Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SONEPAT in Udho Dass vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 21 April, 2010Matching Fragments
1. Permission to file SLPs is granted.
2. Delay condoned in filing substitution applications.
3. Applications for substitution are allowed.
4. Delay condoned in filing the special leave petitions.
5. Leave granted.
6. Vide Notification dated 17th May, 1990 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called `The Act') 162.5 acres of land situated in village Patti Musalmanan was notified for setting up of a housing project in Sector 12, Sonepat. This Notification was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 16th May 1991. The Collector rendered his Award on 12th May 1993 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) per acre as compensation for the entire land.
7. On a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act to the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.125/- per sq. yard for the land behind the E.C.E. factory situated away and on the left side of the Sonepat Bahalgarh road and Rs.150/- per square yard on the right side abutting the aforesaid road. In arriving at these different figures the Reference Court held that the land on the left side did not abut the road and it had therefore less potential value vis-a-vis. the land on the right side which touched the road.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The location of the land in order to appreciate its potential for the purpose of compensation has first to be understood.. Admittedly, the land is situated within the municipal limits of Sonepat which is a district headquarter adjoining Delhi and within the National Capital Region. The distance between Bahalgarh, a small township on the Grand Trunk Road, National Highway No.1, built five centuries ago by Sher Shah Suri (and arguably India's most important and strategic highway and the lifeline between the rest of India and the north and northwest), and Sonepat is 7 km., as per the indication on the National Highway itself. The acquired land is situated on both sides of the road leading from Bahalgarh to Sonepat with some portions touching the road side and some portion slightly away and situated behind the ECE factory. It is, however, the admitted position and (we have seen the location on the maps that have been produced before us) that the land behind the ECE factory adjoins the area of village Jamalpur Kalan which had been acquired in the year 1992 and which the appellants claim should be made the basis for determining compensation in the present matter as well. It must also be noticed that the enormous development from the Delhi border alongside the Grand Trunk Road and well beyond the Bahalgarh - Sonepat bifurcation is now a matter for all to see and we have seen this on the maps produced in Court as well, as huge residential and commercial areas have been developed with a mind boggling increase in the price of agricultural land in the last 15 or 20 years. While dealing with the question of the potential value of the land acquired this Court in P. Rama Reddy's case (supra) observed that several matters had to keep in mind; they being (and we quote), "(i) the situation of the acquired land vis-a-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population;
21. We are, therefore, of the opinion as the said award pertained to the year 1992, a sum of Rs.225/- per square yard which would come Rs. 10,89000/- per acre would be the adequate compensation in the present case and for arriving at this figure not only have we computed the value of the land on the date of the Notification under Section 4 but have also recognized its potential on the basis of evidence of development in the area around the Bahalgarh-Sonepat road.
22. Mr. Shakil Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing in one of the cases has also prayed that compensation for the building and trees awarded in his case was inadequate and needed to be enhanced. We are unable to accept this submission as there is no evidence with regard to the value of these buildings and trees.