LexKASTURI AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KASTURI AND ORS. A v. STATE OF HARYANA NOVEMBER 12, 2002 B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ Y. PATIL: JJ.] land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 3 and 4---Compensation-Award of-Governn1ent acquiring large area for development of residential and commercial area-Award of compensation-Single Judge of High Court C reducing compensation amount applying cut of 20% towards development charges-Division Bench upholding the same--Justification of-Held: Acquired area is a large area which though not developed but has potential value for residentiai and commercial purposes-For development of this land expenditure has to be incurred for various civic anienities and other development works- Thus the cut of 20% is justified and tenable as against 113 normal deduction. D State Government acquired large area of land for development of residential and commercial area. Land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs.11.81 per sq. yard. Aggrieved claimants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act which were disposed of by awarding uniform rate of E compensation@ Rs. 125 per square yard. Claimants as well as State then filed first appeal. Claimants prayed for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 500 per square yard while State sought for reduction of compensation amount to Rs.11.81 per square yard. Single Judge applying cut of 20% towards development charges reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.79.98 per square yard. Division Bench upheld the order. Hence the F present appeals. Appellants contended that applying cut of 20% on the amount of compensation based on the market value arrived was neither justified nor tenable; High Court was not right in reducing the rate Of compensation; that HUDA made unjust enrichment by collecting more money from the G allottees after the compensation amount was enhanced by District Judge and that neither State nor HUDA will be put to any loss as they have collected money from the allottees; that appellants would suffer hardship if they have to refund 20% of the compensation amount already received; 117 H 118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A and that the land in question is surrounded by developed areas and has a commercial and residential potentiality. Respondent-State conttnded that Single Judge of High Court considering the entire material placed before him objectively applied 20% cut on the rate of compensation and also followed the principles stated by B this Court in that regard which the Division Bench upheld and as such the impugned order does not call for any interference. Dismissing the appeals, the Court C HELD: 1.1. The cut of 20% on the amount of compensation for the acquired land applied by Single Judge as affirmed by Division Bench of High Court is not wrong or unsustainable. High Court applied cut of 20% as against the normal 1/3 deductioQ having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and was right and justified in doing so. (127-D) D 1.2. It is well-settled that in respect of agricultural land or· und~veloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3 amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure E involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may F be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant, who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that area G adjoining this land is developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent orthe acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area. (123-G-H; 124-A-C) 1.3. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.