CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1996) 04 SC CK 0101

Mangat Ram, etc. vs State of Haryana and others, etc.

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 22 April 1996 · Citation: (1996) 5 AD 115 : AIR 1996 SC 3347 : (1996) 5 JT 470 : (1996) 4 SCALE 667 : (1996) 8 SCC 664 : (1996) 1 SCR 634 Supp

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Ramaswamy, J · G. B. Pattanaik, J
RESULT
dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeals No''s. 8879-80 of 1996.

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 462 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

Heard learned counsel for all the parties.

3.

The notification u/s 4(1) was published on August 16, for acquiring 49 acres 1 canal 15 marlas of land for establishing a commercial market of Auto Vehicles and for commercial purposes in Sirsa. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30,000 per acre. When the matter was carried in appeal, the learned single Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 27.50 per sq. yd. In L.P.A., the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 40 per sq. yd.

4.

The Municipal Committee filed appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 23334-35/94 and 20331-32/94. The appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 9046/94, 8448/94 and 7231/94 are filed by the Punjab Wakf Board. The appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 535-536/94 are filed by the tenants for the apportionment in a reference u/s 30.

5.

The question is : whether the determination of the compensation by the High Court is correct in law? It is not in dispute that the Municipal Committee had not filed any appeal against the enhancement of compensation by the learned single Judge to the Division Bench. Dissatisfied with the enhancement of the compensation, the claimants filed L.P.A. and the Division Bench enhanced the compensation to Rs. 40 per sq. yd. It would appear that in similar cases, the land situated in similar situation, the High Court had granted compensation at the same rates and the Division Bench reduced the developmental charged from 40% to 33-1/3%.

6.

In view of the fact that in other cases the compensation was determined at the rate of Rs. 40 per sd. yd. which was allowed to become final, we decline to interfere with the determination of the compensation by the Division Bench of the High Court.

7.

As regards apportionment of the compensation, the High Court has directed to pay 1/4 to the tenant and 3/4 to the Wakf Board. In view of the Judgment Col. Sir Harinder Singh Brar Bans Bahadur Vs. Bihari Lal and Others, and Inder Parshad Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the tenants are entitled to 3/4 of the compensation while the landlord is entitled to 1/4 of the compensation. In view of the above law, the order of the High Court in appeals arising from reference u/s 30 is modified to the extent that appellants/tenants - Mangat Ram and Ors. are entitled to 3/4th while the Wakf Board is entitled to 1/4th of the compensation amount. The amount awarded in the judgment of the single Judge u/s 23(1-A) also requires to be apportioned accordingly.

8.

The appeals are disposed of. The appeals of R.C. are dismissed. No Costs.