Page 1

1

NON­REPORTABLE

         IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA               CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION            

        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5168  OF 2016           (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 12067/2016)

                                                  ZILE SINGH .. APPELLANT(S)

  VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. .. RESPONDENT(S)                                                    J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE,J. 1. Heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the petitioner. 2. We  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  issue notice to the respondents  in view of the fact that the matter is covered by the decision of this  Court  in  Civil  Appeal  Nos.  6343-6356  of 2014, titled  Shanti & Ors. Etc. vs.  State of Haryana & Ors. decided on 02.07.2014.  If the respondents  are  aggrieved  by  this  order,  it would be open to them to approach this Court by filing an application so that the case can be

Page 2

2

reconsidered by hearing the concerned parties.

3. Leave granted.

4. This  appeal  has  been  preferred  by  the appellant against the  judgment dated 03.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

5. In  the  Case  of  Ashrafi  and  Others  Vs. State of Haryana & Others, (2013) 5 S.C.C. 527, this Court held as under :

“ .......

45.  There  is  yet  another  set  of lands  forming  the  subject  matter of  the  appeals  arising  out  of Special  Leave  Petition  © Nos.33637-33638  of  2011,filed  by Manohar  Singh  and  others,  which are  situated  in  Hansi,  District Hisar.  The  said  lands  also  form the  subject  matter  of  several other  Special  Leave  Petitions, which  will  be  covered  by  the decision  in  the  above-mentioned Special  Leave  Petitions  (now appeals). In the said cases, the

Page 3

3

High  Court  had  assessed  the compensation  payable  for  the acquired  lands  at  the  rate  of Rs.805/- per sq. yard along with the statutory sums available under Section  23(1A)  of  the  Land Acquisition  Act  and  solatium  on the  market  value  under  Section 23(2)  thereof.  It  was  also indicated  that  the  land  owners would also be entitled to interest as  provided  under  Section  28  of the Act.

46.  While  deciding  the  valuation of  the  lands,  the  High  Court applied a cut of 60% and also took into consideration that the lands in question were small plots, the value  whereof  was  definitely higher  than  the  lands  which  had been  acquired  which  were  much larger in area.

47.  In  our  view,  the  High  Court was  justified  in  taking  into consideration  the  size  of  the plots,  which  were  exhibited  for the  purposes  of  comparison  with the  size  of  the  plots  acquired, but  we  are  unable  to  uphold  the cut of 60%,which has been imposed by  the  High  Court,  since  the acquired lands are already within developed  municipal  limits.  In these  cases  also,  a  cut  of one-third  the  value  would  be appropriate as in the other cases. Accordingly,  we  modify  the valuation arrived at by the High

Page 4

4

Court upon imposing a cut of 60% and  direct  that  the  amount  of compensation  be  reassessed  upon imposing a cut of 331/3 per cent while  re-assessing  the  value  of the land.”

6. Ashrafi's  case  was  finally  disposed  of with the following observation:

“57. The decision rendered in the appeals  arising  out  of SLP(C)Nos.33637-33638  of  2011 (Manohar Singh vs. State of Haryana &  Anr.)  will  govern  Civil  Appeal Nos.3388-3389 of 2011, C.A.No.5206 of 2011, C.A. No.5208 of 2011, C.A. No.5209 of 2011, C.A. No. 5210 of 2011,  C.A.  No.5211  of  2011, C.A.No.5212 of 2011, C.A. No.5213 of  2011,  C.A.  No.5214  of  2011, C.A. No.5207 of 2011, C.A. No.5215 of  2011,  C.A.  No.  5216  of  2011, C.A.Nos.7179-7182  of  2011, SLP(C)Nos.  ......  (CC  14220-14221 of  2011),  SLP(C)No.  .....  (CC 14164  of  2011), SLP(C)Nos.21344-21351  of  2011, SLP(C)Nos.32764-32765  of  2011, SLP(C)Nos.32766-32767  of  2011, SLP(C)Nos.32770-32771  of  2011, SLP(C)Nos.  32772-32773  of  2011, SLP(C)Nos.32790-32791  of  2011, SLP(C)Nos.32792-32793  of  2011, SLP(C)Nos.32796-32797  of  2011, SLP(C)Nos.32798-32799  of  2011, SLP(C)Nos.32801-32802  of  2011  and

Page 5

5

SLP(C)Nos.32806- 32807 of 2011.”

7. The case of the appellant being similar, we also dispose of this appeal by allowing the same in terms of the judgment  delivered in the case  of  Ashrafi  and  Others  Vs.  State  of Haryana & Others.

                        .....................J.                      [ ANIL R. DAVE ]

                        .....................J.                            [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]

                        .....................J.                      [ D.Y. CHANDRACHUD ]

NEW DELHI, MAY 13, 2016.