Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.5513/14, Respondent-State acquired the total land measuring around 14.49 acres (situated in 9 villages) for construction of Satluz-Yamuna canal – Appellant is the landowner of the land in question, located in the village Bhago Majra – Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) determined the compensation – Landowners including the appellant sought reference to the Civil Court – Civil Court enhanced the rates of the land – Landowners including the appellant filed appeal – High Court enhanced the compensation in view of its decision in Hari Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab & Anr. – In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.17144/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No. 8073/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No.29928/
14 and C.A.@ SLP (C) No.8098/14 also, the appeals were disposed of by the High Court in view of its decision in Hari Singh’s case – In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.6261/14, the appeal filed was dismissed by the High Court upholding the order of the Civil Court – Application filed inter alia for enhancing the compensation, which was dismissed – Held: In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.5513/14, main order was passed by the High Court in the lead appeal filed by another landowner- Hari Singh – Hari Singh’s case also arose out of the same land acquisition proceedings out of which the present bunch of appeal arises – In Hari Singh’s case, the High Court threadbare examined the issue of determination of market rate of the acquired land situated in each of the 9 villages, keeping in view the quality, location, and the distance of acquired land from Chandigarh and then worked out the rates of the lands situated in each village after giving appropriate deduction/escalation, as the case may be – High Court’s approach cannot be faulted with and calls for no interference – High Court fixed appropriate rates for the lands situated in each of the 9 villages including Bhago Majra village – No ground to further enhance the compensation– In view of the order passed in C.A.@ SLP(C) No.5513/14, the C.A.@ SLP(C) No.17144/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No. 8073/14, C.A.@ SLP(C) No.29928/14 and C.A.@ SLP (C) No.8098/
14 are dismissed – In C.A.@ SLP(C) No.6261/14, appellant entitled to the same relief as in the case of Hari Singh, but not entitled to interest for the period 13.01.2009-01.08.2013.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 5513/14
1.1 The main order was passed by the High Court in the lead appeal filed by another landowner- Hari Singh by which the High Court partly allowed the other several appeals filed by the landowners and enhanced the compensation payable to the landowners in relation to their land situated in 9 different villages and, in consequence, dismissed the appeals filed by the State against the award of the Reference Court. Hari Singh’s case also arose out of the same land acquisition proceedings out of which the present bunch of appeal arises. The appeal filed by Hari Singh was treated as the lead appeal by the High Court for determining the market rate of the land situated in 9 villages. By common judgment, the High Court partly allowed the landowners’ appeals, enhanced the rate of compensation and in consequence dismissed the State’s appeals. In Hari Singh’s case, the High Court threadbare examined the issue of determination of market rate of the acquired land situated in each village (total 9) keeping in view the quality, location, and the distance of acquired land situated in 9 villages from Chandigarh. [Paras 14-16][195-D-F]
1.2 The High Court took into account all the aspects, such as location of each village, distance from the city of Chandigarh and its quality as was done by the LAO and then worked out the rates of the lands situated in each village after giving appropriate deduction/escalation, as the case may be, which varied from 10%, 20% and 25% depending upon the aforementioned factors. The aforementioned approach of the High Court also examined on perusal of the site map cannot be faulted with. It is just and proper calling for no interference. The High Court fixed appropriate rates for the lands situated in each of the 9 villages including Bhago Majra village after taking into account their location and the potentiality from all angles. Like the appellant, all other landowners whose land is situated in village Bhago Majra have also got the compensation at the uniform rate depending upon the quality of three classes of land. No good ground found to further enhance the rate of compensation than what has been enhanced by the High Court. [Paras 14-16, 18, 19, 21-23] [196-F-H; 197-B, C, F
In C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.17144 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 8073 of 2014, C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.29928 of 2014 and C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.8098 of 2014
1.3 In view of the order passed in C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No.5513/2014, these appeals are also dismissed. [Paras 3] C.A.@ S.L.P.(C) No. 6261 of 2014
1.4 In view of the order passed in Hari Singh & Ors., which is affirmed and the compensation has been allowed to all the landowners of village Bhago Majra at more or less uniform rates, this appellant deserves the same relief. Hence, the order dated 20.11.2013 dismissing the application for recall as also the order dated 01.08.2013 in RFA are set aside. This appellant is also held entitled to the same relief as allowed in the case of Hari Singh & Ors. but he shall not be entitled to any interest for the period 13.01.2009 to 01.08.2013. [Paras 3]
Hari Singh and others vs. State of Punjab & Anr. Decision dtd. 01.07.2013 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in RFA No.953/1994 – 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.
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.