LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/maya-devi-d-through-lrs-ors-vs-state-of-haryana-anr-20180125/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Maya Devi (D) through Lrs & Ors. vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
25 January 2018
Case No.
Civil Appeal Nos. 873-874 of 2018
Result
Partly allowed
Bench
Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi
Citation
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 225 : 2018 INSC 66
Supreme Court Reports [2018] 1 S.C.R. 225 : 2018 INSC 66
Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

ss.23(1), 4(1) – Land acquisition – Determination of compensation – Relevant date – Land acquired by notification dated 12.02.1988 – Sale deed relied upon by claimants dated 27.12.1988 – High Court did not consider the said sale deed as an exemplar on the ground that the same is post notification – Justification of – Held: In terms of s. 23(1), the compensation to be awarded shall be determined by the reference court, based upon the market value of the acquired land on the date of the publication of the notification u/s. 4(1) – Post notification instances cannot be taken into consideration for determining the compensation of the acquired land – Sale deed relied upon by the claimants dated 27.12.1988 is post notification, thus, rightly not considered by the High Court. Land acquisition – Determination of compensation – Deduction at the rate of 67.5% for development charges – Considering the fact that the land acquired was required for development, and that the property covered under the exemplar was for a small extent of 9 marlas of land which was sold for Rs.25,500/-, the High Court adopted the rate of escalation at 10% and calculated the value at Rs.6,64,887/-, and applied maximum deduction at 67.5% and calculated the compensation to be paid at Rs.2,19,413/- per acre – Justification of – Held: High Court applied deduction at 67.5% which is on the higher side – In the facts and circumstance of the case, considering that the exemplar dated 26.05.1983 was for a small extent of land and that the acquired land has to be developed for construction of warehouse, it is appropriate to apply one-third deduction, that is Rs.2,21,629/- from Rs.6,64,887/-, the compensation to be awarded is arrived at Rs.4,43,258/- per acre, payable with all statutory benefits. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority v. Gobinda Chandra Makal and Anr. [2011] 14 SCR 373 : (2011) 9 SCC 207 – relied on.

Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and Anr. v. Krishan Kumar and Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 297; Lal Chand v. Union of India and Another [2009] 13 SCR 622 : (2009) 15 SCC 769; Andhra Pradesh Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy and Ors. [2010] 11 SCR 1107 : (2010) 12 SCC 707; Major General Kapil Mehra and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. [2014] 10 SCR 1153 : (2015) 2 SCC 262; Subh Ram and Others v. State of Haryana and Anr. [2009] 15 SCR 287 : (2010) 1 SCC

Read the full headnote (1 more paragraph)

444 – referred to.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted 2. These appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in and by which the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,19,413/- per acre and also dismissed the review holding that the subsequent evidence sought to be brought is not relevant as it is based upon post notification. 3. Respondent No.2-Haryana State Ware Housing Corporation had acquired 40 kanal and 8 marlas land at Rania for construction of warehouse/godown vide Notification dated 12.02.1988 issued under Secti
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →