Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikaran v. Hazura Singh And Others

2




  

 

   
  

!

 "

#$ %
& %
' 

( 

)  * 


+



,


,

,
& .&+ /%  ,0   


 



  1



 

       


  

 2 
+ 

3 % 


   *4
3, 
&%



  * % 
 %
 ,05 6178* 




 
 ,


!$%    
  
 & 

 * %  % 
 %
 ,0 5618* 
) &4  


 

 *4
3, 
&%4
&  

9  :
3  ,&*,*;+

3  /  
  
 

       '( +

<* "In para 40 of the judgment, hon'ble Apex court assessed the compensation in Surinder Kumar's case which pertains to lands of Village Patti Mehar, Saunda and Jandli of District Ambala and notification under section 4 of the Act was of ₹ dated 26.05.1981, therefore, hon'ble Apex court while taking 70/ per Sq Yard for the year 1973 as base and applied 12% compounded interest annually for eight years, assessed the rate of land 180/ per Sq Yard. By applying the same principle in the present case where notification for acquisition was made on 02.02.1989 and land belongs to District Ambala, then amount comes to 430/ per Sq Yard.

Hence I find force in the contentions of the counsel for ₹ the DH that he is entitled for compensation @ 430/ per Sq yard.

3 Consequently JD is directed to make the payment to the DH @ ₹430 per Sq Yard. Matter is adjourned for payment to 01.02.2019."

 =

333 
   


/&%

/6*(1* %

 %
, 




( ;   %  
3

 

%



&

/



7)   
 

&

/&  .&+/
 

3&  - .&+/,&

 



( 1 


  > !/$' 1 7* 1 7(* 


     

!  "  

  )   
 
  &

3     +

<* "Leave granted.

Both sides have drawn our attention to the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2013 passed by this Court in SLP(C) nos.2470424712/2007 titled "Ashrafi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.".

In our opinion, the executing Court could not have gone beyond the decree as drawn by this court.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent states that the executing Court has interpreted the findings given in paragraphs 40 and 42 of the judgment and accordingly read the decree of this Court dated 11.04.2013 differently. We would only record that the decree of this Court, as drawn does not support the contention of the respondent. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent states that the respondent will move an appropriate application before this Court for clarification/modification/rectification of the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2013.

4 In view of the aforesaid factual position, we set aside the impugned judgment/order dated 22.07.2019 passed in Civil Revision no. 2703/2019 titled "State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector v. Inderjit Singh", and the order dated 05.02.2020 passed in RACR no. 13/2020 in Civil Revision no. 2703/2019.

The consequence of the findings will also mean that the order dated 14.01.2019 passed by the Executing Courtcum Additional District Judge, Ambala, is set aside. In case the respondent files an application for clarification/modification/rectification of the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2013, the same will be examined on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned judgment/order(s) dated 22.07.2019/05.02.2020 and the present order.

The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of" 

  &

32' 1 (* 

,

8

4
3, 

  1% 
&  .&+/%

 ,&

 



 1) ,&

3  +

<* "Permission to file present application is granted. We are clearly of the view that paragraph 41 of the judgment in "Ashrafi and others v. State of Haryana and others" relate to compensation payable on the acquisition of land in District Ambala, Haryana.

Paragraph 44 deals with the compensation of land in District Hisar, Haryana.

The later portion of paragraph 44, which relates to land in DistrictAmbala, Haryana, has to be read along with the findings recorded in paragraph 41.

5 Accordingly, the present application is dismissed." 1 )    3

     %   
 &    &   
;+

3/
    
;+

3/
 


17
 




&  %



3 ,0
& .&,/

 &5618* 
 6   ,  

 


<* "8.

So after reading both the paras simultaneously it appears that DH is entitled for 12% compound interest on the amount of Rs. 180/ per Sq yard for about eight years as Hon'ble Apex Court has taken. Rs.180/per Sq yard in regard of the land acquired in 1981 and in para no.44 it is also clearly mentioned that cumulative rate of interest will be assessed and it is clearly mentioned that compensation on un form basis means that Rs.325/ per Sq yards for Hissar. So for amount for Ambala is 12% cumulative increase on Rs. 180/ from 26.05.1981 to 02.02.1989 which comes to Rs.430/per Sq.yard. So the issue of compensation is disposed off accordingly. Now case is adjourned to 20.05.2025 for payment by the JD."

 33 
           ,
 2  ' 71 (87 &  .&+/

/  '1(   1

,

4
3, 

  1!


