Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Randhir Singh @Dhira vs State Of Haryana . on 30 April, 2014
Ò 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5093-5103 OF 2014
(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C.)NOS.31805-31815 OF 2012)
MATTERS FILED BY GOVERNMENT/AUTHORITY:
RANDHIR SINGH @ DHIRA & ORS. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS
WITH
C.A.NO. 5104 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.28957 OF 2012
C.A.NOS.5106-5107 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NOS.29322-29323 OF 2012
C.A.NOS.5108-5110 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NOS.29600-29602 OF 2012
C.A.NO. 5112 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.34762 OF 2012
C.A.NO. 5113 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.37592 OF 2012
C.A.NO. 5114 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.37594 OF 2012
C.A.NO. 5115 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.37595 OF 2012
C.A.NO. 5122 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.38682 OF 2012
C.A.NO. 5123 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.37599 OF 2012
C.A.NO. 5125 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.684 OF 2013
C.A.NO. 5126 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.686 OF 2013
2
C.A.NO. 5127 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.688 OF 2013
C.A.NO. 5128 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.689 OF 2013
C.A.NO. 5129 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.691 OF 2013
C.A.NO. 5130 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.692 OF 2013
C.A.NO. 5131 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.694 OF 2013
C.A.NO. 5132 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.697 OF 2013
C.A.NO. 5133 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.698 OF 2013
C.A.NO. 5134 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.700 OF 2013
C.A.NOS.5176-5177 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NOS.7867-7868 OF 2013
C.A.NOS.5208-5212 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.13302-13316 OF 2013
C.A.NO. 5262 OF 2014 @ S.L.P.(C)NO.1757 OF 2014
O R D E R
S.L.P.(C)Nos.31805-31815 of 2012, 38682 of 2012, 34762 of 2012 AND 1757 of 2014:
1. Delay, if any, in filing the application for substitution(s) is/are condoned.
2. Application(s) for substitution, if any, is/are allowed. 3
3. Delay, if any, in filing and re-filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.
4. Leave granted.
5. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal Nos.2242, 2973 to 2980 of 2009 and 3953 to 3954 of 2009 and other connected appeals, dated 01.05.2012.
6. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued by acquiring authority on 23.08.2005 and various other dates to acquire a large extent of land in villages Ramgarh Rohar, Sarawala, Theh Banera and Rattangarh Kakrali, District Kaithal, State of Haryana for the construction of BML Hansi Butana Multi Purpose Link Channel.
7. Pursuant to the notification so issued, the land losers/agriculturists had filed their objections. After considering the objections filed by the land losers/agriculturists, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 13.9.2005 and on various other dates. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 30.08.2006 and on various other dates awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.5/- lacs per acre along with 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act and 12% additional amount as envisaged under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.
8. The land losers/agriculturists, being aggrieved by the compensation so awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector had sought 4 for a reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court for determination of the fair compensation payable to the land losers/agriculturists.
9. After registering the reference and after recording the evidence of the parties, the Reference Court had passed the award on 28.2.2009 and on various other dates has upheld the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
10. Being aggrieved by the said order, the land losers/agriculturists had carried the matter by way of appeals before the High Court. The High Court, vide its impugned judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012, after considering the plea of the claimants, had further enhanced the compensation from Rs.5/- lacs per acre to Rs.6.50/- lacs per acre with all statutory benefits.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants-land losers are before us in these appeals, by way of special leave.
12. We have heard Mr.Vipin Gogia, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Manjit Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
13. After carefully going through the records of the case(s) and the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation as awarded by the High Court be further enhanced by a sum of Rs.1.25/- lacs per acre.
14. In view of the above, we allow these appeals and modify 5 the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The appellants/ claimants are now entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.1.25/- lacs over and above the compensation so awarded by the High Court with all statutory benefits on the enhanced amount.
Ordered accordingly.
S.L.P.(C)Nos.37599 of 2012, 684 of 2013, 686 of 2013, 688 of 2013, 689 of 2013, 691 of 2013, 692 of 2013, 694 of 2013, 698 of 2013 and 700 of 2013:
1. Delay, if any, in filing the application for substitution(s) is/are condoned.
2. Application(s) for substitution, if any, is/are allowed.
3. Delay, if any, in filing and re-filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.
4. Leave granted.
5. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal Nos.632, 633 and 634 of 2011 and other connected appeals, dated 01.05.2012.
6. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued by acquiring authority on 18.08.2005 to acquire a large extent of land in village Pundri, District Kaithal, State of Haryana for the construction of BML Hansi Butana Multi Purpose Link Channel.6
7. Pursuant to the notification so issued, the land losers/agriculturists had filed their objections. After considering the objections filed by the land losers/agriculturists, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 19.09.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation to the land losers/ agriculturists and other land owners at the rate of Rs.5 lacs per acre along with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount as envisaged under Section 23(1) of the Act.
8. The land losers/agriculturists, being aggrieved by the compensation so awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector had sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court for determination of the fair compensation payable to the land losers/agriculturists.
9. After registering the reference and after recording the evidence of the parties, the Reference Court had passed the award on 01.10.2010 and enhanced the compensation from Rs.5/- lacs per acre to Rs.11.40/- lacs per acre.
10. Being aggrieved by the said order, the land losers/ agriculturists had carried the matter by way of appeals to the High Court. The High Court, vide its impugned judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012, after considering the plea of the claimants, had upheld the award passed by the Reference Court.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants-agriculturists are before us in these appeals, by way of special leave. 7
12. We have heard Mr.V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Manjit Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
13. After carefully going through the records of the case(s) and the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court be further enhanced by a sum of Rs.60,000/- per acre.
14. In view of the above, we allow these appeals and modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The appellants/ claimants are now entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.60,000/- per acre over and above the compensation so awarded by the High Court with all statutory benefits on the enhanced amount.
Ordered accordingly.
S.L.P.(C)Nos.37592 of 2012, 37595 of 2012 and 37594 of 2012 and SLP(C)NO.697 of 2013:
1. Delay, if any, in filing the application for substitution(s) is/are condoned.
2. Application(s) for substitution, if any, is/are allowed.
3. Delay, if any, in filing and re-filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.
4. Leave granted.
5. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order 8 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal Nos.1654 of 2011, dated 01.05.2012 and other connected appeals.
6. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued by acquiring authority on 18.08.2005 to acquire a large extent of vacant land in village Malikpur/ Matikpur and Kakaut, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, State of Haryana for the construction of BML Hansi Butana Multi Purpose Link Channel.
7. Pursuant to the notification so issued, the lan d losers/agriculturists had filed their objections. After considering the objections filed by the land losers/agriculturists, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 13.09.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector had awarded compensation to the appellants and other land owners at the rate of Rs.5/- lacs per acre along with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount as envisaged under Section 23(1) of the Act.
8. The land losers/agriculturists, being aggrieved by th e compensation so awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector had sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court for determination of the fair compensation payable to the land losers/agriculturists.
9. After registering the reference and after recording the evidence of the parties, the Reference Court had passed the award on 9 05.08.2010 and enhanced the compensation from Rs.5/- lacs to Rs.8/-
lacs per acre. In addition to this the Reference Court had also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- per acre on account of bifurcation of land holdings to the appellants/agriculturists amongst others with solatium and additional amount as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector.
10. Being aggrieved by the said order, the agriculturists had carried the matter by way of appeals to the High Court. The High Court, vide its impugned judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012, after considering the plea of the land losers/ agriculturists, had upheld the compensation as awarded by the Reference Court.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants-agriculturists are before us in these appeals, by way of special leave.
12. We have heard Mr.V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Manjit Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
13. After carefully going through the records of the case(s) and the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation as awarded by the High Court be further enhanced by a sum of Rs.1.25/- lacs per acre.
14. In view of the above, we allow these appeals and modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The 10 appellants/ claimants are now entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.1.25/- lacs over and above the compensation so awarded by the High Court with all statutory benefits on the enhanced amount.
Ordered accordingly.
S.L.P.(C)Nos.29600-29602 of 2012, 28957 of 2012, 29322-23 of 2012 AND 7867-7868 of 2013:
1. Delay, if any, in filing the application for substitution(s) is/are condoned.
2. Application(s) for substitution, if any, is/are allowed.
3. Delay, if any, in filing and refiling the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.
4. Leave granted.
5. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal Nos.632, 633 and 634 of 2011, dated 01.05.2012 and other connected appeals.
6. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued by acquiring authority on 18.08.2005 to acquire a large extent of vacant land in villages Khambahera and Matikpur, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal for the construction of BML Hansi Butana Multi Purpose Link Channel.
7. Pursuant to the notification so issued, the land 11 losers/agriculturists had filed their objections. After considering the objections filed by the land losers/agriculturists, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 13.09.2006. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 10.01.2006 awarded compensation to the appellants and other land owners at the rate of Rs.5/- lacs per acre along with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount as envisaged under Section 23(1) of the Act.
8. The land losers/agriculturists, being aggrieved by the compensation so awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector had sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court for determination of the fair compensation payable to the land losers/agriculturists.
9. After registering the reference and after recording the evidence of the parties, the Reference Court had passed the award on 24.07.2010 by enhancing the compensation to Rs.6/- lacs per acre. In addition to this the Reference Court had also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- per acre on account of bifurcation of land holdings to the appellants amongst others with solatium and additional amount as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector.
10. Being aggrieved by the said order, the agriculturists had carried the matter by way of appeals to the High Court. The High Court, vide its impugned judgment(s) and order(s) dated 05.05.2012, after considering the plea of the claimants, had further enhanced 12 the compensation to Rs.7/- lacs per acre.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants-agriculturists are before us in these appeals, by way of special leave.
12. We have heard Mr.Arvind Bansal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Manjit Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
13. After carefully going through the records of the case(s) and the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation as awarded by the High Court be further enhanced by a sum of Rs.1.25/-
lacs per acre.
14. In view of the above, we allow these appeals and modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The appellants/ claimants are now entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.1.25/- lacs over and above the compensation so awarded by the High Court with all statutory benefits on the enhanced amount.
Ordered accordingly.
S.L.P.(C)NOS.13302-13316/2013:
1. Delay, if any, in filing the application for substitution(s) is/are condoned.
2. Application(s) for substitution, if any, is/are allowed.
3. Delay, if any, in filing and re-filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.13
4. Leave granted.
5. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal Nos.2753 of 2009 other connected appeals, dated 01.05.2012.
6. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued by acquiring authority on 23.08.2005 to acquire a large extent of vacant land in village Ramgarh Rohar, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal for the construction of BML Hansi Butana Multi Purpose Link Channel.
7. Pursuant to the notification so issued, the lan d losers/agriculturists had filed their objections. After considering the objections filed by the land losers/agriculturists, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 13.09.2005. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 13.08.2007 awarded compensation to the appellants and other land owners at the rate of Rs.5/- lacs per acre along with 30% solatium and 12% additional amount as envisaged under Section 23(1) of the Act.
8. The land losers/agriculturists, being aggrieved by th e compensation so awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector had sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court for determination of the fair compensation payable to the land losers/agriculturists.14
9. After registering the reference and after recording the evidence of the parties, the Reference Court vide award dat ed 24.12.2008 had upheld the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector.
10. Being aggrieved by the said order, the lan d losers/agriculturists had carried the matter by way of appeals to the High Court. The High Court, vide its impugned judgment(s) and order(s) dated 01.05.2012, after considering the plea of th e claimants, had further enhanced the compensation from Rs.5/- lacs per acre to Rs.6.50 lacs per acre with all statutory benefits.
11. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants-agriculturists are before us in these appeals, by way of special leave.
12. We have heard Mr.Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Manjit Singh, learned counsel for t he respondents.
13. After carefully going through the records of the case(s) and the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation as awarded by the High Court be further enhanced by a sum of Rs.1.25/-
lacs per acre.
14. In view of the above, we allow these appeals and modify the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Th e appellants/ claimants are now entitled for an enhanced amount of Rs.1.25/- lacs over and above the compensation so awarded by the 15 High Court with all statutory benefits on the enhanced amount.
Ordered accordingly.
