REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2714-2721/2012
ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. ETC. Appellants(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1527/2016
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12495/2015)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
JUDGMENT
Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12495 of
2015
respondent- State of Haryana initiating the proceedings by
Notification dated 19.09.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land
1
Page 1
Acquisition Act, 1894. The purpose of acquisition is residential and
commercial for Panchkula, Sector-21. The acquired property is in
Village Fatehpur. In respect of the same development, we have
land value based on acquisition proceedings initiated in 1981 in
Village Judian. Those properties in village Judian had access to
State Highway and the value fixed by this Court is Rs. 250/- per
square yard. In respect of properties situated in the adjoining
village of the appellants namely, Devi Nagar, we have fixed land
value at the rate of Rs. 250/- per square yard that was the
acquisition initiated in the year 1987 and that property had
extensive national highway frontage.
JUDGMENT
adjoining villages for the properties acquired for the same
purpose, this court having fixed the land value at Rs. 250/- per
square yard and above, the appellants may also be granted the
same value.
General for the respondent- State of Haryana however points out
2
Page 2
that even according to the appellants, their claim was only
Rs.125/- per square yard and in any case the land of the
appellants does not have the same advantage when compared to
Rs.250/- per square yard and above.
out that in the matter of fixation of just and fair compensation,
the Court is not bound by claim made by the owner. It is for the
Court, in the facts and circumstances of each case, to award just
and fair compensation.
6. Prior to amendment Act 68 of 1984, the amount of
compensation that could be awarded by the Court was limited to
the amount claimed by the applicant. Section 25 read as under -
JUDGMENT
“ Section 25. Rules as to amount of
compensation -
(1) When the applicant has made a claim to
compensation, pursuant to any notice given under
Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the
court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or
be less than the amount awarded by the Collector
under Section 11.
(2) When the applicant has refused to make such
claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to
be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the
3
Page 3
amount awarded by the court shall in no case
exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.
| less tha<br>ed by th | n, and<br>e Collect |
|---|
The amended Section 25 reads as under:
| “Section 25. Amount of compensation<br>awarded by Court not to be lower than the<br>amount awarded by the Collector- The amount<br>of compensation awarded by the Court shall not<br>be less than the amount awarded by the Collector<br>under Section 11.”<br>The amendment has come into effect on 24.09.1984. | |
|---|
| 7. | |
compensation by court should not be beyond the amount
JUDGMENT
claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, put a cap on
the minimum; compensation cannot be less that what was
awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap on
maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is
put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of
compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to
the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the Court
4
Page 4
to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration
the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of
the claim made by the owner.
1
this Court in Sanjay Batham v. Munna Lal Parihar held that
-
| | | | |
|---|
| “ | 17. It is true that in the petition filed by him | | | |
| under Section | | | 166 of t | he Act, the Appellant had |
| claimed compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/- only, but | | | | |
| as held in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2<br>SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the | | | | |
| Tribunal and for that r<br>is entitled to award h | | | | eason any competent Court<br>igher compensation to the |
| victim of an accident.” | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
2
Chandigarh , this Court held that there may be situations where
JUDGMENT
the amount higher than claimed may be awarded to the claimant.
