Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

SMT. SANTOSH KUMAR! ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

Citation
1996 INSC 960
Decided
28 August 1996
Disposal
Dismissed

Holding

Compensation calculated on a yardage basis for housing development must be reduced by one‑third for development charges, and no additional amount under Section 23(1‑A) is payable.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by Santosh Kumar and others against the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s enhancement of compensation for land acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for housing development in Panipat. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed compensation per acre, which was later enhanced by the Additional District Judge to Rs. 18 per square yard and further by the High Court to Rs. 21.25 per square yard, without any deduction for development charges and with an additional amount under Section 23(1-A). The appellants argued that a one‑third deduction for development charges should apply and that the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) was not warranted. The Court held that when compensation is calculated on a yardage basis for housing projects, a deduction of one‑third for development charges is mandatory and the claimants are not entitled to the extra amount under Section 23(1-A). Consequently, the High Court’s award was not justified, and the appeals were dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

  • When compensation is determined on a yardage basis for housing development, must a deduction of one‑third be made towards development charges?
  • Is the claimant entitled to an additional amount under Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in such circumstances?

Legislation cited

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationDevelopment chargesSection 23(1-A)Yardage basisHousing developmentSupreme Court

Judgment

                    SMT. SANTOSH KUMAR! ETC.                                    A
                                v.
                       STATE OF HARYANA

                            AUGUST 28, 1996

         [K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.)                                B

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

       Sections 4( 1), 23(1-A)--Compensation-Award of-Enhanced by Ad-
ditional Distlict Judge--Fwther enhanced by High Court-On appeal held,          C
when compensation is detennined on yardage basis for housing development
and the lands are to be developed, direction to deduct I/3rd towards develop-
ment charges, is required to be given-Further enhancement of compensation
not wa1mnted--Party not entitled to additional amount--High Court wrongly
given it.
                                                                                D
      CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2251-
52 of 1991 Etc.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.85 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in R.F.A. Nos. 766 and 767 of 1984.
                                                                                E
      D.V. Sehgal, J.S. Malik, A.V. Palli, Ms. Rekha Palli and Atul Sharma
for the Appellant.

      Pradeep Misra and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the appellant in C.A. No.
2251-52/91.
                                                                                F
      Jasbir Malik and Prem Malhotra for the Respondent.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 G
of 1894) {for short, the 'Act') was published on September 25, 1979
acquiring large tracks of land for urbanisation within the municipal limits
of Panipat. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated April 7, 1981
determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 24,960 per acre for Block
I and Rs. 19,992 per acre for Block-II. On reference, the Additional
District Judge enhanced the compensation by his award and decree dated H
                                     315
     316                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A January 24, 1984 to Rs. 18 per sq. yd. On further appeal by the State as
     well as the claimants, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.
     21.25 per sq. yd. without any deductions for developmental charges. The
     High Court has also granted additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of
     the Act. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

B          Shri Sehgal, learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that
     the notification relied upon by the District Judge relates to third acquisition
     dated October 10, 1978 while the acquisition in this case is of September
     25, 1979. Therefore, the learned Judge ought to have granted escalated
     charges rather than what was granted in the earlier cases. We find no force
.C   in the contention. In fact, the Additional District Judge relying upon small
     piece of land which did not find favour with the High Court, enhanced the
     compensation. The High Court also on the comparative evaluation and
     considering the evidence adduced before the reference Court, deterlT'ined
     the compensation at the rate of Rs. 21.25 per sq. yd. It is settled law that
     when the compensation is determined on yardage basis for housing
D    development and the lands are to be developed, the direction to deduct
     1/3rd towards the development charges, is required to be given. The High
     Court has not adopted that principle but the State has not come in appeal.
     The High Court has also granted additional amount under Section 23(1-A)
     of the Act to which the appellants are not entitled. Under these cir-
E    cumstances, we do not find any justification warranting further enhance-
     mentI
           of the compensation.

          The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances,
     without costs.

     G.N.                                                      Appeals dismissed.


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.