advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Land Acquisition Act = When the land is in developed area , deduction of 10 % is appropriate but the deduction of 1/3rd in market value is harsh =deduction of 1/3rd value of the land would be very harsh on the appellants because the appellants would be getting substantially less compensation on account of the said deduction. It was also submitted that the High Court had taken note of the fact that the land in question was very much within the developed area. If the land was within the developed area, the High Court should not have deducted 1/3rd of the value of the land in question.= Deduction to the extent of 1/3rd of the value of the land is definitely harsh even as per the observations made by the High Court as the land in question is very much in the developed area. The area has been developed by the HUDA and therefore, the deduction of 1/3rd of the value of the land is not justified. Upon considering all relevant facts, in our opinion, it would be absolutely just if 10% value of the land is deducted instead of 1/3rd because the land is forming part of a well developed area.= The market value of the land in question, as determined by the High Court, is Rs. 11.15 lacs per acre and instead of taking 1/3rd, we direct that 10% of the said value shall be deducted. The claimants shall be entitled to other statutory benefits like solatium, interest etc. on the enhanced compensation.

                             published in  http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40661                 
         NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CIVIL APPEAL NO.    6958   OF 2013
                 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24357 of 2010)




Indraj Singh (Dead)                                .....Appellants

through LRs. & Ors.

                                Versus

State of Haryana & Anr.                              …..Respondents

                                         With

                     CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6959    OF 2013
                 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1025 of 2011),

                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6960  OF 2013
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1028 of 2011)

                                      &

                      CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6961  OF 2013
                 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23257 of 2013)


                               J U D G M E N T


1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.




1.    Delay condoned.


2.    Leave granted in all the  special leave petitions.


3.    Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6th  November,  2009,  delivered
in Regular First Appeal No. 950 of 1996 and other  First  Appeals  delivered
by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana  at  Chandigarh,  these  appeals  have
been filed by the persons whose lands had been acquired for the  purpose  of
construction of a sector road under the Bahadurgarh Scheme.  The  appellants
are challenging the judgment on the ground that the amount  of  compensation
awarded to them is much lesser than what should have been awarded to them.


4.    For the purpose of construction of the road,  approximately  7  bighas
land was to be acquired and for the  said  purpose,  necessary  Notification
under the  provision  of  Section  4  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894
(hereinafter referred to as  “the  Act”)  read  with  Section  17  had  been
published on  8th April, 1991, as the land was required immediately.


5.    The land which was acquired for the purpose of   construction  of  the
road was  Nehri (irrigated) as well as gair mumkin (waste  land).  The  Land
Acquisition Collector, by  virtue  of  his  award  dated  9th  March,  1992,
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/-  per  acre  for  irrigated
land whereas Rs.1.5 lac per acre for gair mumkin type of land.  Compensation
was also awarded for  super-structures  and  trees  standing  on  the  land.
Solatium and other statutory benefits were also given to the appellants.


6.    Being aggrieved by the award, the  appellants  had  made  a  Reference
under Section  18  of  the  Act.  After  hearing  the  learned  counsel  and
considering the evidence adduced before the court, the  District  Court  had
dismissed the Reference as the Court was of the view  that  the  sale  deeds
relied upon by the appellants were not comparable and  therefore,  the  land
transactions  referred  to  by  the  appellants  could  not  help  them  for
enhancing the amount of compensation awarded to them.


7.    Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the Reference by  an  order  dated
8th December, 1995, the appellants along with other land  owners  had  filed
First Appeals before the High Court and as all the lands had  been  acquired
under a single notification under Section 4 read  with  Section  17  of  the
Act, the High Court had heard all the appeals together and had  decided  the
appeals on the basis of the main appeal decided by it.


8.    After hearing the  concerned  counsel  and  considering  the  evidence
which had been adduced before the Reference Court, the  High  Court  allowed
the appeals by awarding  Rs.  11,15,098/-  per  acre  in  respect  of  both,
irrigated as well as waste land, observing that both lands would  fetch  the
same price due to its residential and commercial potential.


9.    The High Court was of the view that the land in question was  near  to
the  land  abutting  two  main  roads.  The  High  Court  also   took   into
consideration  the  rapid  development  in  the  vicinity    and  therefore,
increased  the  value  of  the  land  in  question  after  considering   the
principles  on  which  lands  are  valued  for  the  purpose   of   awarding
compensation under the Act.


10.   The High Court also decided to decrease  the  value  of  the  land  by
1/3rd   of its value as the land in question was little away from  the  main
road.


11.   The submissions made on behalf of the appellants were  to  the  effect
that deduction of 1/3rd value of  the  land  would  be  very  harsh  on  the
appellants because  the  appellants  would  be  getting  substantially  less
compensation on account of the said deduction. It was  also  submitted  that
the High Court had taken note of the fact that  the  land  in  question  was
very much within the developed area. If the land was  within  the  developed
area, the High Court should not have deducted 1/3rd  of  the  value  of  the
land in question.


12.   The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the  State  had
tried to support the judgment by submitting that the deduction of 1/3rd   of
the  value of the land was just and proper as observed by the High Court.


13.   Upon hearing the learned counsel and  upon  perusal  of  the  impugned
judgment and relevant records, we  are  of  the  view  that  the  appellants
should have been awarded more  compensation.  Deduction  to  the  extent  of
1/3rd of the value  of  the  land  is  definitely  harsh  even  as  per  the
observations made by the High Court as the land in question is very much  in
the developed area. The area has been developed by the HUDA  and  therefore,
the deduction of 1/3rd of the value of the land is not justified.


14.   Upon considering all relevant facts,  in  our  opinion,  it  would  be absolutely just if 10% value of  the  land  is  deducted  instead  of  1/3rd because the land is forming part of a well developed area.


15.   The High Court, after deduction of 1/3rd of the amount  of  the  value
has awarded Rs.7,43,000/- per acre for  irrigated  and  non-irrigated  land.
The said value is after deduction of 1/3rd amount of total valuation of  the
land. The High Court has, thus, in fact, determined the market value of  the
land at Rs.11,15,000/- per acre  and  after  deducting  1/3rd  of  the  said
amount, it has awarded Rs. 7,43,000/-  per  acre,  after  rounding  off  the
figure.





16.   The market value of the land in question, as determined  by  the  High
Court, is Rs. 11.15 lacs per acre and instead of  taking  1/3rd,  we  direct
that 10% of the said  value  shall  be  deducted. 
 The  claimants  shall  be
entitled to other statutory benefits like solatium,  interest  etc.  on  the
enhanced compensation.


17.   In view of the above facts, we modify the impugned judgment and  allow
the appeals to the above extent with no order as to costs.





                                    ………………................................J.

                                                              (ANIL R. DAVE)

                                       ….…….................................
                                                                ..........J.

                                                               (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi
August  19,  2013










-----------------------
6





No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.