LexKANTA DEVI & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 367 "· KANTA DEVI & ORS. A v. -I STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. - (Civil Appeal Nos. 1330-1332 of 2003 etc.) --' JULY 8, 2008 B [ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 51-A - Land ac- quired - Compensation - Determination - On the basis of only one exemplar while rejecting the others ...;... Deductions towards c development charges 70% - Propriety of - Held: In view of the proximity of the acquired lands to the already developed ar- eas, deduction reduced to 60% - Reliance on one exemplar and rejection of others well explained by courts below. __,.. Notification uls 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was D issued for acquisition of the land in question. Land Ac- quisition Collector awarded compensation in respect of the land in the form of Chahi, Gair Mumkin Tubewell etc. at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre and in respect of Gair Mumkin Talab Land and Rasta Land it was granted at the E rate of Rs. 1,28,000/- per acre and to Rs. 80,000/- per acre respectively. In appeals Single Judge of High Court tak- -I ing one exemplar (Exbt. P-6) and rejecting other exem- plars, determined the compensation uniformly at the rate ·--~- of Rs. 2,88,000/- per acre after deduction of 70% towards F development charges. Appeals field by the State were dis- missed. Letters Patent appeals were dismissed in limine. Hence the present appeals. Appellants contended that deduction at the rate of 70% was on higher side; and that in view of s. 51-A, all the sale G ... deeds placed before the Court _should have been treated as ....._ -<( exemplars for the purpose of assessment of compensation . Partly allowing the appeal, the Court. 367 H 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R: -~ A HELD: 1. Single Judge of the High Court has given reasons for not relying on all the other exemplars in choos- · ing to rely on Ex.P.6 alone. But the rate of deduction ap- ' 'plied appears to be on the high side in relation to the de- velopmental work involved in making the acquired land B suitable for the purposes for which they were so acquired. j--.-' The acquired lands are adjacent to the village abadi which is already developed. Having regard to the consistent view of this Court that a deduction of 113n:1 of the market value is normal, though a higher deduction is permissible, deduc- c tion of 60% would meet the expenditure towards develop- mental charges considering the proximity of the acquired lands to the areas already developed. [Para 30] [368-D,E,F] 2. Division Bench of the High Court while dismiss- ing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the claimants could i- D have given proper reasons before dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant and all connected appeal same in limine. However, since the decision of the Division Bench endorses that of the single Judge, have to be allowed in part. [Para 31] [377-G, 378-A] E Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and Or~. 2007 (12) Scale 685 - relied on. Cement Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Purya and Ors. 2004 ·~ (8) SCC 270; Ranvir Singh vs. Union of India 2005 (12) SCC F 59; Union of India v. Ram Phool and Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 167; +- Ravinder Narain vs. India 2003 (4) SCC 481; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by Lrs. vs. State of Gujarat, 2005 (4) SCC 789; K. S. Shivadevamma vs. Assistant Commissioner of Land Acquisition Officer, 1996 (2) SCC 262; Vasavva (Smt) and G Ors. vs, Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. 1996 (9) sec 640 - referred to. ~ I r CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. >,- "" 1330-1332 of 2003 H From the Judgment dated 16.8.2000 of the High Court of KANTA DEVI & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 369 & ANR. [ALTAMA$ KABIR, J.] Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LP.A. No. 1019 of 2000. A C.M. No. 1526of2000 in LP.A. No. 1019of2000 and L.P.A. No. 1020 of 2000 WITH SLP (C) Nos. 9486/2003, 9380/2003, 9488/2003, 9499/2003, B 9531/2003, 18028/2001, 3914/2002, 18029/2001, 3793/2001, 15919/2001, 15925/2001, 15926/2001, 15922/2001, 15921/2003, 15923/2001, 16136/2001, 16137/2001 and 18032/2001 A.K. Pandey, Abha R. Sharma, Dheerendra Singh, Susheel.Kr. Tomar, Sudhanshu and Balbir Singh Gupta for the C Appellants. Nidesh Gupta, Kavita Wadia, Manjit Singh, Harikesh Singh, TV. George and J.P. Dhanda for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALTAMAS KABIR,J. 1. Apart from Special Leave Peti- tion (Civil) Nos. 9488, 949
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.