IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 58  OF 2005

State of Haryana & Anr. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Shiv Lal & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

W I T H

CIVIL APPEALS NO.132, 97, 113, 145, 272, 116, 125, 62-85, 127-131 & 330 OF 2005

CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 631 TO 677  OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.7723/2008, 6209/2007, 2302/2008, 18605/2008, 18606-

18639/2008 & 7066-7074/2008)

O R D E R

Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) Nos.18606-639/2008.

Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.

In this batch of Civil Appeals, the State has filed eleven appeals out of a

total  of  17 appeals.   The remaining appeals  have been filed  by the  claimants  for

enhancement of compensation.   

A  short  question  which  arises  for  determination  is  -   whether  belting

method is  applicable  to  the acquired lands  falling  in  municipal  area abutting  the

abadi of Rewari?

...2/-

C.A.No.58/2005 etc...contd...

-2-

Facts in Civil Appeal No.58/2005 in the case of State of Harayana & Anr.

Vs. Shiv Lal & Ors.:

The learned Additional Judge had evolved and applied the belting system to

the lands  in  question  categorising/dividing  the  said  lands  into  three  separate  and

distinct categories.  For category 'A', the learned Additional District Judge awarded

the  rate  of  Rs.8,00,000/-  per  acre;  for  category  'B',  he  awarded  the  rate  of

Rs.7,00,000/- per acre and for category 'C', he awarded the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per

acre.  This was challenged by way of First Appeal in which the learned Single Judge

of  the  High  Court  reduced  the  above  three  categories  into  two  categories  and,

consequently,  awarded  the  rate  of  Rs.7,04,367/-  per  acre  for  category  'A'  and

Rs.6,00,000/- per acre for category 'B'.   Against the decision of the learned Single

Judge of the High Court, the matter was carried in L.P.A. which stood dismissed,

hence, this Civil Appeal by the State.

The main contention of the State is that the learned Single Judge had erred

in reducing the number of categories from three to two.  We do not find any merit in

this argument for the following reasons:

 ...3/-

C.A.No.58/2005 etc...contd...

-3-

Firstly, in the case of Pawan Kumar & Anr. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector

(L.P.A.No.387/2001 decided on 15.5.2006), it has been held by the High Court that

belting system is not applicable to municipal areas abutting the abadi.  In the said

judgment, the Division Bench has held that the land in question falling within the

municipal area abutting the abadi had great potential.    As stated above, this decision

has not been challenged by the State by filing a special leave petition.  It has become

final.   Consequently,  two  sets  of  decrees  would  result  –  in  one  set  of  cases,  the

claimants would get compensation on the basis of belting system (if the State succeeds

in  its  Civil  Appeal)  and  in  the  other  set  of  cases,  the  claimants  would  get

compensation at higher rate on the basis that belting is not applicable.  The judgment

and decree passed by the High Court in Pawan Kumar's case has now become final

as the State has not challenged the said judgment.

Before us, it was argued that if this Court upholds the applicability of the

belting system as done by the learned Additional District Judge in the case of State of

Haryana Vs. Shiv Lal, then the law declared by the High Court

 ..4/-

C.A.No.58/2005 etc...contd...

-4-

in Pawan Kumar's case would need reconsideration.  We do not find any merit in this

argument for the simple reason that the judgment and decree passed by the High

Court in Pawan Kumar's case has become final.  Lastly, it may be pointed out that

under  the  notification  issued  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  in  these  cases,

compensation  has  been  unconditionally  paid  to  all  the  claimants  in  2001  and

onwards.  In the circumstances, on account of inconsistent decrees coming into the

field, we do not wish to interfere in the Civil Appeal(s) filed by State of Haryana.

As regards appeal(s) filed by the claimant(s) for enhancement, we find no

reason to interfere as  the High Court  has  correctly applied  the belting  system of

valuation to the facts of the case.

Accordingly, all the Appeals and cross appeals are dismissed, with no order

as to costs.

                         ...................J.               (S.H. KAPADIA)

                        ...................J.

                                       (H.L. DATTU) New Delhi, February 03, 2009.