Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Mahabir Singh & Others vs State Of Haryana Through Lac Pwd (B&R) ... on 24 November, 2015
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, Arun Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13797 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.19695 of 2014)
MAHABIR SINGH AND ORS. ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
THR. LAC, PWD (B&R), HISSAR. ..RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 13798-99 OF 2015
(@ S.L.P.(C) NOS.20695-20696 OF 2014)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13800 OF 2015
(@ S.L.P.(C) NO.20726 OF 2014)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.13801-802 OF 2015
(@ S.L.P.(C) NOS.21048-21049 OF 2014)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13803 OF 2015
(@ S.L.P.(C) NO.21058 OF 2014)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13804 OF 2015
(@ S.L.P.(C)NO.4437 OF 2015)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13805 OF 2015
(@ S.L.P.(C)NO.4438 OF 2015)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13806 OF 2015
(@ S.L.P.(C)NO.4440 OF 2015)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.13807 OF 2015
(@ S.L.P.(C)NO.5200 OF 2015)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 13808 OF 2015
Signature Not Verified (@ S.L.P.(C)NO.5196 OF 2015)
Digitally signed by
Ramana Venkata Ganti
Date: 2015.12.02
16:32:10 IST
Reason: CIVIL APPEAL NOS.13809-13813 OF 2015
(@ S.L.P.(C)NOS.14554-14558 OF 2015)
2
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 13814-13816 OF 2015
(@ S.L.P.(C)NOS.23654-23656 OF 2015)
O R D E R
1. Delay, if any, in filing and re-filing the Special Leave Petition(s) is/are condoned.
2. Permission to file SLPs is granted in SLP(C) Nos.23654-23656/2015.
3. Delay, if any, in filing the application for substitution(s), is/are condoned.
4. Application(s) for substitution, if any, is/are allowed.
5. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
6. For the convenient disposal of these appeals, we would only notice the facts in Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(C) No.19695 of 2014 as the lead case.
Civil Appeal @ S.L.P.(C) No.19695 of 2014
7. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. No.3126 of 2005, dated 19.02.2014, 3 whereby and whereunder the High Court has granted 10% of the amount of compensation on account of bifurcation of the land.
8. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.03.2002, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) for acquiring land measuring 1.15 acres in village Ratta Khera, 13.93 acres in village Khera Khemwati, 1.54 acres in village Singhpura and 5.70 acres of land in village Rampura for construction of bypass road from Assand-Panipat Road to Safidon-Jind Road. The final declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 23.12.2002, and published in the Official Gazette on 07.01.2003.
9. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, “the L.A.C.”), by Award dated 27.02.2003, assessed the rate of compensation at Rs.2,10,000/- per acre for land in villages Rattan Khera and Rampura, Rs.4,00,000/- per acre for land in village Khera Khemawati and Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for land in village Singhpura. 4
10. Not being satisfied with the compensation so awarded by the L.A.C., the appellants-herein made an application to the L.A.C. under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the L.A.C. referred the case of the appellants to the Reference Court for determination of fair compensation for the acquired land, where it was registered.
11. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Reference Court allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation for the acquired land to Rs.6,00,000/- per acre.
12. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court, the appellants and the respondents-herein have approached the High Court by filing Regular First Appeals. The High Court, by its impugned judgment and order has dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellants and the cross-objections filed by the appellants as follows:
“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, 10% of the amount of compensation 5 would be just and fair amount of compensation on account of bifurcation of the land to the land owners”.
13. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the appellants are before us in this appeal.
14. We have heard the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis.
15. The learned counsel for the appellants would assail the judgment and order passed by the High Court and would submit that the compensation on account of bifurcation of land should be enhanced to 50% of the compensation awarded. The learned counsel for the appellants would rely on the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular First Appeal No.1337 of 1991 titled Surjit Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector and Ors. dated 09.04.2008, whereby and whereunder the High Court has granted 50% of the compensation on account of bifurcation of land.
6
16. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would support the judgment and order passed by the High Court.
17. We have carefully perused all material on record including the judgment and order passed by the Courts below. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered that 10% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the High Court on account of bifurcation of the land to the appellants be further enhanced by 15%, totalling it to 25%.
18. Therefore, we modify the judgment and order passed by the High Court, and enhance the compensation on account of bifurcation to 25%.
19. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
REST OF THE MATTERS
20. In view of the disposal of Civil Appeal @ S.L.P. (C) No.19695 of 2014, these matters are also disposed of 7 on the same terms, conditions, observations and directions.
Ordered accordingly.
............CJI.
(H.L. DATTU) ..............J. (ARUN MISHRA) NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 24, 2015.
8
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.1 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). 19695/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19/02/2014 in RFA No. 3126/2005 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) MAHABIR SINGH & OTHERS Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH LAC PWD (B&R) HISAR Respondent(s) (with office report) WITH SLP(C) Nos. 20695-20696/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 20726/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) Nos. 21048-21049/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 21058/2014 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 4437/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 4438/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 4440/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 5200/2015 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 5196/2015 (With Office Report) SLP(C) Nos. 14554-14558/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and appln.(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP and Office Report) 9 SLP(C) Nos. 23654-23656/2015 (With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and appln.(s) for substitution and appln.(s) for c/delay in filing substitution appln. and appln.(s) for substitution and Office Report) Date : 24/11/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA For Petitioner(s) Ms.Savita Devi,Adv.
Ms.Mamta Rani, Adv.
Mr.D.S.Locha, Adv for Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv.
Mr.Dinesh Verma, Adv.
Mr.Rajat Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.Sanjay Kr.Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.
Mr.Amit K.Nain, Adv.
Mr.Sumit Nain, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay, if any, in filing and re-filing the Special Leave Petition(s) is/are condoned.
Permission to file SLPs is granted in SLP(C) Nos.23654-23656/2015.
Delay, if any, in filing the application for substitution(s), is/are condoned.
Application(s) for substitution, if any, is/are allowed.
Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
The appeals are allowed and disposed of, in terms of the signed order.
(G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi)
AR-cum-PS Asstt.Registrar
(Signed order is placed on the file)