Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5168 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 12067/2016)
ZILE SINGH .. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. .. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE,J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. We do not think it necessary to issue
notice to the respondents in view of the fact
JUDGMENT
that the matter is covered by the decision of
this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6343-6356 of
2014, titled Shanti & Ors. Etc . vs. State of
Haryana & Ors . decided on 02.07.2014. If the
respondents are aggrieved by this order, it
would be open to them to approach this Court by
filing an application so that the case can be
Page 1
2
reconsidered by hearing the concerned parties.
3. Leave granted.
4. This appeal has been preferred by the
appellant against the judgment dated 03.12.2015
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh.
5. In the Case of Ashrafi and Others Vs.
State of Haryana & Others, (2013) 5 S.C.C. 527,
this Court held as under :
“
.......
JUDGMENT
45. There is yet another set of
lands forming the subject matter
of the appeals arising out of
Special Leave Petition ©
Nos.33637-33638 of 2011,filed by
Manohar Singh and others, which
are situated in Hansi, District
Hisar. The said lands also form
the subject matter of several
other Special Leave Petitions,
which will be covered by the
decision in the above-mentioned
Special Leave Petitions (now
appeals). In the said cases, the
Page 2
3
High Court had assessed the
compensation payable for the
acquired lands at the rate of
Rs.805/- per sq. yard along with
the statutory sums available under
Section 23(1A) of the Land
Acquisition Act and solatium on
the market value under Section
23(2) thereof. It was also
indicated that the land owners
would also be entitled to interest
as provided under Section 28 of
the Act.
46. While deciding the valuation
of the lands, the High Court
applied a cut of 60% and also took
into consideration that the lands
in question were small plots, the
value whereof was definitely
higher than the lands which had
been acquired which were much
larger in area.
47. In our view, the High Court
was justified in taking into
consideration the size of the
plots, which were exhibited for
the purposes of comparison with
the size of the plots acquired,
but we are unable to uphold the
cut of 60%,which has been imposed
by the High Court, since the
acquired lands are already within
developed municipal limits. In
these cases also, a cut of
one-third the value would be
appropriate as in the other cases.
Accordingly, we modify the
valuation arrived at by the High
JUDGMENT
Page 3
4
Court upon imposing a cut of 60%
and direct that the amount of
compensation be reassessed upon
imposing a cut of 331/3 per cent
while re-assessing the value of
the land.”
6. Ashrafi's case was finally disposed of
with the following observation:
“57. The decision rendered in the
appeals arising out of
SLP(C)Nos.33637-33638 of 2011
(Manohar Singh vs. State of Haryana
& Anr.) will govern Civil Appeal
Nos.3388-3389 of 2011, C.A.No.5206
of 2011, C.A. No.5208 of 2011, C.A.
No.5209 of 2011, C.A. No. 5210 of
2011, C.A. No.5211 of 2011,
C.A.No.5212 of 2011, C.A. No.5213
of 2011, C.A. No.5214 of 2011,
C.A. No.5207 of 2011, C.A. No.5215
of 2011, C.A. No. 5216 of 2011,
C.A.Nos.7179-7182 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos. ...... (CC 14220-14221
of 2011), SLP(C)No. ..... (CC
14164 of 2011),
SLP(C)Nos.21344-21351 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos.32764-32765 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos.32766-32767 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos.32770-32771 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos. 32772-32773 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos.32790-32791 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos.32792-32793 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos.32796-32797 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos.32798-32799 of 2011,
SLP(C)Nos.32801-32802 of 2011 and
JUDGMENT
Page 4
5
SLP(C)Nos.32806- 32807 of 2011.”
7. The case of the appellant being similar,
we also dispose of this appeal by allowing the
same in terms of the judgment delivered in the
case of Ashrafi and Others Vs. State of
Haryana & Others.
.....................J.
[ ANIL R. DAVE ]
.....................J.
[ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
.....................J.
JUDGMENT
[ D.Y. CHANDRACHUD ]
NEW DELHI,
MAY 13, 2016.
Page 5