HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPEMNT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus RAMESHWAR DASS (DEAD) & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 4 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 08-04-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
31
   [2021] 4 S.C.R. 31
31
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPEMNT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.
v.
RAMESHWAR DASS (DEAD) & ORS.
(Miscellaneous Application Nos. 926-930 of 2019)
In
(Civil Appeal Nos. 363, 388, 413, 475 & 485 of 2019)
APRIL 08, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DR. DHANANJAYA Y
CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Land acquisition – *Wazir vs.
State of Haryana’s case – Clarification of, sought by landowners
from certain villages – In Wazir’s case compensation in respect of
one set of village assessed at Rs. 39,54,666/- per acre and other set
of village at Rs.29,77,333/- per acre – Thus, compensation in respect
of lands from the concerned villages assessed at Rs.29,77,333/-
per acre – Filing of applications before this Court seeking
clarification of Wazir’s case – Land owners submitting that the lands
coming from all the villages were always considered by the Reference
Court and the High Court without any inter se distinction between
two sets of villages; that the decision in HSIDC vs. UDAL
contemplated award of compensation at the minimum rate of
Rs.37,40,000/- per acre; that after the decision of this Court in
HSIDC vs UDAL, the only issue was to consider whether
landholders were entitled to increased compensation and that there
could not be any decrease in the rate of compensation; that in terms
of the decision in HSIDC vs. UDAL, additional compensation at
the rate of Rs.9,24,644/- per acre was received by the landholders,
who have spent all the compensation money received and it would
be impossible for them to pay the difference as directed in Wazir’s
case; that the burden of additional compensation paid to the
landholders in terms of the HSIDC v UDAL, was passed on by the
authorities and recovered from the subsequent allottees of the land
– HELD: It cannot be said that there could be no occasion to scale
down the rate of compensation – Matters have to be considered on
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
their own merits and in the process, if the facts on record justified,
there could be fixation of compensation at a reduced rate for the
lands from the concerned villages – As against their entitlement of
Rs.29,77,333/- per acre as found in Wazir vs. State of Haryana, the
landholders have received Rs.7,62,667/- per acre over and above
their entitlement – Any adjustment in terms of the direction in Wazir’s
case, would entail in recovery of money from the landholders –
Thus, to relieve the landholders from the burden of returning the
amounts over and above their entitlement, it is directed that the
amount of compensation fixed at Rs.29,77,333/- per acre in respect
of lands from the concerned villages as held in Wazir’s case remains
unchanged – As the compensation at the rate of Rs.37,40,000/- per
acre has been received by the landholders from the concerned
villages, they need not return the amounts over and above what has
been found due to them – Subsequent allotees of the lands would
not be entitled to maintain any action for refund only on account of
orders passed in these proceedings – Constitution of India – Art.
142 – Judgment/order.
*Wazir v. State of Haryana (2019) 13 SCC 101 : [2019]
2 SCR 571 – clarified.
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation v.
Pran Sukh & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 175; Haryana State
Industrial Development Corporation Limited v. UDAL
and Others (2013) 14 SCC 506; Madan Pal (II) v. State
of Haryana 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 20321; Satish
Kumar Gupta and Others v. State of Haryana and
Others (2017) 4 SCC 760 : [2017] 1 SCR 767; Madan
Pal (III) v. State of Haryana and Another etc. Hsidc v.
UDAL 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 2871 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 2 SCR 571
Clarified.
Para 8-10, 12
(2010) 11 SCC 175
referred to
Para 2(C)
(2013) 14 SCC 506
referred to
Para 2(G)
[2017] 1 SCR 767
referred to
Para 2(I)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
33
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Miscellaneous
Application Nos. 926-930 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 363, 388, 413,
475 & 485 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2018 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh inter-alia in RFA Nos. 3137 of
2010, 3164 of 2010, 3388 of 2010, 3944 of 2010 and 3965 of 2010.
With
IA No.118262 of 2019 in Slp (C) Nos.22234 -22241 of 2018.
Alok Sangwan, AAG Haryana, Narender Hooda, Rajiv Dhavan,
Sr. Advs., Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, Swetank Shantanu,
Pratap Shankar, Ms. Shilpi Shrivastava, Sanjay Kr. Choudhary, Amit K.
Nain, Sunny Kadiyan,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.