Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1206-09, 2253 AND 2254-55 OF 1991
O R D E R
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 tracks of
land for urbanization 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 (1A) of the
Act. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
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 the 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 she 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 1/3rd 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Act to which the appellants are not entitled. Under these
circumstances, we do not find any justification warranting
further enhancement of the compensation.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the
circumstances, without costs.