LexUDHO DASS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
(2010] 8 S.C.R. 900
UDHO DASS
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3677 of 2010)
APRIL 21, 2010
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
C
Acquisition of land for setting up a housing project -
Compensation - HELD: Once a conclusion is reached that
there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for
putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such
conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land
had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its
D market value taking into account the increase in price
attributable to such building potentiality - If the compensation
proceedings continued over a period of almost 20 years, as
in the instant case, the landowner is entitled to say that the
potential of the land acquired from him must a/so be
E adjudged keeping in view the development in the area spread
over the period of 20 years, if the evidence so permits, and
cannot be limited to the near future alone - In the instant
case, admittedly the land acquired in the year 1990 had great
potential, and has been completely urbanized as huge
F residential and commercial complexes had come up in the
area during the last ten or fifteen years - Thus, the landowners
are fully entitled to say that the potential of the land acquired
was not fully recognized by the High Court and the authorities
below - In the circumstances, compensation@ Rs.2251- per
G sq. yard, which would come to Rs. 10, 89, 0001- per acre, on the
basis of the compensation awarded in respect of the
neighbouring land pertaining to the year 1992, would be
adequate.
H
900
UDHO DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
901
Acquisition of lands for urban/commercial purposes -
A
Compensation - HELD: Though the Act provides for payment
of solatium, interest and the additional amount, but the 12%
per annum increase hardly does justice to such land-owners,
andjudicial notice can be taken that increase in price in such
cases is upto 100% a year - Judicial notice.
B
Land of the appellants was acquired for a housing
project, pursuant to the Notification u/s 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in May 1990. The Collector
awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per
acre. The reference court applied the belting method and C
enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,05,000/- and
7 ,26,000/- per acre (@ Rs.125/- per sq. yard and Rs.1501-
per sq. yard, respectively). The High Court further
enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,53,000/- and
Rs.7,74,400/~ per acre (@ Rs.135/- and Rs.160/- per sq. D
yard).
In the instant appeals filed by the land-owners, it was
contended for the appellants that the compensation
awarded in the case of the adjoining land pertaining to
E
the acquisition of the year 1992 at the rate of Rs.250/- per
sq. yard should have been made the basis in the instant
case also; and that the High Court as also the authorities
below did not appreciate the full potential of the land,
particularly, in view of the fact that though the
compensation proceedings started in the year 1990, the
F
same were still continuing.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Once a conclusion is reached that there
was the possibility of the acquired land being used for G
putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such
conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired
land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine
its market value taking into account the increase in price
H
A
8
902
{ ,,
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 8 S.C.R.
attributable to such building potentiality. [para 15] [911-
C-D]
1.2. Admittedly, in the instant case, the land is
situated within the municipal limits of the district
headquarters adjoining Delhi and within the National
Capital Region. The acquired land is situated on both
sides of the road. It must also be noticed that enormous
developments have taken place in the area, as huge
residential and commercial complexes have came up,
resulting in enormous increase in the price of the
C
acquired land in the last 15-20 years. [para 14] (909-F-H;
910-A-D]
P. Rama Reddi and Others vs. Land Acquisition Officer,
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and
0
others 1995 ( 1 ) SCR 584 = (1995) 2 sec 305, relied on.
E
F
Executive Director Vs. Saraf Chandra Bisoi and Another
(2000) 6 sec 326, held inapplicable.
1.3. Although, in the present matter, sale instances
around oExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.