In the present appeals, we are concerned with the land acquired vide notifications dated 30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007 of villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi. With respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007, the Reference Court did not enhance the amount of compensation in respect of villages Badh Malik and Pritampura, however, enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. By judgments and orders dated 6.9.2017 & 28.11.2017, this Court disposed of the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the High Court and remitted the matters to the High Court for a fresh decision. 4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court with respect to the lands acquired vide notifications dated 30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007, HSIIDC has preferred the present appeals.
29,54,000/- per acre for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, the High Court has relied upon the builder’s sale deeds produced as Exhibits P43 & P44 and has not considered the sale deeds produced by the State. 1
It is further submitted that even otherwise the High Court ought to have appreciated that the lands acquired were all agricultural lands and therefore while assessing the compensation, the High Court ought not to have relied upon and/or considered the builder’s sale deeds.
Arguments of the learned counsel for the land acquired vide notification dated 05.03.2007 4
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the HSIIDC that the High Court has materially erred in enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.
6 It is submitted that as such for the land acquired vide notification dated 13.08.2004 of the very villages Badh Malik and Pritampura, the High Court earlier determined and awarded compensation @ 21,00,000/- per acre and therefore considering the time gap of approximately two and half years and granting 8 to 12 percent increase, the amount awarded by the High Court at Rs. It is submitted that if other sale deeds would have been considered and the development in the surrounding areas would have been considered, the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court can be said to be on the lower side. It is also required to be noted that as such the time gap between the two notifications dated 30.06.2005 and 5.3.2007 would be approximately one year nine months.
However, the present case, the lands acquired are for the expansion of industrial sector 39, Sonipat and therefore the amount of compensation assessed and determined for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 acquired of very villages Badh Malik, Pritampura and Rasoi can be said to be the governing factor even while determining the compensation for the land acquired vide notification dated 5.3.2007 as under both the notifications the lands acquired are for the same public purpose, namely, development of industrial sector 39, Sonipat, Haryana. 29,54,000/-
per acre for the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, the High Court has considered the sale deeds produced as Ex.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
After making the round figure, the landowners/claimants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs.24,50,000/- per acre with respect to the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005, with all other statutory benefits, which may be available under the provisions of the 1894 Act. P4 is dated 2.11.2006 and the acquisition of the same villages commenced vide notification dated 30.06.2005 and therefore the sale deed after the first notification dated 30.06.2005 could not have been the basis for assessing/determining the compensation with respect to the subsequent acquisition.
The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court insofar as the land acquired vide notification dated 30.06.2005 is concerned, is modified and it is ordered that the landowners/claimants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 30,73,280/- per acre (instead of Rs.
Case Title: HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Vs. SATPAL (2023 INSC 113)
Case Number: SLP(C) No.-018428-018584 / 2021
