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 6, 2014

LA Act - Deduction for amenities etc., at 40% - not correct -1/4 th correct - Apex court held that In our view, the High Court on the facts of the case was justified in taking into consideration the size of the plots which were exhibited for the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot acquired, but we are unable to uphold the cut of 40% which has been imposed by the High Court since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal limits and the deduction of 1/4th the market value made by the Reference Court is appropriate and liable to be restored.=CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7227-7257 OF 2014 [@Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.5161-5191 of 2001] Mohinder Singh & Ors. .. Appellants -vs- State of Haryana .. Respondents = 2014 - Aug.Part - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41807

LA Act - Deduction for amenities etc., at 40% - not correct -1/4 th correct - Apex court held that In our view, the High Court on the  facts  of  the  case  was  justified  in taking into consideration the size of the plots  which  were  exhibited  for the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot  acquired,  but  we  are unable to uphold the cut of 40% which has been imposed  by  the  High  Court since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal  limits  and the deduction of 1/4th the market value  made  by  the  Reference  Court  is appropriate and liable to be restored.=

In the result the appeals preferred by the claimants are partly allowed  and
the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is  set  aside
and the Award passed by the Reference Court is restored.        The  appeals
preferred    by   the   State   are    dismissed.

This Court in the decision  in  Charan  Dass  vs.  H.P.  Housing  and  Urban
Development Authority [(2010) 13 SCC 398] observed that any  deduction  made
should be based on the situation of the land and the  need  for  development
and where the acquired land is in the midst of already developed  land  with
amenities  of roads, drainage, electricity etc. then deduction of 40%  would
not be justified.  In Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 1  SCC
354] wherein the  question  had  arisen  as  to  whether  the  deduction  of
development charges at the rate of 20% in regard to the acquired  lands  was
justified or not, and after taking the various  factors  into  consideration
it was held that a cut of 20% to the development  charges  which  was  lower
than the normal 1/3rd was understandable and could be justified.



In our view, the High Court on the  facts  of  the  case  was  justified  in
taking into consideration the size of the plots  which  were  exhibited  for
the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot  acquired,  but  we  are
unable to uphold the cut of 40% which has been imposed  by  the  High  Court
since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal  limits  and
the deduction of 1/4th the market value  made  by  the  Reference  Court  is
appropriate and liable to be restored.



In the result the appeals preferred by the claimants are partly allowed  and
the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is  set  aside
and the Award passed by the Reference Court is restored.        The  appeals
preferred    by   the   State   are    dismissed.

Interlocutory Application Nos. 5  and  6  in  S.L.P.  No.5191  of  2001  for
bringing on record the legal heirs are allowed.  No costs.
2014 - Aug.Part - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41807
                                 REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7227-7257   OF 2014
           [@Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.5161-5191 of 2001]


Mohinder Singh & Ors.             ..       Appellants
      -vs-

State of Haryana                  ..    Respondents


                                    with

                    CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7258-7311   OF 2014
          [@Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.15196-15249 of 2002]


                               J U D G M E N T

C. NAGAPPAN, J.



Leave granted.



All these appeals are directed against the common judgment  dated  11.9.2000
in LPA  No.210 of 1999 and connected appeals passed by  the  Division  Bench
of the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

The State  of Haryana  issued Notification  dated  2.12.1982  under  Section
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, intending to  acquire  327.52  acres
in village Patti  Jhambra, Shahabad in District  Kurukshetra  for  a  public
purpose namely  to develop and utilize the land for residential,  commercial
industrial area for the urban Estate of  Shahabad.  Section  6  Notification
was issued on 4.7.1984  in  relation  to  178.62  acres,  though  on  actual
measurement, the possession of the land taken was found  only  90.07  acres.
After hearing the objections of the land-owners/claimants the  Collector  by
his Award dated 16.9.1986 awarded compensation at different rates per  acre,
classifying the lands as Chahi, Abadi plot, Gair Mumkin and  Banjar  quadim.
Having  not  satisfied  with  the  amount  awarded,   the  claimants   filed
applications for reference under Section 18 of the  Act  and  the  Collector
referred them to the District Judge, Kurukshetra for determining  the  value
of the lands.  The Reference Court after hearing both  the  parties  on  the
basis of the evidence adduced, awarded uniform compensation at Rs.2,66,400/-
 per acre in his Award dated 31.5.1991.  Feeling dissatisfied with the  said
Award the State filed Regular First Appeals seeking reduction in the  amount
of compensation and the claimants filed independent appeals for  enhancement
of the compensation.  The learned single Judge  of  the  High  Court  partly
allowed the appeal filed by the State  and  dismissed  the  appeals  of  the
claimants and held that the claimants are entitled to  get  compensation  at
the rate of Rs.1,83,080/- per acre along with  solatium   and  interest  and
statutory benefits.  Feeling  aggrieved  the  claimants  preferred   Letters
Patent Appeals  and the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed  the
claimants appeals and modified the award to the extent  that  claimants  are
entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.2,19,696 per acre along  with
other benefits as awarded by the Reference Court. Feeling dissatisfied   the
State preferred the present appeals  seeking  reduction  in  the  amount  of
compensation  and the  claimants  preferred  separate  appeals  seeking  for
enhancement of the compensation.

