Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bikram Singh vs Punjab State Colonization Department ... on 27 February, 2020
Bench: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 8456-8464 OF 2011
BIKRAM SINGH ETC. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
PUNJAB STATE THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Respondent(s)
O R D E R
These appeals have been filed only to question the deduction of 30% in the compensation amount applied by the High Court under the head of development charges.
The record reveals that the land measuring 49 acres, 6 kanals and 1 marla was acquired under notification dated 11.10.1990 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of the New Mandi Township in Mansa, Punjab.
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.49,600/- per acre alongwith 30% solatium for compulsory acquisition and 12% towards appreciation of price for the acquired land. The Signature Not Verified Reference Court after evaluating the material on record Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2020.02.28 17:28:16 IST Reason: quantified the compensation at Rs.62/- per sq. yard. While arriving at such conclusion, the Reference Court 2 adopted cut 33¼% of the compensation amount towards expenses to be incurred in the development of the subject land.
In appeal, the High Court has awarded compensation at Rs.71.40/- per sq. yard. While concluding so, the High Court has adopted a cut of 30% instead of 33¼%.
The Appellants have relied upon a sale deed dated 12.6.1989 (Ex.AW 8/A) whereby 16½ marlas of land located near the subject land was sold for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. 16½ marlas would amount to roughly 1/10th of an acre, which means approximately 4000 sq. feet. It is no doubt true that the property involved in the said example sale deed was nearer to the land acquired in the present matter. However, the example sale deed mentioned supra is actually not comparable, inasmuch as the plot involved therein is very small as compared to the land acquired in the present matter.
Be that as it may, since there was no other sale deed with which comparison could be made and in the absence of any other material, the Reference Court as well as the High Court might have thought it fit to rely upon the said sale deed for quantifying the compensation 3 as awarded by them. Curiously, the Reference Court as well as the High Court, while relying on the said sale deed, have not cut any percentage of the compensation amount, on account of the smallness of the land. However, 30% cut has been adopted towards development charges. Since the subject land has been acquired for construction of the New Mandi Township, the Reference Court as well as the High Court could have cut a higher percentage of the compensation amount even towards development charges. Since the acquisition is of 1990, we do not want to remit the matter.
Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 30% deduction adopted by the High Court cannot be construed to be on the higher side. On the contrary, the 30% cut adopted actually benefits the Appellants, hence no interference is called for.
The appeals are therefore dismissed.
…………………………………………………J. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR] …………………………………………………J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY] NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 27, 2020
4
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.13 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 8456-8464/2011 BIKRAM SINGH ETC. Appellant(s) VERSUS PUNJAB STATE THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Respondent(s) Date : 27-02-2020 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY For Appellant(s) Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv.
Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(NEELAM GULATI) (R.S. NARAYANAN) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)