Ashok Kumar & Anr. Etc. v. State of Haryana
KURIAN, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 12495 of2015.
2. Around 46.93 acres of Land was acquired by the respondent
State ofHaryana initiating the proceedings by Notification dated
1085
A 19.09.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The purpose of acquisition is residential and commercial for Panchkula,
Sector-21. The acquired property is in Village Fatehpur. In respect of
the same development, we have seen that this court in many cases has
based the fixation of the land value based on acquisition proceedings
B initiated in 1981 in Village Judian. Those properties in village Judian had
access to State Highway and the value fixed by this Court is Rs. 250/
per square yard. In respect of properties situated i11 the adjoining village
of the appellants namely, Devi Nagar, we have fixed land value at the
rate of Rs. 250/- per square yard that was the acquisition initiated in the
year 1987 and that property had extensive national highway frontage.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in all the
adjoining villages for the properties acquired for the same purpose, this
court having fixed the land value at Rs. 250/- per square yard and above,
the appellants may also be granted the same value.
4. Shri Sanjay KumarTyagi, learned Additional Advocate General
for the respondent- State of Haryana however points out that even
according to the appellants, their claim was only Rs.125/- per square
yard and in any case the land of the appellants does not have the same
advantage when compared to other properties for which this court had
fixed the land value at Rs.250/- per square yard and above.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants however points
out that in the matter of fixation of just and fair compensation, the Court
is not bound by claim made by the owner. It is for the Court, in the facts
and circumstances of each case, to award just and fair compensation.
6. Prior to amendment Act 68 of 1984, the amount of compensation
that could be awarded by the Court was I imited to the amount claimed
by the applicant. Section 25 read as under -
"Section 25. Rules as to amount of compensation -
(1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant
to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him
by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less
than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.
(2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has
omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to
make such claim, the amount awarded by the court shall in no
ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA 1087
[KURIAN, J.]
case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. A
(3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be
allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded
to him by the court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the
amount awarded by the Collector."
The amended Section 25 reads as under:
"Section 25. Amount of compensation awarded by Court
not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector
The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be
less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11."
The amendment has come into effect on 24.09.1984.
7. The pre-amended provision put a cap on the maximum; the
compensation by court should not be beyond the amount claimed. The
amendment in 1984, on the contrary, put a cap on the minimum;
compensation cannot be less that what was awarded by the Land
Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been expressly
omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the
amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted
to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the Court to
award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market
value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the
owner.
8. Although in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this
Court in San jay Batham v. Munna Lal Parihar' held that -
"17. It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of
the Act, theAppella11t had cl:iimed compensation of Rs. 4,20,000/
- only, but as held in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC
274, in the absence ofany bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that
reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher
compensation to the victim of an accident."
· 9. In Bhag Singh and Others v. Union Territory of
Chandigarh', this Court held that there may be situations where the
'(2010) JI SCC665
'(1985)3 sec 737
A amount higher than claimed may be awarded to the claimant. The Court
observed -
"3 ...• It must be remembered that this was not a dispute between
two private citizens where it would be quite just and legitimate to
confine the claimant to the claim made by him and not to award
B him any higher amount than that claimed though even in such a
case there may be situations where an amount higher than that
claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for instance where an
amount is claimed as due at the foot of an account. Here was a
claim made by the appellants against the State Government for
F.
compensation for acquisition of their land and under the law. the
State was bound to pay to the appellants compensation on the
basis of the market value of the land acquired and if according to
the judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench,
the market value of the land acquired was higherthan that awarded
by the Land Acquisition Collectororthe Additional District Judge,
there is no reason why the appellants should have been denied
the benefit of payment of the market value so determined. To
deny this benefit to the appellants would tantamount to permitting
the State Government to acquire the land of the appellants on
payment of less than the true market value. There may be cases
where, as for instance, under' agrarian reform legislation, the holder
of land may, legitimately, as a matter of social justice with a view
to eliminating concentration of land in the hands of a few and
bringing about its equitable distribution, be deprived ofland which
is not being personally cultivated by him or which is in excess of
the ceiling area with payment of little compensation or no
compensation at all, but where land is acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the
holder of his land without payment of the true market value when
the law, in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such
market value .... "
I 0. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal', this
Court held that under the amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act,
the Court can grant a higher compensation than claimed by the applicant
in his pleadings -
'(2000J 7 sec 756
ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA
[KURIAN, J.]
"17. Award being in this case between the dates 30th April, 1982
and 24th September, 1984 and as per the Union oflndia and Anr.
v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. etc. (Supra), the amended
provisions would be applicable under which there is no restriction
that award could only be upto the amount claimed by the claimant.
Hence High Court order granting compensation more than what
is claimed cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the provisions
of the Act. Hence the review itself, as is confined for the aforesaid
reasons, has no n1erit."
11. Further, in Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
and others', a three-Judge bench reiterated the principle in Bhag Singh
(supra) and rejected the contention that a higher compensation than
claimed by the owner in his pleadings cannot be awarded by the Court.
In that case, the High Court had concluded that although the market
price of the land was Rs 66,550/- per acre, since the appellant had only
claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 58,500/-per acre in his pleadings,
therefore he could only be awarded compensation limited to his claim.
This Court, while reversing the decision of the High Court, awarded the
petitioner the market value, i.e., Rs. 66,550/- per acre thereby holding
t_hat the award would not be limited to the claim made by him.
12. In the case of the appellants herein, it is an admitted position
that the properties do not abut the national highway. Admittedly, it is
situated about 375 yards away from the national highway and it appears
that there is only the narrow Nahan Kothi Road connecting the properties
of the appellants to the national highway. Therefore, it will not be just
and proper to award land value of Rs.250/- per square yard, which is
granted to the property in adjoining village. Having regard to the factual
and legal position obtained above, we are of the considered view that
the just and fair compensation in the case of appellants would be Rs.
2001- per square yard.
13. Tlrerefore, these appeals are disposed off fixing the land value
at Rs. 200/- per square yard and the appellants shall also be entitled to
all the statutory benefits. The amount as above shall be paid and deposited
after adjusting the deficit court fee, if any, before the Executing Court
within a period of three months from today.
Nidhi Jain Appeals disposed.
'(200SJ 10 sec 797
1089