LexKASHMIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 1079. KASHMIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 11030 of 2013) DECEMBER 13, 2013 (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4, 18 & 23(1-A) - Acquisition for public purpose - Land acquired falling. in the Revenue Estate of Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District C Fatehabad, Haryana - Compensation - Determination of :.... Held: The acquisition of land in Fatehabad District itself, which was acquired in the year 1993 was the subject matter of consideration in the Asharfi case - It is clear fr.om the said judgment that price of land in the said area in 1991 was fixed D @ Rs. 4201· per square yard - Supreme Court had applied the formula of 12% increase per year in the valuation of/and and on that basis fixed the market rate at approx. Rs.5201- per square yard and after taking a deduction of one-third, the valuation was arrived at Rs.3501- per square yard in the year E 1993 - Going by the formula adopted in the said judgment, 12% per annum increase can be applied on the value of land determined as Rs.5201- per square yard in the year 1993, upto the year 2001 when Notification uls.4 of the Act was issued in the instant case - However, from 1993 to 2001, there was F attrition in the land rates - Therefore, on facts, land value enhanced by applying the formula of 12% per annum increase for a period of 4 years, instead of taking entire period 1993 and 2001 - When calculated in this manner, valuation of land in the year 2001 comes to Rs. 7701· per square yard . G - After making one-third deduction therefrom, the net valuation comes to Rs.5141- per square yard- Compensation accordingly fixed@ Rs.5141- per square yard for the acquired land of appellants. 1079 H 1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R. A Notification was issued under Section 4 of the. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 2001. The land of the appellants was acquired by the Government of Haryana, which falls in the Revenue Estate of Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad,· Haryana. The Land s Acquisition Collector (LAC) assessed. the market value of the acquired land @· Rs.2,75,000/- per acre for chahi; Rs.1,75,000/- per acre for fibba/Tall and Rs.3,25,000!- per acre· for gair mum kin land. The Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act _categorized the land into two c categories, namely category-A and category-B and fixed the compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre for category- A and Rs.6,50,000/,. per acre for category-8. Under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, the escalation was fixed at 12% per annum on the assessed compensation. Still 0 dissatisfied and aspiring for further enhancement of the compensation, the appellants filed appeal before the High Court which was dismissed. Hence the present appeals. Disposing of the appeals, the Court E HELD: The acquisition of land in Fatehabad District itself, which was acquired in the year 1993 was the subject matter of consideration in the case of Asharfi. Ip that case, the court had dealt with various Notifications issued by different State Governments acquiring lands in F their respective States. It included acquisition of lands situated in Fatehabad, District Hissar, Harayana as well. The Court fixed the compensation @ Rs.350 per square yard as on 1993. It is clear from tJie said judgment that price of land in the said area in 1991 was fixed@ Rs.420/ G - per square yard. The Court had applied the formula of 12% increase per year in the valuation of land and on that basis fixed the market rate at approximately Rs.520/- per square yard, and after taking a deduction of one-third, the valuation was arrived at Rs.350/- per square yard in the year 1993. Going by the formula adopted in the aforesaid H judgment, 12% per annum increase can be applied on the KASHMIR SINGH v.STATE OF HARYANA 1081 value of land determined as Rs.520/- per square yard in A· the year 1993, upto the year 2001 when the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the instant case. However, from 1993 to 2001, there was a period when instead of increase in the land price, there was attrition in the land rates. Therefore, this Court would like to B . enhance the value by applying the formula of 12% per annum increase for a period of 4 years, instead of taking entire period 1993 and 2001 (and this would not be treated as a precedent). When calculated in this manner, the valuation of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.