MAYA DEVI (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 225 · Decided: 25-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · 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
225
MAYA DEVI (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 873-874 of 2018)
JANUARY 25, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
ss.23(1), 4(1) – Land acquisition – Determination of
compensation – Relevant date – Land acquired by notification dated
12.02.1988 – Sale deed relied upon by claimants dated 27.12.1988
– High Court did not consider the said sale deed as an exemplar on
the ground that the same is post notification – Justification of –
Held: In terms of s. 23(1), the compensation to be awarded shall be
determined by the reference court, based upon the market value of
the acquired land on the date of the publication of the notification
u/s. 4(1) – Post notification instances cannot be taken into
consideration for determining the compensation of the acquired
land – Sale deed relied upon by the claimants dated 27.12.1988 is
post notification, thus, rightly not considered by the High Court.
Land acquisition – Determination of compensation –
Deduction at the rate of 67.5% for development charges –
Considering the fact that the land acquired was required for
development, and that the property covered under the exemplar was
for a small extent of 9 marlas of land which was sold for Rs.25,500/
-, the High Court adopted the rate of escalation at 10% and
calculated the value at Rs.6,64,887/-, and applied maximum
deduction at 67.5% and calculated the compensation to be paid at
Rs.2,19,413/- per acre – Justification of – Held: High Court applied
deduction at 67.5% which is on the higher side – In the facts and
circumstance of the case, considering that the exemplar dated
26.05.1983 was for a small extent of land and that the acquired
land has to be developed for construction of warehouse, it is
appropriate to apply one-third deduction, that is Rs.2,21,629/- from
Rs.6,64,887/-, the compensation to be awarded is arrived at
Rs.4,43,258/- per acre, payable with all statutory benefits.
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 225
225
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v.
Gobinda Chandra Makal and Anr. [2011] 14 SCR 373
: (2011) 9 SCC 207 – relied on.
Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and Anr. v.
Krishan Kumar and Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 297; Lal Chand
v. Union of India and Another [2009] 13 SCR 622 :
(2009) 15 SCC 769; Andhra Pradesh Housing Board
v. K. Manohar Reddy and Ors. [2010] 11 SCR 1107 :
(2010) 12 SCC 707; Major General Kapil Mehra and
Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. [2014] 10 SCR 1153 :
(2015) 2 SCC 262; Subh Ram and Others v. State of
Haryana and Anr. [2009] 15 SCR 287 : (2010) 1 SCC
444 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2011] 14 SCR 373
relied on
Para 6
(2011) 15 SCC 297
referred to
Para 8
[2009] 13 SCR 622
referred to
Para 9
[2010] 11 SCR 1107
referred to
Para 9
[2014] 10 SCR 1153
referred to
Para 10
[2009] 15 SCR 287
referred to
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 873-
874 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2013 in RFA No. 1519
of 1993 (O&M) and Final Order dated 12.02.2015 in Review Application
No. 13-CI of 2015 in RFA No. 1519 of 1993 of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv., Ajay Garg, Ms. Shilpa Sharma, Rajiv
Shankar Dvivedi, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Alka Agrawal, Ms. Tusharika Sharma, Ms. Anamika Agrawal,
Smar Vijay Singh, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
227
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in and by which the High Court
enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,19,413/- per acre and also dismissed
the review holding that the subsequent evidence sought to be brought is
not relevant as it is based upon post notification.
3. Respondent No.2-Haryana State Ware Housing Corporation
had acquired 40 kanal and 8 marlas land at Rania for construction of
warehouse/godown vide Notification dated 12.02.1988 issued under
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’); out
of which 40 kanal 8 marlas land, 21 kanal 6 marlas land was of the
present appellants; Notification dated 21.02.1989 was issued under
Section 6 of the Act. Vide award No.9 dated 19.05.1990, the Land
Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- per acre.
Being aggrieved by the award dated 19.05.1990, the appellants/claimants
filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.