LexRANJIT SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 8 S.C.R. 352 RANJIT SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7657 of 2012) JULY 31, 2014 [R.M. LODHA, CJI, J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Enhancement of c compensation - Plea for - Lands pertaining to five different notifications published on 04. 06. 1980, 13. 03. 1981, 22.06.1982, 05.07, 1982 and 10.02.1983 and located in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 Part-I near Kamal byepass and also Kamal Kunjpura Road in issue ·· Scope for enhancement 0 of compensation with regard to the said lands - Held: On facts, market value determined by Supreme Court in Subhash Chander's case may be applied to the land acquired under the notifications dated 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982 and 05. 07. 1982 -Further, having regard to all the aspects, E market value of the land acquired under the notification dated 10. 02. 1983 must have parity with the market value of the land acquired under notification dated 05.07.1982 - Consequently, market value of land under notification dated 04. 06. 1980 fixed at Rs.58.45 per square yard, Rs.66.21 per square yard for the land under notification dated 13.03.1981, Rs. 76.21 for the land F acquired under notifications dated 22.06.1982, 05.07.1982 and 10.02.1983 - Compensation awarded by the High Court accordingly enhanced - Appellants entitled to statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. G Lands pertaining to five different notifications published on 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982, 05.07,1982 and 10.02.1983 and located in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 Part-I near Kamal byepass and also Kamal Kunjpura Road were in issue in the present appeals. The H 352 RANJIT SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & 353 ORS. question for consideration was whether there was any A scope for enhancement of compensation with regard to the said lands in question. Many of the appellants heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the matter of 'Subhash Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.'. They submitted that B matter in Subhash Chander's case pertained to four notifications dated 04.06.1980 (Sector-6), 13.03.1981 (Sector-3), 22.06.1982 (Sector 9) and 05.07.1982 (Sectors- 7 and 8) and that most of the subject lands were acquired under the notifications which were under consideration C in the matter of Subhash Chander. As regard notification dated 10.02.1983 (Sector 12, Part-I), it was submitted that the subjeot land therein was within the municipal area and has a better potential than the land in Sectors 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. D Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD:1.1. As per Subhash Chander's decision, the market value of the land in the year 1980 was determined at Rs.58.45 per square yard, year 1981 at Rs.66.21 per E square yard, and year 1982 at Rs.76.21 per square yard. In the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22324 of 2013, the appellant placed a list of dates, which refers to a sale deed (Exhibit P-6) dated 09.04.1980 for sale of 15 bighas for Gurudwara on G.T., Kamal Road Bypass, at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per bigha, F i.e, at the rate of Rs.46.54 per square yard. The acquisition of land pursuant to the notification c!.ated 04.06.1980 is in very close proximity with the sale deed dated 09.04.1980. If that is taken as a comparable exemplar for determination of market value for the land acquired under G notification dated 04.06.1980, the market value of the land comes to Rs.46.54 per square yard. However, as per the judgment of this Court in Subhash Chander's case, the market value in the year 1980 is determined at Rs.58.45. Since the State has not chosen to challenge the H 354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A impugned judgment, the market value determined by this Court in Subhash Chander's case may be applied to the land acquired under the notifications dated 04.06.1980, 13.03.1981, 22.06.1982 and 05.07 .1982. [Paras 11, 12) [357- F-H; 358-A, B, E, F] B 1.2. As regards the acquisition of subject lands acquired under the notification dated 10.02.1983, the appellants raised two points for appropriate determination of market value, (one) the land acquired has better potential being located in the urban area and (two) C the annual increase of 1983 must be given. This Court is not persuaded by the arguments. Coming to the second point first, it may be immediately stated that annual increase for a fraction of a yea
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.