Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.
Sachin & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.3412 of 2015 (@ Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 499 of 2015) WITH Civil Appeal No.3413/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 590/2015), Civil Appeal No.3414/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 657/2015), Civil Appeal No.3415/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 711/2015), Civil Appeal No.3416/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 748/2015), Civil Appeal No.3417/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 764/2015), Civil Appeal No.3418/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 878/2015), Civil Appeal No.3420/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 880/2015), Civil Appeal No.3421/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 881/2015), Civil Appeal No.3422/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 985/2015), Civil Appeal No.3423/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 1149/2015), Civil Appeal No.3425/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 1334/2015), Civil Appeal No.3427/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 1403/2015), Civil Appeal No.3428/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 2104/2015), Civil Appeal No.3429/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C) 10910/15 CC No. 1660/2015), Civil Appeal No.3430/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 3322/2015), Civil Appeal No.3431/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 3328/2015), Civil Appeal No.3432/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 3333/2015), Civil Appeal No.3433/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 3469/2015), Civil Appeal No.3434/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 3594/2015), Civil Appeal No.3435/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 3671/2015), Civil Appeal No.3436/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 3831/2015), Civil Appeal No.3437/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 2432/2015), Civil Appeal No.3438/2015 (@ SLP (C) No.10911/2015 CC No. 3234), Civil Appeal No.3439/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 5353/2015), Civil Appeal No.3440/2015 (@SLP(C) No. 5373/2015), Civil Appeal No.3443/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 5419/2015), Civil Appeal No.3444/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10913/15 CC No. 3321/2015), Civil Appeal No.3445/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10914/15 CC No. 3325/2015), Civil Appeal No.3446/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 5450/2015), Civil Appeal No.3447/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 5583/2015), Civil Appeal No.3448/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 2835/2015), Civil Appeal No.3449/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 3290/2015), Civil Appeal No.3450/2015 (@ S.L.P. (C).10915/15 CC No. 3523/2015), Civil Appeal No.3451/2015 (@ S.L.P. (C)10917/15 CC No. 3531/2015), Civil Appeal No.3452/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 5826/2015), Civil Appeal No.3453/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 5887/2015), Civil Appeal No.3454-3456/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 4618-4620/2015), Civil Appeal No.3457/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 5333/2015), Civil Appeal No.3458/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 1874/2015), Civil Appeal No.3459/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10918/15 CC No. 3947/2015), Civil Appeal No.3460/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 6484/2015), Civil Appeal No.3461/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 6638/2015), Civil Appeal No.3462/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 6616/2015), Civil Appeal No.3463/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 6969/2015), Civil Appeal No.3468/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 6991/2015, Civil Appeal No.3470/2015 (S.L.P.(C).10919/15 CC No. 4404/2015), Civil Appeal No.3471/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 7376/2015), Civil Appeal No.3472/2015 (@ S.L.P. (C).10920/15 CC No. 4408/2015), Civil Appeal No.3473/2015 (@ S.L.P. (C).10921/15 CC No. 4421/2015), Civil Appeal No.3474/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 8091/2015), Civil Appeal No.3475/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10922/15 CC No. 4422/2015), Civil Appeal No.3477/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 7480/2015), Civil Appeal No.3478/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 7724/2015), Civil Appeal No.3479/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10923/15 CC No. 4491/2015), Civil Appeal No3480/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C)10924/15 CC No. 4492/2015), Civil Appeal No.3481/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10925/15 CC No. 4497/2015), Civil Appeal No.3482/2015 (@SLP(C) No. 7689/2015), Civil Appeal No.3483/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 7696/2015), Civil Appeal No.3484/2015(@ S.L.P. (C).10926/15 CC No. 4530/2015), Civil Appeal No.3485/2015 ( @ SLP(C) No. 7728/2015), Civil Appeal No.3486/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 6572/2015), Civil Appeal No.3487/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10927/15 CC No. 4561/2015), Civil Appeal No.3488/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10928/15 CC No. 4615/2015), Civil Appeal No.3489/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10929/15 CC No. 4617/2015), Civil Appeal No.3490/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 8090/2015), Civil Appeal No.3491/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 8097/2015), Civil Appeal No.3492/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 8101/2015), Civil Appeal No.3493/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 8126/2015), Civil Appeal No3494-3532/2015 (@ S.L.P. (C)10930-10968/15 CC No. 4708-4746/2015), Civil Appeal No.3533-3535/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10969-71/15 CC No. 4763-4765/2015), Civil Appeal No.3536/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 8339/2015), Civil Appeal No.3537/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C)10972/15 CC No. 5139/2015), Civil Appeal No3538-53/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C)10973-88/15 CC No. 5284-5299/2015), Civil Appeal No3554-56/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C)10990-10992/15 CC No. 5312-5314/2015), Civil Appeal No.3557-58/2015 (@ S.L.P. (C)10993-94/15 CC No. 5332-5333/2015), Civil Appeal No.3559/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10995/15 CC No. 5369/2015), Civil Appeal No.3560-61/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10996-97/15 CC No. 5372-5373/2015), Civil Appeal No.3562/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).10998/15 CC No. 5382/2015), Civil Appeal No.3564/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).11001/15 CC No. 5390/2015), Civil Appeal No.3565/2015 (@ SLP(C) No. 7687/2015), Civil Appeal No.3566/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).11004/15 CC No. 5497/2015), Civil Appeal No.3567/2015 ( @ S.L.P.(C)11005/15 CC No. 5496/2015), Civil Appeal No.3568/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C)11006/15 CC No. 5519/2015), Civil Appeal No.3569/2015 (@ S.L.P.(C).11008/15 CC No. 5742/2015)