.......................J. (H.L. DATTU) .......................J. (R.K. AGRAWAL) NEW DELHI;
APRIL 30, 2014
16
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.2 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No(s).31805-31815/2012
(From the judgement and order dated 01/05/2012 in RFA
No.2242/2009,RFA No.2973/2009,RFA No.2974/2009,RFA
No.2975/2009,RFA No.2976/2009,RFA No.2977/2009,RFA
No.2978/2009,RFA No.2979/2009,RFA No.2980/2009,RFA
No.3953/2009,RFA No.3954/2009 of the HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) RANDHIR SINGH @DHIRA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for c/delay in filing substitution appln., appln. for substitution for bringing on record Lrs. of deceased petitioner in SLP(C) No. 31809 of 2012 and office report) WITH 28957/2012, 29322-29323/2012,29600-29602/2012, 34863/2012, 34762/2012,37592/2012,37594/2012,37595/2012, 38682/2012,37599/2012,38730/2012,684/2013, 686/2013,688/2013, 689/2013,691/2013,692/2013,694/2013,697/2013, 698/2013,700/2013,701-704/2013,705/2013, 525/2013, 24112/2012,24126/2012,24662/2012,7867-7868/2013, 13679/2013,10432/2013,13302-13316/2013, 12648-12650/2013, 20345-20357/2013,22331/2013, 23930-23937/2013,25961/2013,26952-26955/2013, 30820/2013, 33510-33511/2013,36269-36271/2013,32640/2013, 2081-2087/2014, 2438-2442/2014,1757/2014),3514-3525/2014, 10367-10385/2014, CC NO.6375/2014 Date: 30/04/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL For Petitioner(s) Mr.Vipin Gogia, Adv.
Mr.Brijendra Singh, Adv.
for Ms. Jaspreet Gogia,Adv.
Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Adv.17
Mr.Manjit Singh, AAG Ms.Nupur Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr.Tarjin Singh Chikkara, Adv.
For Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.
Mr.Arvind Bansal, Adv.
Mr.K.C.Rajput, Adv.
For Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Adv.
Mr.Shishpal Laler, Adv.
Mr.N.P.Midha, Adv.
for Mr. Balbir Singh Gupta, Adv.
Mr.Alok Sangwan, Adv.
For Mr. Devashish Bharuka, Adv.
Mr.V.K.Jain, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, Adv.
Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Satyendra Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Shishpal Laler, Adv.
Mr.N.P.Midha, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv.
Mr.Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv.
Mr.Santosh Kumar, Adv.
For Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. J.P. Dhanda, Adv.
Mr.N.A.Usmani, Adv.
Mr. Shishir Deshpande, Adv.
Mr. Debasis Misra, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R S.L.P.(C)Nos.31805-31815 of 2012, 38682 of 2012, 34762 of 2012 AND 1757 of 2014:
Delay, if any, in filing the application for substitution(s) is/are condoned.
Application(s) for substitution, if any, is/are allowed. 18 Delay, if any, in filing and re-filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed order. S.L.P.(C)Nos.37599 of 2012, 684, 2013, 686 of 2013, 688 of 2013, 689 of 2013, 691 of 2013, 692 of 2013, 694 of 2013, 698 of 2013 and 700 of 2013:
Delay, if any, in filing the application for substitution(s) is/are condoned. Application(s) for substitution, if any, is/are allowed.
Delay, if any, in filing and re-filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.
Leave granted.
Appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed order. S.L.P.(C)Nos.37592 of 2012, 37595 of 2012 and 37594 of 2012 and SLP(C)NO.697 of 2013:
Delay, if any, in filing the application for substitution(s) is/are condoned.
Application(s) for substitution, if any, is/are allowed. Delay, if any, in filing and re-filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.
Leave granted.
Appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed order. S.L.P.(C)Nos.29600-29602 of 2012, 28957 of 2012, 29322-23 of 2012 AND 7867-7868 of 2013:
Delay, if any, in filing the application for substitution(s) is/are condoned.
Application(s) for substitution, if any, is/are allowed. Delay, if any, in filing and refiling the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.19
Leave granted.
Appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed order. S.L.P.(C)NOS.13302-13316/2013:
Delay, if any, in filing the application for substitution(s) is/are condoned.
Application(s) for substitution, if any, is/are allowed. Delay, if any, in filing and re-filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned.
Leave granted.
Appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed order. Rest of the matters:
De-tag and list separately.
(G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi)
Court Master Asstt.Registrar
(Signed order is placed on the file)