Smt. Devi Jain (Dead) Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 9018 of 1994
With Civil Appeal No. 9582 of 1995
With Civil Appeal No. 9582 of 1995
Petitioner: Smt. Devi Jain (Dead)
Respondent: State of Haryana and Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 9018 of 1994
With Civil Appeal No. 9582 of 1995
With Civil Appeal No. 9582 of 1995
Judges: A.P. MISRA & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 29, 2001
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 18 – Compensation – Reduction – Validity – On reference being made, court determining compensation at the rate of Rs. 27 per sq. yd. on basis of sale deed – High Court reducing to 1/3rd – Meanwhile compensation as decided by reference court, paid. Held that on facts, reduction was justified, but amount already paid need not be refunded. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. These two appeals raise a short question, namely, whether the High Court was right in reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the referring court by reducing it by one third of the amount determined.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market price of the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre for the Chahi land, Rs. 9,000/- per acre for Barahi land and Rs. 3,500/- per acre for Banjar lands. The appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge who on the basis of the sale deed, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 27/- per square yard. The High Court on appeal partly al-lowed the appeal of the appellant and reduced the market value by one third of the price awarded by the referring court. The sub-mission made on behalf of the claimant is that the respondent-State has neither laid any foundation nor adduced any evidence before any authorities hence this reduction of the amount of compensation by one third is not sustainable. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant has been paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 27/- per square yard. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the reduction of compensation by one third was valid and was justi-fied and was in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of this case, we feel it appropriate to uphold the legal position as upheld by the High Court viz., reduction by 1/3rd, but make it clear if any amount already received by the appellant, need not be refunded back. With the above observations the present appeals are disposed of. Cost on the parties.
1. Delay condoned.
2. These two appeals raise a short question, namely, whether the High Court was right in reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the referring court by reducing it by one third of the amount determined.
3. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market price of the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre for the Chahi land, Rs. 9,000/- per acre for Barahi land and Rs. 3,500/- per acre for Banjar lands. The appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge who on the basis of the sale deed, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 27/- per square yard. The High Court on appeal partly al-lowed the appeal of the appellant and reduced the market value by one third of the price awarded by the referring court. The sub-mission made on behalf of the claimant is that the respondent-State has neither laid any foundation nor adduced any evidence before any authorities hence this reduction of the amount of compensation by one third is not sustainable. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that the appellant has been paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 27/- per square yard. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the reduction of compensation by one third was valid and was justi-fied and was in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of this case, we feel it appropriate to uphold the legal position as upheld by the High Court viz., reduction by 1/3rd, but make it clear if any amount already received by the appellant, need not be refunded back. With the above observations the present appeals are disposed of. Cost on the parties.
