LexRAJ KUMAR AND ORS. versus HARYANA STATE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAJ KUMAR AND ORS. A v. HARY ANA ST ATE AND ORS. AUGUST 27, 2007 [G.P. MA THUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN,JJ.) B Land Acquisition Act-Award of compensation-Interference by Supreme Court-Scope of-Held: Normally, Supreme Court would interfere with an award made under the Act by High Court, only if any error in principle is C involved in a4iudging of compensation-On facts, compensation had been determined by taking into account all relevant factors-No error of principle committed by High Court justifYing interference by Supreme Court. Agricultural lands in the three revenue estates of Hissar, Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas in Distt. Hissar, Haryana was acquired under the Land D Acquisition Act for the public purpose ofresidential/urban development The acquired lands were situated within municipal limits of the town. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the land owners claimed enhancement of compensation before the Reference Court. Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 235/- per square yard for lands situated in the revenue estate of Hisar and to Rs.135/- per square E yard for lands situated in the revenue estates of Satrod Khu rd and Sa trod Khas. The State as well the claimants appealed against the award. Single Judge of High Court held that the land value of Rs. 235/- per square yard for the lands comprised in the estate of Hisar was correct and called for no interference. But he further held that though there was distinction between F the lands in estate of Hisar and those in estates of Sa trod Khurd and Satrod 1 Khas, the disparity in the value awarded was not justified and accordingly enhanced compensation for the lands in Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas to Rs. 175/- per square yard. The claimants went up in further appeal before the Division Bench, which however, upheld the judgment of Single Judge as just and fair. G The questions which arose for consideration in the present appeals are l) whether the land value in respect of lands situated in the estate of Hisar sh-0uld have been awarded at a rate higher than Rs.235/- per square yard an.d 455 H 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R. A 2) whether, with regard to the lands situated in the estates of Satrod Khu rd and Satrod Khas, there was no justification in not adopting the same land value rate as for the lands in the estate of Hisar. Dismissing the appeals, the Court B HELD: 1. Normally, this Court interferes with the award made under the Act by the High Court only if any error in principle is involved in the ,. adjudging of the compensation. After all, every award involves some guess work. (Para 6] (460-C) 2.1 The lands in Hisar are situate within the municipal limits. This C aspect has been taken note of by the Awarding Officer, by the s.ingle judge and by the Division Bench of High Court. The potentialities of the lands, its location, the amenities available have all been taken note of again by the Awarding Officer, by the single judge and by the Division Bench. The method adopted for adjudging the compensation cannot also be said to be incorrect or D unreasonable. The most acceptable rate has been taken and a suitable reduction has been made and it cannot certainly be said that anything arbitrary has been done either by the Single Judge or by the Division Bench. There is no material on the basis of which further enhancement could be granted. E F [Para 6) (460-C-E) 2.2. On the whole, it cannot be said that the compensation adjudged is unjust. It has to be held that there is no material on the basis of which the same could be enhanced in this third appeal. There may be some justification in the argm.nent on behalf of the State that the award was a generous one, but then, the State is bound by the award in the light of Section 25 of the Act. (Para. 7) (461-A-B) 3.1. The lands in Satrod Khurd and Satrod Khas are agricultural lands being used for agricultural purposes on the relevant date. They were in the outer periphery of the municipal town, away from the centre. They did not enjoy the same potential as the lands in estate Hisar. It was in that context G that the Awarding Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 135/- per square yard. But on appeal, the Single judge felt that though there was disparity in the nature of the lands and the potential, the disparity in the award of compensation was a bit too much and that an e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.