Page 1

1

                                                                        REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7227-7257   OF 2014 [@Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.5161-5191 of 2001]

Mohinder Singh & Ors. ..       Appellants -vs-

State of Haryana ..    Respondents

with

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7258-7311   OF 2014 [@Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.15196-15249 of 2002]

J U D G M E N T C. NAGAPPAN, J.

1 Leave granted.

2 All  these  appeals  are  directed  against  the  common  

judgment dated 11.9.2000 in LPA  No.210 of 1999 and  

connected appeals passed by the Division Bench of the  

High  Court  for  the  States  of  Punjab and Haryana,  at  

Chandigarh. 3 The  State   of  Haryana   issued  Notification  dated  

2.12.1982 under  Section 4(1)  of  the Land Acquisition

Page 2

2

Act, 1894, intending to acquire 327.52 acres in village  

Patti  Jhambra, Shahabad in District Kurukshetra for a  

public purpose namely  to develop and utilize the land  

for residential, commercial industrial area for the urban  

Estate of Shahabad. Section 6 Notification was issued  

on  4.7.1984  in  relation  to  178.62  acres,  though  on  

actual measurement, the possession of the land taken  

was  found  only  90.07  acres.   After  hearing  the  

objections  of  the  land-owners/claimants  the  Collector  

by his Award dated 16.9.1986 awarded compensation  

at  different  rates  per  acre,  classifying  the  lands  as  

Chahi,  Abadi  plot,  Gair  Mumkin  and  Banjar  quadim.  

Having  not  satisfied  with  the  amount  awarded,   the  

claimants filed  applications for reference under Section  

18 of the Act and the Collector  referred them to the  

District Judge, Kurukshetra for determining the value of  

the lands.  The Reference Court after hearing both the  

parties on the basis of the evidence adduced, awarded  

uniform compensation at Rs.2,66,400/- per acre in his  

Award dated 31.5.1991.   Feeling dissatisfied with the

Page 3

3

said Award the State filed Regular First Appeals seeking  

reduction  in  the  amount  of  compensation  and  the  

claimants filed independent appeals for  enhancement  

of the compensation.  The learned single Judge of the  

High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the State  

and dismissed the appeals of the claimants and held  

that the claimants are entitled to get compensation at  

the rate of Rs.1,83,080/- per acre along with solatium  

and interest and statutory benefits.  Feeling aggrieved  

the claimants preferred  Letters Patent Appeals  and the  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  partly  allowed  the  

claimants appeals and modified the award to the extent  

that claimants are entitled to get compensation at the  

rate of Rs.2,19,696 per acre along with other benefits  

as awarded by the Reference Court. Feeling dissatisfied  

the  State  preferred  the  present  appeals  seeking  

reduction  in  the  amount  of  compensation   and  the  

claimants  preferred  separate  appeals  seeking  for  

enhancement of the compensation.

Page 4

4

4 Shri  Narender  Hooda,  learned  Additional  Advocate  

General  for  the  State  of  Haryana submitted  that  the  

sale transactions relied on by the claimants related to  

small  plots  of  land  and  the  sale  price  of  such  

transactions  could  not  be  taken  to  be  an  accurate  

assessment  of  the  valuation  of  lands  which  were  

acquired  in  bulk  and  the  acquired  lands  were  

agricultural in nature and they are not developed and  

deduction  of  50% of  the market  value   done by the  

learned single Judge was reasonable and is liable to be  

restored. Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned senior advocate  

who  appeared  for  the  claimants  submitted  that  the  

lands  in  question  fell  within  the  municipal  limits  of  

Shahabad and it is in the midst of already developed  

land and reasonable deduction would be not more than  

20% of the assessed value of the land and the cut of  

40% imposed by the Division Bench of the High Court  

was not justified in the circumstances.

5 We carefully considered the submissions and perused  

the record.  The only point for consideration in these

Page 5

5

appeals  is  as  to  what  would  be  the  reasonable  

deduction towards development charges,  to  be made  

from the market value.  With regard to the location and  

potential of the land, the Reference Court held that the  

acquired  land  adjoins  the  abadi  of  the  township  of  

Shahabad and it  is  in its municipal limits and it  is in  

evidence that around this land there exist  DAV College,  

Girls High school, cinema hall, cold storage, rice mills,  

grain  market  and  private  nursing  homes  and  all  the  

establishments have sprung up before the acquisition  

and  the  acquired  land  had  great  potential  value  for  

development  of  residential  commercial  and  industrial  

units.  The learned single Judge while referring to the  

contention of the State that the land in question was  

recorded as  agricultural  land has held that  the State  

has produced no evidence to establish the same and on  

the contrary the testimony of PW1 on oath that the land  

lies  within  the municipal  limit  of  Shahabad remained  

unrebutted.

Page 6

6

6 This  Court  in  the  decision  in  Charan Dass vs.  H.P.  

Housing  and  Urban  Development  Authority  

[(2010) 13 SCC 398] observed that any deduction made  

should be based on the situation of the land and the  

need for development  and where the acquired land is  

in the midst of already developed land with amenities  

of  roads,  drainage,  electricity  etc.  then  deduction  of  

40% would not be justified.  In Kasturi and others vs.  

State  of  Haryana [(2003)  1  SCC  354]  wherein  the  

question  had  arisen  as  to  whether  the  deduction  of  

development charges at the rate of 20% in regard to  

the acquired lands was justified or not, and after taking  

the various factors into consideration it was held that a  

cut  of  20%  to  the  development  charges  which  was  

lower  than  the  normal  1/3rd was  understandable  and  

could be justified.

7 In our view, the High Court on the facts of the case was  

justified in taking into consideration the size of the plots  

which  were  exhibited  for  the  purpose  of  comparison  

with the size of the plot acquired, but we are unable to

Page 7

7

uphold the cut of 40% which has been imposed by the  

High Court since the acquired lands are already within  

developed municipal limits and the deduction of 1/4th  

the  market  value  made  by  the  Reference  Court  is  

appropriate and liable to be restored.

8 In the result the appeals preferred by the claimants are  

partly  allowed  and  the  impugned  judgment  of  the  

Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the  

Award  passed  by  the  Reference  Court  is  restored.  

The  appeals  preferred     by    the    State    are  

dismissed. Interlocutory Application Nos. 5 and 6 in S.L.P. No.5191  

of  2001  for  bringing  on  record  the  legal  heirs  are  

allowed.  No costs.

                                                   ……. …………………...J.

(T.S. Thakur)                                              

  .…………………………J. (C. Nagappan)

                                                       ……..…………………...J.

(Adarsh Kumar  Goel)

Page 8

8

New Delhi; August 05, 2014.