Shri Narender Hooda, learned Additional Advocate General for  the  State  of
Haryana submitted that the sale transactions  relied  on  by  the  claimants
related to small plots of land and  the  sale  price  of  such  transactions
could not be taken to be an accurate assessment of the  valuation  of  lands
which were acquired in bulk and the  acquired  lands  were  agricultural  in
nature and they are not developed and deduction of 50% of the  market  value
done by the learned  single  Judge  was  reasonable  and  is  liable  to  be
restored. Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned senior  advocate  who  appeared  for
the  claimants  submitted  that  the  lands  in  question  fell  within  the
municipal limits of Shahabad and it is in the  midst  of  already  developed
land and reasonable deduction would be not more than  20%  of  the  assessed
value of the land and the cut of 40% imposed by the Division  Bench  of  the
High Court was not justified in the circumstances.



We carefully considered the submissions and perused the  record.   The  only
point for consideration in  these  appeals  is  as  to  what  would  be  the
reasonable deduction towards  development  charges,  to  be  made  from  the
market value.  With regard to the location and potential of  the  land,  the
Reference Court held that  the  acquired  land  adjoins  the  abadi  of  the
township of Shahabad and it  is  in  its  municipal  limits  and  it  is  in
evidence that around this land there exist  DAV College, Girls High  school,
cinema hall, cold storage, rice mills,  grain  market  and  private  nursing
homes and all the establishments have sprung up before the  acquisition  and
the acquired land had great potential value for development  of  residential
commercial and industrial units.  The learned single Judge  while  referring
to the contention of the State that the land in  question  was  recorded  as
agricultural land has held that  the  State  has  produced  no  evidence  to
establish the same and on the contrary the testimony of  PW1  on  oath  that
the land lies within the municipal limit of Shahabad remained unrebutted.



This Court in the decision  in  Charan  Dass  vs.  H.P.  Housing  and  Urban
Development Authority [(2010) 13 SCC 398] observed that any  deduction  made
should be based on the situation of the land and the  need  for  development
and where the acquired land is in the midst of already developed  land  with
amenities  of roads, drainage, electricity etc. then deduction of 40%  would
not be justified.  In Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 1  SCC
354] wherein the  question  had  arisen  as  to  whether  the  deduction  of
development charges at the rate of 20% in regard to the acquired  lands  was
justified or not, and after taking the various  factors  into  consideration
it was held that a cut of 20% to the development  charges  which  was  lower
than the normal 1/3rd was understandable and could be justified.



In our view, the High Court on the  facts  of  the  case  was  justified  in
taking into consideration the size of the plots  which  were  exhibited  for
the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot  acquired,  but  we  are
unable to uphold the cut of 40% which has been imposed  by  the  High  Court
since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal  limits  and
the deduction of 1/4th the market value  made  by  the  Reference  Court  is
appropriate and liable to be restored.



In the result the appeals preferred by the claimants are partly allowed  and
the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is  set  aside
and the Award passed by the Reference Court is restored.        The  appeals
preferred    by   the   State   are    dismissed.

Interlocutory Application Nos. 5  and  6  in  S.L.P.  No.5191  of  2001  for
bringing on record the legal heirs are allowed.  No costs.

                                                             …….…………………...J.
(T.S. Thakur)

                                                               .…………………………J.
(C. Nagappan)

                                                            ……..…………………...J.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)

New Delhi;
August 05, 2014.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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