The Court observed –
| “3. … | It must be remembered that this was not a |
|---|
| dispute between two private citizens where it | |
| would be quite just and legitimate to confine the | |
| claimant to the claim made by him and not to | |
| award him any higher amount than that claimed | |
| though even in such a case there may be | |
1
(2010) 11 SCC 665
2
(1985) 3 SCC 737
5
Page 5
| situations where an amount higher than that | | |
|---|
| claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for | | |
| instance where an amount is claimed as due at the | | |
| foot of an account. Here was a claim made by the | | |
| appellants against the State Government for | | |
| compensation for acquisition of their land and | | |
| under the law, the State was bound to pay to the | | |
| appellants compensation on the basis of the | | |
| market value of the land acquired and if according | | |
| to the judgments of the learned single Judge and | | |
| the Division Bench, the market value of the land | | |
| acquired was higher than that awarded by the | | |
| Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional District | | |
| Judge, there is no reason why the appellants | | |
| should have been denied the benefit of payment | | |
| of the market value so determined. To deny this<br>benefit to the appellants would tantamount to | | |
| permitting the State<br>land of the appellants | Government to acquire the<br>on payment of less than the | |
| true market value. The | re may be cases where, as | |
| for instance, under' a | grarian reform legislation, | |
| the holder of land may, | legitimately, as a matter of | |
| social justice with a view to eliminating | | |
| concentration of land in the hands of a few and | | |
| bringing about its equitable distribution, be | | |
| deprived of land which is not being personally | | |
| JUDGMENT<br>cultivated by him or which is in excess of the | | |
| ceiling area with payment of little compensation or | | |
| no compensation at all, but where land is acquired | | |
| under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it would not | | |
| be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land | | |
| without payment of the true market value when | | |
| the law, in so many terms, declares that he shall | | |
| be paid such market value. …” | | |
6
Page 6
| 10. | | In | Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti | v. | Kanhaiya Lal |
|---|
Court held that under the amended provisions of Section 25 of the
Act, the Court can grant a higher compensation than claimed by
| the applicant in his pleadings -<br>“17. Award being in this case between the dates<br>30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 and as<br>per the Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh<br>(Dead) by LRs. etc. (Supra), the amended<br>provisions would be applicable under which there<br>is no restriction that award could only be upto the<br>amount claimed by the claimant. Hence High<br>Court order granting compensation more than<br>what is claimed cannot be said to be illegal or<br>contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence the<br>review itself, as is confined for the aforesaid<br>reasons, has no merit.” | | | | | | |
| 11. | | Further, in | | Bhimasha | v. Sp | ecial Land Acquisition Officer |
| and others4, a three-Judge bench reiterated the principle in | | | | | | |
| and others | | | , | a three-Judge bench reiterated the principle in | | |
| “ | 17. Award being in this case between the dates | |
|---|
| 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 and as | | |
| per the Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh | | |
| (Dead) by LRs. etc. (Supra), the amended | | |
| provisions would be applicable under which there | | |
| is no restriction that award could only be upto the | | |
| amount claimed by the claimant. Hence High | | |
| Court order granting compensation more than<br>what is claimed cannot be said to be illegal or | | |
| contrary to the provis | | ions of the Act. Hence the |
| review itself, as is c | | onfined for the aforesaid |
| reasons, has no merit.” | | |
| Bhag Singh | (supra) and rejected the contention that a higher |
|---|
compensation than claimed by the owner in his pleadings cannot
be awarded by the Court. In that case, the High Court had
concluded that although the market price of the land was Rs
66,550/- per acre, since the appellant had only claimed
compensation at the rate of Rs. 58,500/- per acre in his pleadings,
4
(2008) 10 SCC 797
7
Page 7
therefore he could only be awarded compensation limited to his
claim. This Court, while reversing the decision of the High Court,
awarded the petitioner the market value, i.e., Rs. 66,550/- per
acre thereby holding that the award would not be limited to the
claim made by him.
position that the properties do not abut the national highway.
Admittedly, it is situated about 375 yards away from the national
highway and it appears that there is only the narrow Nahan Kothi
Road connecting the properties of the appellants to the national
highway. Therefore, it will not be just and proper to award land
value of Rs.250/- per square yard, which is granted to the
property in adjoining village. Having regard to the factual and
JUDGMENT
legal position obtained above, we are of the considered view that
the just and fair compensation in the case of appellants would be
Rs. 200/- per square yard.
value at Rs. 200/- per square yard and the appellants shall also be
entitled to all the statutory benefits. The amount as above shall
8
Page 8
be paid and deposited after adjusting the deficit court fee, if any,
before the Executing Court within a period of three months from
today.
…….…………………………….J
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
….….…………………………….J
(ROHINTON FALI
NARIMAN)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 18, 2016.
JUDGMENT
9
Page 9