Decided On : 31-03-2015
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 – Claim of compensation – Acquitted – Acquisition of Land - However still as land pertaining to aforesaid sale deeds is located on main road or close to main road and assessment of large chunk of land is required to be made and further if no other facilities were available still it had connectivity with road some reasonable cut is required to be applied - In my opinion cut would be reasonable in case in hand – Held, As land pertaining to revenue estates of villages Harare and Granule Kurd is located far off from NH8 it cannot be awarded same amount of compensation - For assessment thereof considering its distance from and city in my opinion cut would be reasonable - After applying same value of land pertaining to revenue estates of village Harare and Granule Kurd is assessed - There is no doubt that considering facts and circumstances of case some cut is necessary for reasons that have been given by High Court – However having considered the entire material on record court are of opinion that cut made by High Court appears to be quite reasonable for villages - Court find no reason to interfere with order passed by High Court in this regard and court endorse and uphold view of High Court and find it unnecessary to repeat reasons - As far as other two villages are concerned namely Harare and Granule Kurd looking into facts and circumstances of case court are of opinion that cut of imposed by High Court is slightly on higher side and therefore court reduce it to It is ordered accordingly - We also make it clear that to ensure that the land owners are not put to any inconvenience following directions are necessary to be passed as have been passed in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation and Others - Land Acquisition Collector shall depute officers subordinate to him not below rank of who shall get in touch with all landowners and or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement and right to receive enhanced compensation – Appeal disposed
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This batch of appeals arises out of a common judgment and order dated 23.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a batch of Regular First Appeals.
3. By a Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 29.01.2003, the State Government acquired land in five villages which are as follows:
(i) Village Khandsa
(ii) Village Narsingpur
(iii) Village Mohammadpur Jharsa
(iv) Village Harsaru
(v) Village Garauli Khurd
4. All these villages are located in Tehsil and District Gurgaon, Haryana.
5. Thereafter, on 28.01.2004, a declaration was issued by the State Government under Section 6 of the Act after considering the objections raised.
6. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award on 27.01.2006 and the compensation awarded by him for the compulsory acquisition of the land of the land owners is as follows:
| 1. | Khandsa | Rs.15,00,000/- per acre |
| 2. | Narsingpur | Rs.15,00,000/- per acre |
| 3. | Mohammadpur Jharsa | Rs.12,50,000/- per acre |
| 4. | Harsaru | Rs.12,50,000/- per acre |
| 5. | Garauli Khurd | Rs.12,50,000/- per acre |
7. Not satisfied by the compensation so awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners preferred a Reference to the Additional District Judge, Land Acquisition Court and on 17.05.2012, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation as follows:
| 1. | Khandsa | Rs.40,95,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 35% |
| 2. | Narsingpur | Rs.40,95,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 35% |
| 3. | Mohammadpur Jharsa | Rs.31,50,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 50% |
| 4. | Harsaru | Rs.31,50,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 50% |
| 5. | Garauli Khurd | Rs.31,50,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 50% |
8. Feeling aggrieved, the land owners preferred Regular First Appeals before the High Court. By its impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2014 the High Court awarded compensation as follows:
| 1. | Khandsa | Rs.68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 15% |
| 2. | Narsingpur | Rs.68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 15% |
| 3. | Mohammadpur Jharsa | Rs.68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 15% |
| 4. | Harsaru | Rs.68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 40% |
| 5. | Garauli Khurd | Rs.68,00,000/- per acre after imposing a cut of 40% |
9. It may be mentioned that the High Court had also enhanced the market price of the land to Rs.68,00,000/- per acre based on the average price of land mentioned in the sale deeds produced before the Land Acquisition Collector. As regards the cut imposed by the High Court, the reason given was as follows :
“Now the question is as to whether same should be awarded as the amount of compensation or some cut is required to be applied. A perusal of the site plans (Ex.R15 in LAC No. 139 of 2008) and mark 'X' taken on record show that the land pertaining to the aforesaid three sale deeds (Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 in LAC No. 139 of 2008) is not pertaining to sale of developed plots by any agency where normally plotable area is about 50% and substantial amount is spent on development. The cut is applied keeping in view the aforesaid facts. Still the fact remains that the land pertaining to all the three sale deeds had approached roads as the land of sale deed (Ex.P1 in LAC NO. 139 of 2008) was abutting the main road, whereas the land pertaining to sale deeds (Ex.P3 in LAC No. 139 of 2008) was abutting some rasta left out in unplanned area. Meaning thereby the level of cut, which is imposed where the sale transaction of a developed plot is to be relied upon, cannot be applied in the case in hand. Further, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the landowners that even for the land, which is released from acquisition but forming part of the developed area, the owners of the released land are required to pay
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
