Case Details the Central Warehousing Corporation vs Thakur Dwara Kalan Ul-Maruf Baraglan Wala

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

19 October 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal Nos. 6918-6919 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Citation

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 926 : 2023 INSC 940

Issue for consideration

High Court if justified in raising the amount of compensation per square yard on the date of notification 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 figure 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 notification 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 noncumulative basis – Rate of applying annual increase – Period to be applied:

Headnote

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 effect 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 justified 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 – 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

JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. Application for substitution is allowed. 2. Leave granted. 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 filed by Respondent No.1 (RFA No. 295 of 2005) was partly allowed, and the appeals filed 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 notification under Sec

View Subscription Plans →