Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MANGAT RAM ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/04/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (5) 470
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 1996
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik
H.N. Salve, Sr.-Adv., Rajiv K. Garg and N.D. Garg, Advs.,
with him for the appellants.
Irshad Ahmad, Adv. for the Respondents.
I.S. Goyal, Ms.Indu Malhotra and Shailendra Bhardwaj, Advs.
for the State.
O R D E R
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Mangat Ram etc.
V.
State of Haryana & Ors. etc.
WITH
C.A:Nos. 8881-23, 8887, 8885-86 AND 8883-84 OF 1996
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.20331-32, 9046, 7231, 8448 and
23334-35 of 1994)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for all the parties.
The notification under Section 4(1) was published on
August 16, 1983 for acquiring 49 acres 1 canal 15 marlas of
land for establishing a commercial market of Auto Vehicles
and for commercial purposes in Sirsa. The Land Acquisition
Officer determined the compensation at the rate of
Rs.25,000/- per acre. On reference, the Additional District
Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.30,000/- per acre.
When the matter was carried in appeal, the learned single
Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.27.50 per sq.yd. In
L.P.A., the compensation was enhanced to Rs.40/- per sq. yd.
The Municipal Committee filed appeals arising out of
SLP Nos.23334-35/94 and 20331-32/94. The appeals arising out
of SLP Nos.9046/94, 8448/94 and 7231/94 are filed by the
Punjab Wakf Board. The appeals arising out of SLP Nos.535-
36/94 are filed by the tenants for the apportionment in a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
reference under Section 30.
The question is: whether the determination of the
compensation by the High Court is correct in law? It is not
in dispute that the Municipal Committee had not filed any
appeal against the enhancement of compensation by the
learned single Judge to the Division Bench. Dissatisfied
with the enhancement of the compensation, the claimants
filed L.P.A. and the Division Bench enhanced the
compensation to Rs.40 per sq.yd. It would appear that in
similar cases, the land situated in similar situation, the
High Court had granted compensation at the same rates and
the Division Bench reduced the developmental charged from
40% to 331/3%.
In view of the fact that in other cases the
compensation was determined at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq.
yd. which was allowed to become final, we decline to
interfere with the determination of the compensation by the
Division Bench of the High Court.
As regards apportionment of the compensation, the High
Court has directed to pay 1/4 to the tenant and 3/4 to the
Wakf Board. In view of the Judgment in Col.Sir Harinder
Singh Brar Bans Bahadur vs.Bihari Lal & Ors. etc.[(1994) 4
SCC 523] and Inder Parshad vs. Union of India & Ors.[(1994)
5 SCC 239], the tenants are entitled to 3/4 of the
compensation while the landlord is entitled to 1/4 of the
compensation. In view of the above law, the order of the
High Court in appeals arising from reference under Section
30 is modified to the extent that appellants/tenants -
Mangat Ram and Ors. are entitled to 3/4th while the Wakf
Board is entitled to l/4th of the compensation amount. The
amount awarded in the judgment of the single Judge under
Section 23(1-A) also requires to be apportioned accordingly.
The appeals are disposed of. The appeals of R.C. are
dismissed. No costs.