SMT. SANTOSH KUMAR! ETC.
A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
AUGUST 28, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.)
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Sections 4( 1), 23(1-A)--Compensation-Award of-Enhanced by Ad-
ditional Distlict Judge--Fwther enhanced by High Court-On appeal held,
C
when compensation is detennined on yardage basis for housing development
and the lands are to be developed, direction to deduct I/3rd towards develop-
ment charges, is required to be given-Further enhancement of compensation
not wa1mnted--Party not entitled to additional amount--High Court wrongly
given it.
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2251-
52 of 1991 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.85 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in R.F.A. Nos. 766 and 767 of 1984.
D.V. Sehgal, J.S. Malik, A.V. Palli, Ms. Rekha Palli and Atul Sharma
for the Appellant.
Pradeep Misra and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the appellant in C.A. No.
2251-52/91.
Jasbir Malik and Prem Malhotra for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
D
E
F
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 G
of 1894) {for short, the 'Act') was published on September 25, 1979
acquiring large tracks of land for urbanisation within the municipal limits
of Panipat. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated April 7, 1981
determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 24,960 per acre for Block
I and Rs. 19,992 per acre for Block-II. On reference, the Additional
District Judge enhanced the compensation by his award and decree dated H
315
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A January 24, 1984 to Rs. 18 per sq. yd. On further appeal by the State as
well as the claimants, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.
21.25 per sq. yd. without any deductions for developmental charges. The
High Court has also granted additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of
the Act. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
B
Shri Sehgal, learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that
the notification relied upon by the District Judge relates to third acquisition
dated October 10, 1978 while the acquisition in this case is of September
25, 1979. Therefore, the learned Judge ought to have granted escalated
charges rather than what was granted in the earlier cases. We find no force
. C in the contention. In fact, the Additional District Judge relying upon small
piece of land which did not find favour with the High Court, enhanced the
compensation. The High Court also on the comparative evaluation and
considering the evidence adduced before the reference Court, deterlT'ined
the compensation at the rate of Rs. 21.25 per sq. yd. It is settled law that
when the compensation is determined on yardage basis for housing
D development and the lands are to be developed, the direction to deduct
1/3rd towards the development charges, is required to be given. The High
Court has not adopted that principle but the State has not come in appeal.
The High Court has also granted additional amount under Section 23(1-A)
of the Act to which the appellants are not entitled. Under these cir-
E
cumstances, we do not find any justification warranting further enhance-
ment of the compensation.
I
The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances,
without costs.
G.N.
Appeals dismissed.
Lex