Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hsidc (Now Hsiidc) vs Makhan Lal & Others on 9 March, 2018

Author: G.S.Sandhawalia

Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

                                        RFA No.6246 of 2011 (O&M)
                                        Date of Decision: 09.03.2018

Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. now known as
Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

                                                          .... Appellant(s).
                  Versus

Makhan Lal and others
                                                          ....Respondent(s).

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA.
                      ****
Present: Mr.A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with
         Mr.G.S.Bhandol, Advocate and
         Mr.Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for Haryana State
         Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

           Mr.Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with
           Mr.Satyendra Chauhan, Advocate,
           Mr.Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with
           Mr.Rozer Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate,
           Ms.Manisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate with
           Mr.Ashwani Gaur, Advocate
           Mr.G.C.Shahpuri, Advocate
           Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate,
           Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate,
           Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate,
           Mr.Nitin Jain, Advocate,
           Mr.Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate
           for the land owners.

           Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana,
           for State as well as for Haryana State Industrial and
           Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.

         Ms.Safia Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
                          ***
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

The notification in the present case is '26.02.2002' instead of '26.06.2002', which has also been mentioned in paragraph No.14 of the impugned award.

1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 23:59:10 ::: -2- Since this Court, vide judgement of even date in RFA No.2373-2010 titled 'Madan Pal (III) Vs. State of Haryana and another' and other connected appeals, has already fixed the compensation @ Rs.41.40 lacs per acre for notification dated 26.02.2002, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed. Relevant part of the judgement passed in Madan Pal (III)'s case (supra) reads as under:-

"140. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the HSIIDC seeking reduction in the compensation and of MSIL are dismissed and those of the land owners alongwith cross-objections are allowed.
(i) The market value of the land falling in five village i.e. Naharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Huria, Bas Khusla and Dhana is assessed @ Rs.41.40 lakhs per acre alongwith all statutory benefits.
(ii) The market value of land in village Manesar is assessed @ Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre alongwith all statutory benefits.
(iii) The appellant-M/s Kohli Holdings Private Limited in RFA No.4646 of 2010 would be entitled for compensation Rs.62.10 lakhs per acre, on account of it being given benefit of 50% of locational advantage being situated on the highway and in village Manesar apart from that it would be entitled for 30% more compensation on account of severance charges on the abovesaid market value alongwith all statutory benefits.
(iv) The directions of the Apex Court in the case of Pran Sukh will also be adhered to while disbursing the balance amount of compensation.
(v) Where appeals have been filed by the land owners which were beyond period of limitation and applications have been filed for condoning the delay with a condition that the land owners will not be entitled for the interest during the said period, the Executing Court shall ensure that the amounts are calculated and disbursed, keeping in the view the said condition which has been passed in the case of each and individual land owner.

2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 23:59:11 ::: -3-

(vi) The appeals filed by the MSIL are dismissed on account of non-maintainability and in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Satish Kumar Gupta (supra) being a post notification allottee."




                                              (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
March 09, 2018                                        JUDGE
raman

          Whether speaking/reasoned                Yes/No
          Whether reportable                       Yes/No




                                3 of 3
           ::: Downloaded on - 06-05-2018 23:59:11 :::