Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. Dattu CJI., Madan B. Lokur and A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Ram Kanwar and others - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and another - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5598 of 2011. With C.A. No. 5599 of 2011, C.A. No. 5600 of 2011, C.A. No. 5601 of 2011, C.A. No. 5602 of 2011, C.A. No. 5609 of 2011, C.A. No. 5612 of 2011, C.A. No. 5613 of 2011, C.A. No. 5615-5616 of 2011, C.A. No. 5617-5652 of 2011, C.A. No. 5653-5676 of 2011, C.A. No. 5679-5712 of 2011, C.A. No. 5775 of 2011, C.A. No. 6321 of 2011, C.A. No. 6322 of 2011, C.A. No. 6323 of 2011, C.A. No. 6969 of 2011, C.A. No. 6970 of 2011, C.A. No. 6971 of 2011, C.A. No. 6972 of 2011, C.A. No. 6973 of 2011, C.A. No. 7183 of 2011, C.A. No. 7184-7186 of 2011, C.A. No. 7187-7189 of 2011, C.A. No. 7190 of 2011, C.A. No. 7191 of 2011, C.A. No. 7192-7196 of 2011, C.A. No. 7197-7198 of 2011, C.A. No. 7199 of 2011, C.A. No. 7200 of 2011, C.A. No. 7201-7202 of 2011, C.A. No. 7203 of 2011, C.A. No. 7204 of 2011, C.A. No. 7205 of 2011, C.A. No. 7206 of 2011, C.A. No. 7207 of 2011, C.A. No. 7335-7365 of 2011, C.A. No. 8465-8466 of 2011, C.A. No. 9620-9628 of 2011, C.A. No. 9955 of 2011, C.A. No. 9956-9959 of 2011, C.A. No. 10197-10198 of 2011, C.A. No. 10199-10200 of 2011, C.A. No. 1617 of 2012, C.A. No. 1951-1952 of 2012, C.A. No. 2043-2048 of 2012, C.A. No. 6239 of 2012, C.A. No. 9184 of 2012, C.A. No. 9210 of 2012, SLP(C) No. 28090 of 2012, C.A. No. 3870 of 2013, C.A. No. 4610 of 2013, C.A. No. 7151 of 2013, SLP(C) No. 37815 of 2013, SLP(C) No. 4649 of 2014, SLP(C) No. 5029-5030 of 2014, SLP(C) No. 5031 of 2014, SLP(C) No. 5032 of 2014, SLP(C) No. 13976 of 2014, SLP(C) No. 13978 of 2014, SLP(C) No. 19344 of 2014 and SLP(C) No. 31676 of 2014.
Decided on : 27.11.2014.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 and 6 – Notification – Land Acquisition – Land Acquired for public purpose – Market value of land – Compensation - Acquire certain extent of lands in villages Kanhai, Wazirabad, Chakerpur and Sikanderpur for public purpose viz. development and utilization of land for residential, commercial, institutional and open-space area - After due consideration of objections filed by land-losers under Section 5-A of Act, acquiring authority had recommended issuance of a notification under Section 6 of Act to State Government. Accordingly, State Government had issued Notification declaring that said land would be acquired for notified public purpose - Held, It is not a far reaching implication of said land being in vicinity of area under development or already developed, which attributed additional locational advantages leading to escalation of sale price at which a buyer would purchase lands - Another fact noticed by High Court is that buyers for all these sale transactions had vested interest in land adjoining or around properties in such transaction - It can be concluded that buyers would not have hesitated in offering higher prices to purchase lands than market rate of such lands and, therefore, in determination of compensation payable to the land-losers, such price could not be relied upon without making necessary deductions brining it at par with estimated fair market value of acquired lands – Court opinion that High Court has not committed any error, whatsoever, that requires our interference and decision in these appeals and special leave petitions - Appeals and special leave petitions dismissed.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned in filing Appeals/Special leave petitions and in application(s) for substitution, if any.
2. Application(s) for substitution is/are allowed, if any.
3. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular First Appeal No. 1824 of 2006, dated 01.10.2010, whereby and whereunder, the High Court while modifying the order passed by the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
4. For disposal of these appeals, we would only notice the facts in Civil Appeal No. 5598 OF 2011.
5. Brief facts of the case : The acquiring authority had issued Notification No. LAC(G)-97/455 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") to acquire certain extent of lands in villages Kanhai, Wazirabad, Chakerpur and Sikanderpur for the public purpose viz. development and utilization of land for residential, commercial, institutional and open-space area. After due consideration of the objections filed by the land-losers under Section 5-A of the Act, the acquiring authority had recommended issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Act to the State Government. Accordingly, the State Government had issued Notification No. LAC(G)-NTLA-98/498, declaring that the said land would be acquired for the notified public purpose.
6. After issuance of the aforesaid notification, the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "the LAO"), determined the compensation payable to the acquired land belonging to the appellants at 12 lacs per acre for Chahi Land, 9.6 per acre for Allabarani Land, 8.4 lacs per acre for Bhood Land and 7.2 lacs for Banjar Land, by award dated 06.09.2000.
7. The claimants, not being satisfied with the compensation so awarded by the LAO, approached the latter and sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for determination of the fair market value of the land acquired by the State Government. The LAO had referred the case of the land-losers to the Reference Court, where it was registered as L.A. Case No. 06 of 2003. The appellants had contended that since the acquired land was situated in the main commercial and residential sectors' area of Gurgaon, Haryana and at a close proximity to the National Highway No. 8, the International Airport and National Capital Territory of Delhi, its value was not less that Rs. 50,000/- per sq. yard at the time of issuance of Section 4 Notification, the land has been erroneously treated by LAO as barren land and accordingly had fixed the market value of the land. The respondent-State, resisting the aforesaid plea, had stated that the market value assessed by the LAO is the fair market value of land, reached after due consideration of all relevant factors including potentiality of the land and thus, the compensation awarded is not only fair, just and reasonable requiring no further enhancement. The Reference Court took notice of earlier award where acquisition of lands in same area was in question under Section 4 notification for similar public purpose and concluded that the two notifications being proximate in time, for same purpose, the potential and location of the acquired lands in both cases could be equated for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired lands herein. Accordingly, the Reference Court calculated the market value of the acquired land and allowed an enhanced compensation of Rs. 717/- per sq. yard by order dated 31.07.2009.
8. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Reference Court, the land-losers had preferred a Regular First Appeal before the High Court. The High Court rejected the reasoning of Reference Court and observed that since in the present case the land owners have produced various sale deeds which indicate sale of substantial portion of their non-acquired lands being sold to the private builders in the said vicinity, during the period between the earlier Section 4 notification (considered by the Ref
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
