LexMOHINDER SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 369 MOHINDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA (Civil Appeal Nos.7227-7257 of 2014 etc). AUGUST 05, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land acquired under - Award A 8 of compensation - Reasonable deduction from market value C of the land, towards development charges - Ascertainment of - Reference Court deducted 1/41h of the market value - High Court deducted 40% of the market value -Held: If the acquired land is already in the midst of already developed land, deduction of 40% would not be justified - In the present case, D the acquired land was already within developed municipal limits, hence the cut of 40% is not justified - Deduction of 1141h of market .value made by Reference Court is appropriate. The question for consideration in the present E appeals was as to what would be the reasonable deduction towards development charges, to be made from the market value, in respect of the land in question, acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Partly allowing the appeals preferred by the F claimants and dismissing the appeals preferred by the State, the Court HELD:1. With regard to the location and potential of the land, the Reference Court held that the acquired land adjoins the abadi of the township of Shahabad and it is G in its municipal limits and it is in evidence that around this land there exist College, Girls High school, cinema hall, cold storage, rice mills, grain market and private nursing 369 H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A homes and all the establishments have sprung up before the acquisition and the acquired land had great potential value for development of residential commercial and industrial units. The Single Judge of the High Court, while referring to the contention of the State that the land in B question was recorded as agricultural land has held that the State has produced no evidence to establish the same and on the contrary, the testimony of PW1 on oath that the land lies within the municipal limit of Shahabad remained unrebutted. [Para 5] [373-A-D] C 2. The High Court on the facts of the case was justified in taking into consideration the size of the plots which were exhibited for the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot acquired, but the cut of 40% which has been imposed by the High Court cannot be upheld, D since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal limits and the deduction of 1/4th the market value made by the Reference Court is appropriate and liable to be restored. [Para 7] [373-G-H; 374-A] Charan Dass vs. H.P. Housing and Urban Development E Authority (2010) 13 SCC 398: 2009 (14) SCR 163; Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354: 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 117 - relied on. F G Case Law Reference 2009 (14) SCR 163 relied on 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 117 relied on Para 6 Para 6 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7227-7257 of 2014. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2000 in LPA Nos. 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 358, 361, 1283, of 1999 of the High Court H of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. MOHINDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 371 WITH C.A. Nos. 7258-7311 of 2014. A Brijendra Chahar, Mahabir Singh, Aditya Gupta, Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra, Kamal Mohan Gupta, S.K Bansal, Savithri Bansal, V.S. Lakshmi, A. Venayagam Balan, Kailash B Chand for the Appellants. Narender Hooda, Manjit Singh, AAG, Vikas Saharan, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Vivekta Singh, Nupur Choudhary, Sanjay Kumar Rathee, Dr. Kailash Chand, Naresh Bakshi for the Respondent. C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. NAGAPPAN, J. : 1. Leave granted. 2. All these appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 11.9.2000 in LPA No.210 of 1999 and D connected appeals passed by the Division Bench of the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 3. The State of Haryana issued Notification dated 2.12.1982 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, E intending to acquire 327.52 acres in village Patti Jhambra, Shahabad in District Kurukshetra for a public purpose namely to develop and utilize the land for residential, commercial industrial area for the urban Estate of Shahabad. Section 6 Notification was issued on 4.7.1984 in relation to 178.62 acres,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.