Allowed

(O&M) Fquir Chand v. Hy State

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Oct 2012RFA/1419/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation for land acquisition for commercial properties in Rectangular Nos. 1 and 13, rejecting the state's reliance on prior judgment in Satish Kumar. It ordered a proportional increase from the Reference Court's valuation to Rs. 224/- and Rs. 448/- per sq. yd. respectively.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 224 per sq. yd. for properties in Rectangular No. 13 and Rs. 448 per sq. yd. for those in Rectangular No. 1; consequential interest and solatium granted.

(O&M) Fquir Chand Vs Hy State — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RFA No.1419 of 1993

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RFA No.1419 of 1993 Date of Decision.03.10.2012

¶5

2. RFA No.1420 of 1993

¶6

Faquir Chand resident of H.No.4247, Chowk Darzian, Ambala City and others

¶7

.....Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Haryana through Land Acquisition Collector, Directorate Urban Estate, Kothi No.879, Sector 8, Panchkula, District Ambala

¶10

.....Respondent

¶11

Present: Mr. RPS Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellants.

¶12

Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana

¶13

for the respondent.

¶14

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶15

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶18

¶19

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶20

Both the appeals are for enhancement of compensation determined by the Reference Court. The property acquired through a notification dated 04.03.1983 of the purpose of development and utilization for residential and commercial areas for Sector 8 of HUDA in the area of village Patti Mehar Hadbast No.58 and Sondha Hadbast No.114, Tehsil and District Ambala had been taken up for consideration by the Reference Court in respect of a total extent of 113.68 acres. However, while determining compensation, it did not apply the same valuation for all the properties and applied differential rates particularly for property, which was in Rectangular Nos.1 and 13 as proximate to a well laid road. Even amongst the property in Rec. No.1, the Reference

¶21

RFA No.1419 of 1993

¶22

-2-

¶23

Court provided for a compensation of Rs.400/- per sq. yd. taking into account a sale of small plot of land of 816 sq. yd. for Rs.3000/- under Ex.P1 dated 13.01.1981. In respect of yet another extent in Rec. No.13, the Reference Court provided for compensation at Rs.200/- per square yard taking note of an award already passed in respect of the very same Rec. number under Ex.P6. As regards the remaining extent of properties, the Court fixed a compensation of Rs.100/- per square yard depending on the valuation of other properties.

¶24

There had been appeals against the assessment of compensation through this award and in the judgment rendered by this Court in Satish Kumar vs. State of Haryana 1994 (3) PLR 243, the Court was adjudging compensation for the remaining properties other than the properties covered in these appeals, namely the properties in Rec. No.1 and 13. As a matter of fact, in para 17 of the judgment in Satish Kumar's case (supra), the Court's attention was specifically drawn to the fact that two other items of properties, which had been the subject of adjudication by the Reference Court were not before the Court. The Court, therefore, observed that in respect of the said properties, the assessment to compensation will be done independently as and when the matter came up for consideration.

¶25

I notice that on 08.03.2009, this Court had originally disposed of the appeal on a concession made by the State that the property, which is the subject of appeals was squarely covered by the decision in Satish Kumar's case (supra). This order was recalled by the Court subsequently on 07.01.2010 by making a specific reference to para 17 referred to above. The case in Satish Kumar's case (supra),

¶26

-3-

¶27

RFA No.1419 of 1993

¶28

therefore, did not conclude the issue for compensation which are subject of appeals.

¶29

The property in Rec. No.1 and Rec. No.13 have been dealt with differently by their own respective proximity to the road and the fact that the sales have been effected treating the properties as fit for commercial use while the remaining extent of properties, which were acquired were fit for use only for residential purpose and the rates of compensation had been, therefore, relatively lower than the property for commercial use.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants states that when this Court was assessing a compensation of Rs.112/- per square yard against what was already assessed at Rs.100/- per square yard, the same proportionate increase must also visit for same extent of properties for the property in Rec. No.1 and Rec. No.13. Learned counsel also states that even if we must discard the assessment made in Satish Kumar's case (supra) as any guidance for an appropriate escalation proportionately, the valuation of the property in Ex.P1 in the year 1981 itself provided a basis for enhancement namely the value taken as Rs.350/- per square yard with 30% escalation for two years from the years 1981 to 1983 when the property was acquired. This can be seen to be literally the outer limit beyond which the compensation could not be made. In this case, since this Court has already exercised its mind by an elaborate judgment with reference to other items of properties in the judgment in Satish Kumar's case (supra), I would accept the first plea made by the learned counsel that there could be a proportionate increase from Rs.200/- per square yard for Rec. No.13 to Rs.224/- per

¶31

RFA No.1419 of 1993

¶32

-4-

¶33

square yard and for the property in Rec. No.1, the valuation could be Rs.448/- per square yard, which mark respectively the proportionate increase of compensation. The awards of the Reference Court would stand modified and the compensation is reassessed in the manner referred to above. Needless to state that the land owners would also be entitled to consequential increase for additional amount, interest and solatium as provided by the Land Acquisition Act.

¶34

The appeals are allowed to the above extent.

¶35

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶36

October 03, 2012 Pankaj*

(O&M) Fquir Chand v. Hy State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Fquir Chand v. Hy State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Tyagi Vs State of Haryana

Harpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gulchain Singh Vs Amarjit Singh etc.

Faquir Chand Vs Hy State

Kirandeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh Vs Sardari Lal