THE CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION versus THAKUR DWARA KALAN UL-MARUF BARAGLAN WALA

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 926 · Decided: 19-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 926 : 2023 INSC 940
926
CASE DETAILS
THE CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION
v.
THAKUR DWARA KALAN UL-MARUF BARAGLAN WALA 
(DEAD) & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6918-6919 of 2023)
OCTOBER 19, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: High Court if justiﬁ ed in raising the amount 
of compensation per square yard on the date of notiﬁ cation u/s.4, Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 on the basis of cumulative annual increase at the rate 
of 15% for a period of 11 years, taking base ﬁ gure from an order of Reference 
Court dtd.30.08.2000 relating to acquisition of land of the same village of 
the year 1989, and the period of 11 years being counted from 1989 to 2000, 
the year of the notiﬁ cation issued u/s.4 of the 1894 Act.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Determination of fair and just 
compensation – Annual increase whether on cumulative basis or non-
cumulative basis – Rate of applying annual increase – Period to be 
applied:
Held: The consistent view taken by this Court for awarding annual 
increase to determine the just compensation varies from case to case 
and the period to be applied is a major factor to be considered – In the 
present case, the period is 11 years which is pretty large – Fair and 
reasonable compensation in the present case would be best determined if 
8% annual increase is applied with cumulative eﬀ ect as the gap is huge 
i.e. 11 years – For shorter period of 3-5 years, it could have been 10% or 
12% – But in no case 15% would be justiﬁ ed for a period of 11 years as 
awarded by the High Court – In the present case, given the 11 years gap, 
8% would be just and proper – On rough assessment, the compensation 
would be equivalent to compensation awarded by the Reference Court 
– High Court fell in error in enhancing the compensation by applying 
the cumulative annual increase of 15% – Impugned judgment set aside 
927
– Land Acquisition Collector to calculate the compensation at the rate 
as determined. [Paras 23-26]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. 
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another (2008) 14 SCC 745 : 2008 [11] 
SCR 927; Ashraﬁ  and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others (2013) 5 
SCC 527 : 2013 [6] SCR 148; Narbadi Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana 
Order of Supreme Court dtd.22.08.2014 in SLP(c)Nos.20531-20565 of 
2014; Ramrao Shankar Tapase vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development 
Corporation and Others (2022) 7 SCC 563 : 2013 [6] SCR 148; State of 
Haryana and Another vs. Subhash Chander and Others (2023) 5 SCC 435 
– referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6918-6919 
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.06.2016 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RFA Nos. 2400 of 2004 and 295 of 2005.
Appearances:
Harin P Raval, Sr. Adv., Shaiwal Srivastava, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, 
Advs. for the Appellant.
Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Dr. M.K. 
Ravi, Ramya Khanna, K. Uday Kapoor, Sumit Jidani, Rajesh Sehgal, Ms. 
A. Sumathi, B. K. Satija, Ms. Yagya Kalla, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Application for substitution is allowed.
2. Leave granted.
THE CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORP. v. THAKUR DWARA KALAN 
UL-MARUF BARAGLAN WALA (DEAD) 
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
3. The present appeals assail the correctness of common judgment 
and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated 
01.06.2016, whereby the appeal ﬁ led by Respondent No.1 (RFA No. 295 of 
2005) was partly allowed, and the appeals ﬁ led by the appellant and State 
of Haryana (respondent No.2) (RFA No. 2400 of 2004 and RFA No. 2522 
of 2004)were dismissed, raising the amount of compensation to Rs.493/- 
per square yard on the date of notiﬁ cation under Section 4 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 18941. The basis for the same being cumulative annual 
increase at the rate of 15% for a period of 11 years. The base ﬁ gure was taken 
from an order of Reference Court dated 30.08.2000 relating to acquisition 
of land of the same village Naraingarh of the year 1989, and the period of 
11 years being counted from 1989 to 2000, the year of the notiﬁ cation dated 
10.11.2000 issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
4. Relevant facts for deciding the present appeals are as follows:
i) 
Notiﬁ cation was issued under Section 4 of the 1894 Act
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.