1. Land acquisition for urbanization under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Dispute over compensation determination and enhancement. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Smt. Santosh Kumari etc. - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2251-52 of 1991
Decided On : 19-10-1996
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. D.V. Sehgal, Senior Advocate, Mr. with J.N. Malik, Mr. A.V. Palli Ms. Rekha Palli and Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates
For the Appellant :Mr. D.V. Sehgal, Senior Advocate, Mr. with J.N. Malik, Mr. A.V. Palli Ms. Rekha Palli and Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocates
Important Points
The determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, including the principles for compensation calculation and entitlement to additional amounts under the Act.
Subject
Property Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
Land Acquisition Act - Notification under Section 4(1) - Compensation determination and enhancement
Fact of the Case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published to acquire land for urbanization. Compensation was initially determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and subsequently enhanced by the Additional District Judge and the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation determined by the High Court at the rate of Rs. 21.25 per sq. yd. without deductions for developmental charges was justified. The court also held that the appellants were not entitled to the additional amount granted under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was the determination and enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, along with the question of entitlement to additional amounts under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that when compensation is determined on a yardage basis for housing development, the direction to deduct towards the development charges is required. The court also noted that the State did not appeal the High Court's decision regarding the compensation and additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed without costs, and the court found no justification warranting further enhancement of the compensation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether compensation should be further enhanced based on the date of acquisition notification and the application of escalated charges. (Para 2 )
3. Compensation was determined via comparative evaluation and evidence; standard deductions for development charges apply to yardage-based housing development. (Para 2 )
4. Compensation determined on a yardage basis for housing development requires a deduction for development charges. (Para 2 )
5. Appeals dismissed without costs. (Para 3 )
6. Is a deduction for development charges required when compensation for housing development is determined on a yardage basis?
Yes, it is settled law that when compensation is determined on a yardage basis for housing development and the lands are to be developed, a direction to deduct one-third towards development charges is required. (Para 2 )
7. Does the date of a different acquisition notification necessarily justify an enhancement of compensation?
No, if the court has already determined compensation based on comparative evaluation and evidence, a claim for enhancement based on the date of a different notification may be rejected. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
K. Ramaswamy, J.
1. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') was published on September 25, 1979 acquiring large tracts of land for urbanisation within the municipal limits of Panipat. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated April 7, 1981 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 24,960/- per acre for Block I and Rs. 19,992 - per acre for Block-II. On reference, the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation by his award and decree dated January 24, 1984 to Rs. 18/- per sq.yd. On further appeal by the State as well as the claimants, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 21.25/- per sq. yd. without any deductions for developmental charges. The High Court has also granted additional amount under Section 23(1 -A) of the Act. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
2. Shri Sehgal, learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the notification relied upon by the District Judge relates to third acquisition dated October 10, 1978 while the acquisition in this case is of September 25, 1979. Therefore, the learned Judge ought to have granted escalated charges rather than what was granted in the earlier cases. We find no force in the contention. In fact, the Additional District Judge relying upon small piece of land which did not find favour with the High Court, enhanced the compensation. The High Court also on the comparative evaluation and considering the evidence adduced before the reference Court, determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 21.25 per sq. yd. It is settled law that when the compensation is determined on yardage basis for housing development and the lands are to be developed, the direction to deduct ?rd towards the development charges is required to be given. The High Court has not adopted that principle but the State has not come in appeal. The High Court has also granted additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act to which the appellants are not entitled. Under these circumstances, we do not find any justification warranting further enhancement of the compensation.
3. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. Appeal dismissed.
