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, May 18, 2016

since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal limits- a cut of one-third the value granted instead of 66% of Market Value= 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 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.”

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE


          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 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 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 :


        .......

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 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  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 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.
          [ D.Y. CHANDRACHUD ]

NEW DELHI,
MAY 13, 2016.





No comments:

Post a Comment

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