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

PETITIONER: MANGAT RAM ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/04/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   470

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy           Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik H.N. Salve,  Sr.-Adv., Rajiv  K. Garg  and N.D. Garg, Advs., with him for the appellants. Irshad Ahmad, Adv. for the Respondents. I.S. Goyal,  Ms.Indu Malhotra and Shailendra Bhardwaj, Advs. for the State.                          O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered : Mangat Ram etc. V. State of Haryana & Ors. etc.                             WITH     C.A:Nos. 8881-23, 8887, 8885-86 AND 8883-84 OF 1996  (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.20331-32, 9046, 7231, 8448 and                      23334-35 of 1994)                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard learned counsel for all the parties.      The notification  under Section  4(1) was  published on August 16,  1983 for acquiring 49 acres 1 canal 15 marlas of land for  establishing a  commercial market of Auto Vehicles and for  commercial purposes  in Sirsa. The Land Acquisition Officer  determined   the  compensation   at  the   rate  of Rs.25,000/- per  acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge enhanced  the compensation  to Rs.30,000/-  per  acre. When the  matter was  carried in  appeal, the learned single Judge enhanced  the compensation  to Rs.27.50  per sq.yd. In L.P.A., the compensation was enhanced to Rs.40/- per sq. yd.      The Municipal  Committee filed  appeals arising  out of SLP Nos.23334-35/94 and 20331-32/94. The appeals arising out of SLP  Nos.9046/94, 8448/94  and 7231/94  are filed  by the Punjab Wakf  Board. The  appeals arising out of SLP Nos.535- 36/94 are  filed by  the tenants  for the apportionment in a

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

reference under Section 30.      The question  is:  whether  the  determination  of  the compensation by  the High Court is correct in law? It is not in dispute  that the  Municipal Committee  had not filed any appeal  against  the  enhancement  of  compensation  by  the learned single  Judge to  the Division  Bench.  Dissatisfied with the  enhancement of  the  compensation,  the  claimants filed  L.P.A.   and  the   Division   Bench   enhanced   the compensation to  Rs.40 per  sq.yd. It  would appear  that in similar cases,  the land  situated in similar situation, the High Court  had granted  compensation at  the same rates and the Division  Bench reduced  the developmental  charged from 40% to 331/3%.      In  view   of  the   fact  that   in  other  cases  the compensation was  determined at  the rate of Rs.40/- per sq. yd. which  was  allowed  to  become  final,  we  decline  to interfere with  the determination of the compensation by the Division Bench of the High Court.      As regards  apportionment of the compensation, the High Court has  directed to  pay 1/4 to the tenant and 3/4 to the Wakf Board.  In view  of the  Judgment in  Col.Sir  Harinder Singh Brar  Bans Bahadur  vs.Bihari Lal & Ors. etc.[(1994) 4 SCC 523]  and Inder Parshad vs. Union of India & Ors.[(1994) 5  SCC  239],  the  tenants  are  entitled  to  3/4  of  the compensation while  the landlord  is entitled  to 1/4 of the compensation. In  view of  the above  law, the  order of the High Court  in appeals  arising from reference under Section 30 is  modified to  the  extent  that  appellants/tenants  - Mangat Ram  and Ors.  are entitled  to 3/4th  while the Wakf Board is  entitled to  l/4th of the compensation amount. The amount awarded  in the  judgment of  the single  Judge under Section 23(1-A) also requires to be apportioned accordingly.      The appeals  are disposed  of. The  appeals of R.C. are dismissed. No costs.