 3% &   # $% ) 
 %
, 
  7& .& +/ %  %3 
 & 



  &       
 ;+

3  / 

    

3  +



3=
    3

 
 &4 &   
;+

3/ % ,%
, 


6 


  73

 

3   *  % 
 %
 ,05618* 



6178* 
 ,
&  84
3, 
& -             % 


     

   

 84
3, 
& 

3   


17 
  7 1 2,3

3  , 

 
     &,   

&  
;+

3/ %

 

3   * % 
 %


,05618* 
%

 
  


( 1
& .&+/% &  


   
&  
;+

3/* ,*

  9   :
3  ,&  
  %

      *  % 
 
 %
 ,05618*  
%
- &,   ,3 


&  
;+

3/3



3  *  
 ,05618* 
%%  

 1

 
 

  ,&

3  




 ,


Ashrafi's case (supra$  ,0 %
 




56178* 
  %   %

3 ,05618* 


  * &  
;+

3/2



  
     
  

 0

3

,/
 

 1


 # $% %
, 
& .&

7 +  /  
       %    

  %       * , ,


  * 56178*  
 ' 3,  & 


  ?

  
%



3 


 1 !

+>*$
& .&+/

2' 1 (8 


!  " 

& #

 '(  )     

$" '

#*$ 

++#

   
    

 * &,    4



3  
 4
3, 


  # $%  %    ,0 
  
 ,9 ,& %&
&

3 @  ,


6 8* 
   ,3&% % 


7




  ,0%      

3 





% &
5618* 
A

 

3 , 
 


  $%  
 

  ,0
56178* 
%

 
3 
%  


39  - 
 %  
 ,

3  3> B  

:
 9 ,&  
  &,  

&  
;+

3/%&
   ,  & 

   

  
   %  &&
, 
 7 2  
 
    
3  3 &0  3  
 , & 

3  

8 %
&    
4



 
  


    

        
  

 9  ,&) ,    


<* Sr. No.

Ist acquisition 2nd acquisition 3rd acquisition '

 
       

 1  (1 7



'

 
       

 1 (1  

(

 >

 

C 
,      ,,  C
,

     ,,   C
,      ,,  6     

 3 > B  > B  
  :
 ,   %
 &

/    (1 678*     61( 8*      618*   (

678*  ( 



/  %

6  1(8* 67 1(8* 


,

6(8*     


, 



   

 


>* 1*

 6     "/      
 ) ,

, 

 
 , 68*  %
 &    
 

3 :
3    6(8*      
%

   )    %  & 
      &

 
           ,

 + &

 
   1! $!$  # 6 8* 


,   
 

 1 

  

.   !$  )    '  
<* "  
%

9  ,&   


  
 6   /  
    ,0    

 &67(8* -%     /  
    ,0    

 611  2

 %  ,    
  61     



&6   
 
&


& 9  = 

> 4&
-  - /  %
  ?

   ,   

       
  



3

&

@  

,  6(  
 

 ,

 &       the lands is assessed at Rs. 180 per Rs.325 or Rs.430/

per square yard %

 


,    
% 




  1 


.

9 square yard on a uniform basis for all lands &, 
&BB  ( ) % 



    &

3 6178* 
, 


3 
 

  1  


 # $%   C  


&


3 
,

,
& - .&,/3 ' 
 , 4
3, 

!$&

<* Para 44:

Accordingly, in Mukesh Kumar's case and the other cases heard along with the said case, we are of the view that while adding 12% annual increase to the value of the lands acquired, the same should be done on a cumulative basis. In Mukesh Kumar's case, the compensation awarded was at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq. yard along with all statutory benefits, as provided under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Having discarded the belting system which has been resorted to, we are of the view that the compensation as awarded at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq. yard, has to be reassessed by applying the cumulative rate of increase at the rate of 12% per annum with the base year being the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, together with the statutory benefits, as indicated hereinabove.

The stand taken on behalf of the State of Haryana, regarding the amount of escalation fixed at 12% being improper, does not appeal to us having regard to the potentiality of the lands acquired and the sharp increase in the value of the lands in recent times. The valuation of the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.235/- per sq. yard by the High Court, appears to have been influenced by the compensation already assessed in Atam Prakash's case, where the market value of the land acquired in Sectors 9 and 11 was assessed at Rs.235/- per sq. yard. According to Mr.

