Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


Supreme Court Cases

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI V. STATE OF HARYANA [1996] RD-SC 1032 (28 August 1996)






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 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.


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.