1 Leave granted. JUDGMENT 2 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. 3 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 JUDGMENT 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 JUDGMENT 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.
4 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 JUDGMENT
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.
5 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 JUDGMENT 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.
6 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 JUDGMENT
lower than the normal 1/3rd was understandable and
could be justified.
7 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.
8 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.
…….
(T.S. Thakur)
(C. Nagappan)
(Adarsh Kumar
Goel)
New Delhi; August 05, 2014.