the Reference Court
1.
Chahi
Rs. 1,00,000/-
2.
Barani
Rs.75,000/-
3.
Gair mumkin
Rs.55,000/-
9. The landowners including the appellant herein felt aggrieved by the aforementioned award of the Reference Court and filed appeal in the High Court.
10. When the matter came up for hearing before the High Court, none appeared for the appellant. The High Court on hearing the State counsel partly allowed the appeal in favour of the landowner (appellant herein) in the light of the decision rendered in RFA No. 953 of 1994, Hari Singh and others vs. State of Punjab & Anr. decided on 01.07.2013 and enhanced the rate of compensation as was determined by the High Court in the case of Hari Singh (supra). The impugned order reads as under:
"No one has appeared for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the State very fairly submitted that the claim made in the present appeal is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in RFA No. 953 of 1994 Hari Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. decided on 1.7.2013.
For the reasons recorded in Hari Singh's case (supra), the present appeal is disposed of in the same terms."
11. It is against this order, the appellant (landowner) has felt aggrieved and filed this a
