Ashok Kumar & Anr. v. State of Haryana

2. Around 46.93 acres of Land was acquired by the respondent- State of Haryana initiating the proceedings by Notification dated 19.09.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Page 2 Acquisition Act, 1894. The purpose of acquisition is residential and commercial for Panchkula, Sector-21. The acquired property is in Village Fatehpur. In respect of the same development, we have seen that this court in many cases has based the fixation of the land value based on acquisition proceedings initiated in 1981 in Village Judian. Those properties in village Judian had access to State Highway and the value fixed by this Court is Rs. 250/- per square yard. In respect of properties situated in the adjoining village of the appellants namely, Devi Nagar, we have fixed land value at the rate of Rs. 250/- per square yard that was the acquisition initiated in the year 1987 and that property had extensive national highway frontage.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in all the adjoining villages for the properties acquired for the same purpose, this court having fixed the land value at Rs. 250/- per square yard and above, the appellants may also be granted the same value.

4. Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent- State of Haryana however points out Page 3 that even according to the appellants, their claim was only Rs.125/- per square yard and in any case the land of the appellants does not have the same advantage when compared to other properties for which this court had fixed the land value at Rs.250/- per square yard and above.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants however points out that in the matter of fixation of just and fair compensation, the Court is not bound by claim made by the owner. It is for the Court, in the facts and circumstances of each case, to award just and fair compensation.

6. Prior to amendment Act 68 of 1984, the amount of compensation that could be awarded by the Court was limited to the amount claimed by the applicant. Section 25 read as under - “Section 25. Rules as to amount of compensation - (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. (2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the Page 4 amount awarded by the court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. (3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector.” The amended Section 25 reads as under: “Section 25. Amount of compensation awarded by Court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector- The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.” The amendment has come into effect on 24.09.1984.

7. The pre-amended provision put a cap on the maximum; the compensation by court should not be beyond the amount claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, put a cap on the minimum; compensation cannot be less that what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the Court Page 5 to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner.

8. Although in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court in Sanjay Batham v. Munna Lal Parihar[1] held that -

9. In Bhag Singh and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh[2], this Court held that there may be situations where the amount higher than claimed may be awarded to the claimant. The Court observed –

10. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal[3], this Court held that under the amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the Court can grant a higher compensation than claimed by the applicant in his pleadings -

11. Further, in Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others[4], a three-Judge bench reiterated the principle in Bhag Singh (supra) and rejected the contention that a higher compensation than claimed by the owner in his pleadings cannot be awarded by the Court. In that case, the High Court had concluded that although the market price of the land was Rs 66,550/- per acre, since the appellant had only claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 58,500/- per acre in his pleadings,

Page 8 therefore he could only be awarded compensation limited to his claim. This Court, while reversing the decision of the High Court, awarded the petitioner the market value, i.e., Rs. 66,550/- per acre thereby holding that the award would not be limited to the claim made by him.