MEHTAB SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 793 · Decided: 30-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MEHTAB SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
AUGUST 30. 1994 
(MAOAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section ~A large chunk of land acquired 
A 
B 
for public purpose-Award made speedily~ule of adoption of 12% yearly C 
increase in price due to inflationary trends deduced by the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in another case-Applicability of-Universal application of Rule 
disapproved. 
Land Acquisition Act, 189~Section ~A large chunk of land ac-
quired for public purpose-Acquired land classified in two cutegories-No D 
marked disparity between rates-Appeaf-High Court resurrected classifica-
tion on a large dispari(JWhether orders of High Court sustainable. 
A large chunk of land measuring 267.91 acres abutting the Delhi 
Rohtak Road was acquired for the public purpose of development 'IJld 
utilisation as industrial area. A notification under Section 4 of the Land E 
Acquisition Act was issued on 0~.01.1977. On 18.02.1977 the Land Acquisi-
tion Collector gave award fixing two rates of compensation. However, the 
price difference amongst the two classification was barely Rs. 560 per acre. 
On reference under Section 18 to the District Judge, Rohtak, landowners 
obtained compensation at the flat rate of Rs. 7 per square yard doing away F 
with the classification. 
On appeal, the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court granted Rs. 10 per square yard but reviving the classification 
gave a higher compensation of Rs. 15 per square yard for the land abutting G 
on both sid.es of the Delhi Rohtak Road l'pto a depth of Rs. 200 ft. Some 
of the dissatisfied land owners took their cases in Letters Patent Appeal 
before a Division Bench of that High Court but were unsuccessful. They 
preferred the present appeals. Their claim was to award of 12% price rise 
every year due to the inflationary trends, on the basis of a decesion by the· 
same High Court in another case. 
H 
• 
793 
794 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Partly allowing the appeall, this court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. The principle of 12% annual increase deduced by High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana in Maya Devi's case has no bearing to the 
instant case because it was within a mat~r of days from the date of 
notification that the award was made. No occasion arose to take judicial 
notice of the inflation and high rise of prices. From the date of award, 
interest becomes due to the claimant land owner, for henceforth the land 
ceases to be his and while so the question of price rise does not arise when 
he is compensated for the deprival by payment of interest. The amendment 
Act of 1984 is explicit in terms. '11te limited retrospectivity provided in the 
C amending provisions do not pe1rmit adoption of 12% increase in price in 
· each and every acquisition. If it was so intended the legislature would have 
expressly provided so. This court would decry that rule and express its 
disapproval for its universal application or for all acquisitions. (797-C-F] 
Maya Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., Regular First 
D Appeal No. 150 of 1982. decided on 18.05.90 (P & H) and Inder Singh v. 
E 
F 
State of Punjab, (1988) 2 Vol. 94 PLR 190, distinguished. 
1.2. "lten classification of two sets of land right from the beginning 
was marginal and not appreciable, there was no occasion for the High 
Court to have restored the classification on a large disparity and thus a 
uniform rate of Rs. 15 per square yard would now inevitably have to be 
given as the correct compensation and not Rs. 18.60 on the basis of Maya 
Devi's case. Since there was no basis for classification, there was no 
premise for different rates of compensation. [798-D-F] 
Sher Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, Regular First Appeal No. 488 
of 1975, decided on 16.11.1979 (P & H) (unreported), referred to. 
' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5743-48 
of 1994 etc. etc. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.83 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 729, 700, 711, 715, 725 & 913 of 1982. 
Mahabir Singh and S. Srinivasan for the Appellants in C.A. Nos. 
5743-48 & 5753/94. 
H 
Uma Dutta for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 5749, 5750, 5751, 5752, 
• 
MEHTAB SINGH v. STATE [PUNCHHI, J.] 
5754 & 5755 of 1994. 
K.C. Bajaj and Ms. !ndu Malhotra for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered, by 
PUNCHHI, J. Special leave granted in all these matters. 
795 
A 
B 
These appeals artificially are divided i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.