http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI K. (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH     CIVIL  APPEAL NOS. 1206-09, 2253 AND 2254-55 OF 1991                          O R D E R      Notification  under   Section  4   (1)  of   the   Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the ’Act’) was published on  September 25,  1979 acquiring  large tracks of land  for   urbanization  within  the  municipal  limits  of Panipat. The  Land Acquisition  Officer in  his award  dated April 7, 1981 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs- 24,960/- per  acre for  Block I and Rs.19,992/- per acre for Block  II.  On  reference,  the  Additional  District  Judge enhanced the  compensation by  his award  and  decree  dated January 24,  1984 to Rs.18/- per sq.yd. On further appeal by the State  as well as the claimants, the High Court enhanced the  compensation  to  Rs.21.25/-  per  sq.yd.  without  any deductions for  developmental charges.  The High  Court  has also granted  additional amount under Section 23 (1A) of the Act. Thus, these appeals by special leave.      Shri Sehgal,  learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that  the notification relied upon by the District Judge relates  to third  acquisition dated  October 10, 1978 while the  acquisition in the case is of September 25, 1979. Therefore, the learned Judge ought to have granted escalated charges rather  than what  was granted in the earlier cases. We find  no force in the contention. In fact, the Additional District Judge  relying upon  small piece  of land which did not  find   favour  with   the  High   Court,  enhanced  the compensation.  The   High  Court  also  on  the  comparative evaluation and  considering the  evidence adduced before the reference Court,  determined the compensation at she rate of Rs. 21.25  per sq.yd.  It  is  settled  law  that  when  the compensation is  determined on  yardage  basis  for  housing development and the lands are to be developed, the direction to deduct 1/3rd towards the development charges, is required to be  given. The  High Court has not adopted that principle but the  State has  not come  in appeal.  The High Court has also granted additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Act to  which the  appellants are  not entitled. Under these circumstances, we  do not  find any justification warranting further enhancement of the compensation.      The appeals  are  accordingly  dismissed  but,  in  the circumstances, without costs.