STATE OF HARYANA versus GURBAX SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 1191 · Decided: 08-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 1191 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
GURBAX SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS & ANR. ETC. 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2461-2465 of 2000 
MAY 8, 2008 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 23 - Compensation -
Quantum of - Land acquired from villages Ratgal, Sunderpur 
and Palwal forpublic purpose by Notification dated 08.02.1983 c 
- Award of compensation @ Rs. 40, 0001- per acre for Chahi 
land and Rs. 25, 0001- per acre for Gair Mumkin land - Claim 
for enhancement by land owners - Additional District Judge 
awarding compensation @ Rs. 72, 6001- per acre whereas 
Single Judge of High Court enhancing it to Rs. 99, 668 per 0 
acre - In appeal, Division Bench of High Court enhancing 
12% p.a. for two years and founding off the market value of 
land at Rs. 1,25,0001- per acre - Challenge to, by both land 
owners and State - Held: Division Bench justified in marginally 
increasing the compensation to Rs.1,25,0001- per acre -
E 
However, it gave a vague finding regarding the distance of the 
present lands and the lands which were subject matter of 
documents filed before the court -
Lands are abutting 
Kurukshetra town and can easily be said to be a part and parcel 
of the town, having great potential - Division Bench should F 
have taken into consideration both the documents while 
deciding the market. price - It approached the matter in a 
casual way- Thus, that part of the judgment set aside - Matters 
remanded to Division Bench of High Court for reconsideration. 
Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 2466-2470 of 2000 are _ G 
land owners. Their land was acquired for public purpose 
in Kurukshetra by a Notification dated 08.02.1983. The 
Collector awarded compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre 
in respect of Chahi land and Rs. 25,000/- per acre with 
1191 
H 
1192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 8.C.R. 
A regard to Gair Mumkin land was awarded. The Reference 
was filed. The Additional District Judge holding the market 
value of the land being @ of Rs. 15 per sq. yard, awarded 
compensation @ Rs. 72,6000/- per acre. Some of thEi land 
owners were also given additional compensation. 
B Aggrieved, appellants filed appeals. The Single Judge 0f 
High Court found the land value being Rs. 20.59 per sq. 
yard and fixed the market value at Rs. 99,668 per acre. 
Aggrieved, appellants filed LPA before the Division Elench 
of High Court. Three land owners filed application for 
c permission to enhance claim as also produce additional 
documents consisting of the judgment in RFA No.7of1992 
and award given by District Judge in land acquisition case 
No.22/4 of 1990. These documents were produced along 
with the applications as Annexure A-1 and A-2. The 
o Division Bench considered the documents but did not find 
any justification in the claim. It considered the sale deeds 
executed in January and March, 1981 and ordered 
increase of 12% p.a. for two years and rounded off the 
market value of land at Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre. Henc:e the 
E present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals by the State and allowing the 
appeals by the private parties and remanding the matter 
to Division Bench of High Court, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench marginally incrnased 
the compensation from Rs.99,668/- per acre to Rs.1,25,000/ 
- per acre. It merely gave the benefit of the two Sale Deeds 
in a very limited manner by ordering the enhancemt~nt at 
the rate of 12% per annum for two years sinc1e the 
G acquisition in this case had taken place in the year 1983 
whereas those sale deeds were of January and March, 
1981. The Division Bench justified this increase by 
observing that there was continuous rise in the pric:es of 
land; that though the two transactions were in resp1ect of 
H the small pieces of lands, however, the State did not 
STATE OF HARYANA v. GURBAX SINGH (DEAD) BY 
1193 
~ 
LRS & ANR. ETC. 
challenge the action of the Single Judge in accepting those A 
sales as a valid basis; that there was no evidence that the 
market value of the land was lesser than the one 
mentioned in the two sale deeds. There is nothing wrong 
in this and, therefore, the appeals filed by the Government 
of Haryana against the marginal increase are dismissed. B 
[Para 7] [1197-D,E,F, 1198-A] 
1.2 The Division Bench vaguely mentioned that the 
present lands are situated at some distance from the lands 
covered in the above judgments. It is only on this basis c 
that the Division Bench went on to hold that it would not 
be safe to say that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.