MOHINDER SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

                    [2014] 8 S.C.R. 369


               MOHINDER SINGH & ORS.                          A
                             v.
                   STATE OF HARYANA
        (Civil Appeal Nos.7227-7257 of 2014 etc).
                    AUGUST 05, 2014
                                                              8
           [T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN AND
               ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land acquired under - Award
of compensation - Reasonable deduction from market value C
of the land, towards development charges - Ascertainment of
- Reference Court deducted 1/41h of the market value - High
Court deducted 40% of the market value -Held: If the acquired
land is already in the midst of already developed land,
deduction of 40% would not be justified - In the present case, D
the acquired land was already within developed municipal
limits, hence the cut of 40% is not justified - Deduction of
 1141h of market .value made by Reference Court is appropriate.

    The question for consideration in the present             E
appeals was as to what would be the reasonable
deduction towards development charges, to be made
from the market value, in respect of the land in question,
acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

    Partly allowing the appeals preferred by the              F
claimants and dismissing the appeals preferred by the
State, the Court
      HELD:1. 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 G
in its municipal limits and it is in evidence that around this
land there exist College, Girls High school, cinema hall,
cold storage, rice mills, grain market and private nursing
                            369                               H
    370     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   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 Single Judge of the High Court, while
    referring to the contention of the State that the land in
B   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. [Para 5] [373-A-D]
C      2. 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 the cut of 40% which
  has been imposed by the High Court cannot be upheld,
D 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. [Para 7] [373-G-H; 374-A]
        Charan Dass vs. H.P. Housing and Urban Development
E   Authority (2010) 13 SCC 398: 2009 (14) SCR 163; Kasturi
    and others vs. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354: 2002 (4)
    Suppl. SCR 117 - relied on.
                         Case Law Reference
F         2009 (14) SCR 163          relied on        Para 6
          2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 117    relied on        Para 6
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
    7227-7257 of 2014.
G
         From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2000 in LPA
    Nos. 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 323,
    324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 337,
    338, 339, 340, 341, 358, 361, 1283, of 1999 of the High Court
H   of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
 MOHINDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 371


                            WITH                                A
C.A. Nos. 7258-7311 of 2014.
     Brijendra Chahar, Mahabir Singh, Aditya Gupta, Rishi
Malhotra, Prem Malhotra, Kamal Mohan Gupta, S.K Bansal,
Savithri Bansal, V.S. Lakshmi, A. Venayagam Balan, Kailash      B
Chand for the Appellants.
    Narender Hooda, Manjit Singh, AAG, Vikas Saharan,
Kamal Mohan Gupta, Vivekta Singh, Nupur Choudhary, Sanjay
Kumar Rathee, Dr. Kailash Chand, Naresh Bakshi for the
Respondent.                                               C
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     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              D
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 Act, 1894, E
 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 F
 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, G
 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 H
    372      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   Rs.2,66,400/- per acre in his Award dated 31.5.1991. Feeling
    dissatisfied with the 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
B   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
c   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
D   the present appeals seeking reduction in the amount of
    compensation and the claimants preferred separate appeals
    seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
         4. Shri Narender Hooda, !fumed Additional Advocate
   General for the State of Haryana submitted that the sale
E 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
F 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
G 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
H   the record. The only point for consideration in these appeals
 MOHINDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 373
             [C. NAGAPPAN, J.]
is as to what would be the reasonable deduction towards              A
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     B
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       c
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.                    D
     ·6. This Court in the decision in Charan Dass vs. H.P.
Housing and Urban Development Authority [(2010) 13
sec 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         E
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     F
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.
                                                                     G
      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 uphold the cut of 40%
which has been imposed by the High Court since the acquired
                                                                     H
    374      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A 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 r,esult the appeals preferred by the claimants are
    partly allowed and the impugned judgment of the Division
8
    Bench of the High Court i~ 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.
c
    Kalpana K. Tripathy                           Appeals disposed of.