Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Ors  INSC 586 (22 April 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (5) 470
22ND DAY OF APRIL, 1996 Present:
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
following Order of the Court was delivered :
Ram etc. V. State of Haryana & Ors. etc.
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
learned counsel for all the parties.
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.
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.
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 reference under
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%.
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
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.
appeals are disposed of. The appeals of R.C. are dismissed. No costs.