LexRAMESHWAR DASS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R. RAMESHWAR DASS v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (Civil Appeal No. 3024 of 2019) MARCH 14, 2019 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.5513/14, Respondent-State acquired the total land measuring around 14.49 acres (situated in 9 villages) for construction of Satluz-Yamuna canal – Appellant is the landowner of the land in question, located in the village Bhago Majra – Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) determined the compensation – Landowners including the appellant sought reference to the Civil Court – Civil Court enhanced the rates of the land – Landowners including the appellant filed appeal – High Court enhanced the compensation in view of its decision in Hari Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Anr. – In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.17144/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No. 8073/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No.29928/ 14 and C.A.@ SLP (C) No.8098/14 also, the appeals were disposed of by the High Court in view of its decision in Hari Singh’s case – In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.6261/14, the appeal filed was dismissed by the High Court upholding the order of the Civil Court – Application filed inter alia for enhancing the compensation, which was dismissed – Held: In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.5513/14, main order was passed by the High Court in the lead appeal filed by another landowner- Hari Singh – Hari Singh’s case also arose out of the same land acquisition proceedings out of which the present bunch of appeal arises – In Hari Singh’s case, the High Court threadbare examined the issue of determination of market rate of the acquired land situated in each of the 9 villages, keeping in view the quality, location, and the distance of acquired land from Chandigarh and then worked out the rates of the lands situated in each village after giving appropriate deduction/escalation, as the case may be – High Court’s approach cannot be faulted with and calls for no interference – High Court fixed appropriate rates for the lands situated in each of the 9 villages including Bhago Majra village – No ground to further enhance the compensation– In view of the order passed in C.A.@ SLP(C) [2019] 4 S.C.R. 190 190 A B C D E F G H 191 No.5513/14, the C.A.@ SLP(C) No.17144/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No. 8073/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No.29928/14 and C.A.@ SLP (C) No.8098/ 14 are dismissed – In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.6261/14, appellant entitled to the same relief as in the case of Hari Singh, but not entitled to interest for the period 13.01.2009-01.08.2013. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 5513/14 1.1 The main order was passed by the High Court in the lead appeal filed by another landowner- Hari Singh by which the High Court partly allowed the other several appeals filed by the landowners and enhanced the compensation payable to the landowners in relation to their land situated in 9 different villages and, in consequence, dismissed the appeals filed by the State against the award of the Reference Court. Hari Singh’s case also arose out of the same land acquisition proceedings out of which the present bunch of appeal arises. The appeal filed by Hari Singh was treated as the lead appeal by the High Court for determining the market rate of the land situated in 9 villages. By common judgment, the High Court partly allowed the landowners’ appeals, enhanced the rate of compensation and in consequence dismissed the State’s appeals. In Hari Singh’s case, the High Court threadbare examined the issue of determination of market rate of the acquired land situated in each village (total 9) keeping in view the quality, location, and the distance of acquired land situated in 9 villages from Chandigarh. [Paras 14-16][195-D-F] 1.2 The High Court took into account all the aspects, such as location of each village, distance from the city of Chandigarh and its quality as was done by the LAO and then worked out the rates of the lands situated in each village after giving appropriate deduction/escalation, as the case may be, which varied from 10%, 20% and 25% depending upon the aforementioned factors. The aforementioned approach of the High Court also examined on perusal of the site map cannot be faulted with. It is just and proper calling for no interference. The High Court fixed appropriate rates for the lands situated in each of the 9 villages including Bhago Majra village after taking into account their location and the potentiality from all angles. Like the appellant, RAMESHWAR DASS v. THE STATE OF PUNJ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.