Swarup, the said lands were far away from the lands involved in the present set of cases and, accordingly, the rate of compensation for the lands under consideration should be definitely higher than awarded in respect of the lands covered in Atam Prakash's Para 41: As far as the lands within the District of Ambala are concerned, in respect of one set of lands, the Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired lands to be Rs.57,000/- per acre.

However, another Reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.3,38,800/- per acre. In our view, the claim of the land owners, assessed at Rs.300/- per sq. yard is on the high side but Rs.110/- per sq. yard, as had been held by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, is on the low side. On a comparison of the price of lands sold during 1981, or by adding 12% per annum on Rs.70/- per sq. yard on annual compounded basis, the value of the lands is assessed at Rs.180/- per sq.

yard on a uniform basis for all lands, as also submitted by Ms. Malhotra.

10 case. Accordingly, we re-assess the compensation assessed in respect of the lands covered by these cases by applying the cumulative rate of interest, taking the date of Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as the base year for such calculation at Rs.325/- per sq. yard. The said valuation will also be applicable in Mahabir & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.

[SLP(C)No.1512 of 2007], Sarwan Singh & Anr.

vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [SLP(C)Nos.2014420150 of 2007] and State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Partap Singh & Anr. [SLP(C)No.21597 of 2006]. As far as the lands in village Patti Mehar, Saunda and Jandli in Ambala District and forming the subject matter in Surinder Kumar's case [SLP(C)Nos.16372-16404 of 2008], in Manohar Lal Khurana's case and in other cases falling in the same category are concerned, the compensation will be at the above rate on a uniform basis.

,&

/ , 4



3

3 ' 
  



!$

  
  %

3

<* !$ 
,

,
& .&+/5 6178* 


 4
3,   

%

9 - ! &
& .&+/
  
 

 1  


 2  '78 

 /     '1( 8 1 "Inderjeet Singh (now deceased) thr. LRs. v. The State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector".        

3




  

<* "Permission to file present application is granted. We are clearly of the view that paragraph 41 of the judgment in "Ashrafi and others v. State of Haryana and others" relate to compensation payable on the acquisition of land in District Ambala, Haryana.

Paragraph 44 deals with the compensation of land in

11 District Hisar, Haryana.

The later portion of paragraph 44, which relates to land in DistrictAmbala, Haryana, has to be read along with the findings recorded in paragraph 41.

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed." !&$ ,0%    %



,, 

 



7



3 9  ,&%
56 8* 
 !$

, 

3   

. !$ %   .&,/ * , %&,
&

3, 

5 @ 

, !
$ )     4
3,   $%  ,0 


 3> B 

:
 9 ,&%&
&

, 

  @

,    

 


, 





  ,3 ,   



7



&0

3 &  6 8* 
%

 ,618*  
 %

3 <* 7



+ 8    7

 + 8  7(  7

 7( + 8  7

( 7

7

(+ 8   111 

7

  111  + 8  1 ( 7 ( 7

( 1 ( 7 ( 177

 7

177

 1111+ 8  ( 7111 7

( 7111 (7



!7
$ 1  ( D1 E1

12 !$ 
,

,
& .&+/5 6178* 


,  
  

&   ,3

&,
&

39 ,&  %
   
 %
 

 , 8  ,   @ 
,

,
& .&+ /  %           



 7

 ,
 56 8* 


   %        

          3     % 


17
  7
&  
;+

3/% &  *   3 > B 9 ,&% 
 
 %
 ,05 18* 


 C , ,  & 
% &,  ,


&    



( 1
& - .&+/


     

!  "  

  ,,
& * 3

3%
 ,0 5  618*       


      
 3    

 



   2     ,  

       


( 1  
 1  
 &     - .&  ,  / !

+>*7
>* $%  
,

,0 %  
  
 ,9 ,&%&,
   4



3 ' 
  2%
 


& .&+/




 1    # $% %


3% ,  


- 
   %


3% ,  

9 ,&

13

 

    ,  &   
      
  
 

17
&  
;+

3/ % ,     4
3, 


  $% %% &  


( 1!>*7$



 1!>*$ 
& .&,/  
;+

3/

  * % 
 %
 ,05 618* 
) 

%

 
&  - .&+/&% ,

3 2' 71 (*7

/     '1( * 1  %     
   % 



 & - .&,/  7!

+>* $   

 %  

 

  , 

& 


   ) ,3 


&  
;+

3/&
  ,   & 
  

& .&+/ 

3   &

3

 ,   
, 
  >

3 

 


  (  (HARKESH MANUJA) 

0 JUDGE  0

38 
< F8'  &< F8'