HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS. versus SATPAL & OTHERS ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 1016 · Decided: 09-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.
v.
SATPAL & OTHERS ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeals Nos. [Arising out of SLP (C)18428-18432, 18434-
18438, 18440-18454, 18456-18494, 18496, 18498-18501,
18503-18509, 18511-18572 & 18574-18584 of 2021])
FEBRUARY 09, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Determination
– Land acquired vide notifications dated 30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007
of villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi in District Sonipat,
Haryana – For land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005
for villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi, the High Court
enhanced the compensation to Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre and for
land acquired vide notification dated 05.03.2007 for the aforesaid
villages, the High Court awarded compensation @ Rs. 45,00,000/-
per acre – Challenge to – Held: The amount of compensation
assessed and determined for the land acquired vide notification
dated 30.06.2005 acquired of very villages Badh Malik, Pritampura
and Rasoi can be said to be the governing factor even while
determining the compensation for the land acquired vide notification
dated 5.3.2007 as under both the notifications the lands acquired
are for the same public purpose, namely, development of industrial
sector 39, Sonipat, Haryana – While assessing and determining the
compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre for the land acquired
vide notification dated 30.06.2005, the High Court considered the
sale deeds produced as Ex. P43 & P44 – If one considers the main
Ex. P43 & P44, which are the sale deeds dated 15.04.2005 and
thereafter applying the cut off of 50%, the market value of the land
would come to Rs. 24,43,693/- per acre – Instead, without any
adequate reasons, the High Court assessed and enhanced the
amount of compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre – Therefore,
the High Court committed very serious error in assessing and
determining the compensation @ Rs. 29,54,000/- per acre for the
land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 – After making
the round figure, the landowners /claimants shall be entitled to
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 1016
1016
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1017
compensation @ Rs.24,50,000/- per acre with respect to the land
acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, with all other statutory
benefits, which may be available under the provisions of the 1894
Act – So far as the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007
is concerned, there shall be a corresponding increase looking to
the time gap of approximately one year and nine months and giving
8 to 12 percent cumulative increase – However, the High Court
determined the compensation @ Rs. 45,00,000/- per acre on the
basis of the sale deed (Ex. P4) by applying 10% cut – Notably, so
far as the first notification dated 30.06.2005 is concerned, the High
Court applied the cut of 50% – Even otherwise, the sale deed
produced as Ex. P4 is dated 2.11.2006 and the acquisition of the
same villages commenced vide notification dated 30.06.2005 and
therefore the sale deed after the first notification dated 30.06.2005
could not have been the basis for assessing/determining the
compensation with respect to the subsequent acquisition – On the
contrary, giving 8 to 12 percent cumulative increase on the amount
of compensation awarded for the land acquired vide notification
dated 30.06.2005, would be a safe and guiding factor – If that be
so, compensation with respect to the land acquired vide notification
dated 5.3.2007, would come to Rs. 30,73,280/- per acre (Rs.
24,50,000/- + 12% increase = Rs.27,44,000/- + 12% increase =
Rs.30,73,280/-) – Impugned common judgment of the High Court
accordingly modified.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.
(Arisingf out of SLP(C) Nos.18428-18432, 18434-18438,18440-18454,
18456-18494, 18496, 18498-18501, 18503-18509, 18511-18572 & 18574-
18584 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.07.2019 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA Nos. 1172, 1173, 1174,
1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186,
1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198,
1199, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1492,
1983, 1984, 1996, 1997, 2214, 2215, 2216, 2217, 2277, 2278, 2279, 2280,
2415, 2416, 2417, 2418, 2419, 2420, 2421, 2422, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2426,
2427, 2428, 2429, 2430, 2431, 2432, 2433, 2434, 2435, 2436, 2437, 2438,
2439, 2440,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.