Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Satish Kumar(D)Thr. His L.R'S vs State Of Haryana on 19 September, 2016
Author: Anil R. Dave
Bench: Anil R. Dave, Uday Umesh Lalit, L. Nageswara Rao
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9559-9560 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.26925-26926/2014)
SATISH KUMAR(D)THR. HIS LRS. ... APPELLANT(S)
VS.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common judgment dated 26th April, 2010, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in different appeals. By the impugned judgment, the High Court taking into consideration the size of the plots, which were exhibited for the purpose of comparison with the size of the plots acquired, cut the valuation by 60%.
3. The common judgment was challenged before this Court in the case of Ashrafi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [(2013) 5 SCC 527]. This Court held therein : Signature Not Verified
“45. There is yet another set of lands forming the subject matter of the appeals arising out of Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date: 2016.09.24 Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.33637-33638 of 13:16:51 IST Reason: 2011, filed by Manohar Singh and others, which 1 are situated in Hansi, District Hisar. The said lands also form the subject matter of several other Special Leave Petitions, which will be covered by the decision in the above-mentioned Special Leave Petitions (now appeals). In the said cases, the High Court had assessed the compensation payable for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.805/- per sq. yard along with the statutory sums available under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act and solatium on the market value under Section 23(2) thereof. It was also indicated that the land owners would also be entitled to interest as provided under Section 28 of the Act.
46. While deciding the valuation of the lands, the High Court applied a cut of 60% and also took into consideration that the lands in question were small plots, the value whereof was definitely higher than the lands which had been acquired which were much larger in area.
47. In our view, the High Court was justified in taking into consideration the size of the plots, which were exhibited for the purposes of comparison with the size of the plots acquired, but we are unable to uphold the cut of 60%, which has been imposed by the High Court, since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal limits. In these cases also, a cut of one-third the value would be appropriate as in the other cases. Accordingly, we modify the valuation arrived at by the High Court upon imposing a cut of 60% and direct that the amount of compensation be re-assessed upon imposing a cut of 331/3 per cent while re-assessing the value of the land.”
4. Ashrafi's case was finally disposed of with the following observation :
“57. The decision rendered in the appeals arising out of SLP(C)Nos.33637-33638 of 2011 (Manohar Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.) will govern Civil Appeal Nos.3388-3389 of 2011, C.A. No.5206 of 2011, C.A. No.5208 of 2011, C.A. No.5209 of 2011, C.A. No.5210 of 2011, C.A. No.5211 of 2011, C.A. No.5212 of 2011, C.A. No.5213 of 2011, C.A. 2 No.5214 of 2011, C.A. No.5207 of 2011, C.A. No.5215 of 2011, C.A. No.5216 of 2011, C.A. Nos.7179-7182 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.........(CC 14220-14221 of 2011), SLP(C)No......(CC 14164 of 2011), SLP(C)Nos.21344-21351 of 2011, SLP(C) Nos.32764-32765 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.32766-32767 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.32770- 32771 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.
32772-32773 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.32790-32791 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.32792-32793 of 2011, SLP(C) Nos.32796-32797 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.32798-32799 of 2011, SLP(C)Nos.32801-32802 of 2011 and SLP(C) Nos.32806-32807 of 2011.”
5. The cases of the appellants being similar against the common judgment, we also dispose of these appeals in terms of order passed in paragraph 57 of the judgment rendered in Ashrafi & Ors. (supra). Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. As there is substantial delay in filing and refiling these appeals, the period, for which the delay has been caused, shall not be considered for the purpose of grant of interest.
..............J. [ANIL R. DAVE] ..............J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] .................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO] New Delhi;
19th September, 2016.
3
ITEM NO.1 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 (C) No(s).26925-26926/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26/04/2010 in RFA No.2670/2003 and dated 09/01/2012 in RP No.107-CI/2011 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) SATISH KUMAR(D)THR. HIS LRs. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 19/09/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanchar Anand,Adv.
For Mr. Devendra Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.
(Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar (Signed Non-reportable judgment is placed on the file) 4