Amanullah Khan Versus The State of Haryana and Another

Amanullah Khan Versus The State of Haryana and Another

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6229 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 7984 of 2019)

Amanullah Khan …Appellant

Versus

The State of Haryana and Another …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6252 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.15639 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 772/2020)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6265 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.15660 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 26336/2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6254 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 15643 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 1580/2020)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6253 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 15641 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 1132/2020)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6244-6248 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) Nos.15627-15631of 2022 @

 Diary No. 29405/2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6242-6243 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) Nos.15625-15626of 2022 @

 Diary No. 17894/2021)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6250 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 15633 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 28025/2021)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6249 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 15632 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 28111/2021)

1

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6235 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.15611of 2022 @

 Diary No. 7681/2022)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6230 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 12211 of 2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6240 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 15620 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 12599/2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6238-6239 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) Nos.15618-15619 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 13345/2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6231OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 12212 of 2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6241 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.15622 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 13864/2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6259-6260 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) Nos.15648-15649 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 16833/2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6261 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.15650 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 16837/2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6262 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.15651 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 19083/2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6232 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 18217 of 2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6263 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.15652 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 33594/2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6257-6258 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) Nos.15646-15647 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 38987/2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6237 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 15613 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 43048/2019)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6255-6256 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) Nos.15644-15645 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 2160/2020)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6233 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 2769 of 2020)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6234 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.2770 of 2020)

2

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6264 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.15653 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 28062/2020)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6236 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No.15612 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 194/2021)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6251 OF 2022

(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 15638 of 2022 @

 Diary No. 7351/2021)

O R D E R

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. All these appeals pertain to the compensation payable for the

lands acquired under three different notifications dated 7.4.1986,

5.6.1992 and 3.7.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1894 Act’) for the lands situated

in village Ajronda, District Faridabad, State of Haryana.

2. Vide notification dated 7.4.1986 issued under Section 4 of the

1894 Act, the State of Haryana sought to acquire land ad-measuring

6.97 acres situated in village Ajronda, District Faridabad, Haryana for

development and utilisation thereof as Green Belt on the west of Delhi –

Mathura Road. The Land Acquisition Officer vide his award dated

30.03.1989 determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.

3,38,800/- per acre. At the instance of the landowners, references were

made under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. The Reference Court

3

determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 435/- per square

yard.

2.1 Vide notification dated 5.6.1992 issued under Section 4 of the

1894 Act, the State of Haryana sought to acquire land ad-measuring

7.81 acres situated in village Ajronda, District Faridabad, Haryana for

development and utilisation thereof for semi-public use including

institutional use for educational, medical, defence and administrative

purposes in Sector 20-B, Faridabad. The Collector vide his award dated

2.6.1995 determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.

4,50,000/- per acre. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of

compensation to Rs. 392.50 per square yard.

2.2 Vide notification dated 3.7.1995 issued under Section 4 of the

1894 Act, the State of Haryana sought to acquire the land ad-measuring

98.66 acres situated in village Ajronda, District Faridabad, Haryana for

commercial, institutional, recreational and residential purposes. The

Collector vide his award dated 29.6.1998 determined the market value of

the acquired land at Rs. 5,85,000/- per acre. The Reference Court

enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs. 400/480 per square yard.

2.3 The judgment(s) and award(s) passed by the Reference Court

were the subject matter of appeals at the instance of the landowners as

well as the State of Haryana before the High Court. By the impugned

common

4

judgment and order, the High Court has determined the market value of

the acquired land at Rs. 435/- per square yard with respect to notification

dated 7.4.1986; at Rs. 566/- per square yard with respect to notification

dated 5.6.1992 and at Rs. 795/- per square yard with respect to

notification dated 3.7.1995.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common

judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original landowners

have preferred the present appeals and have prayed for enhancement of

the amount of compensation.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants

– original landowners – claimants have heavily relied upon the decision

of this Court dated 11.03.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2736 of 2019

and other allied civil appeals by which with respect to the very

notifications dated 7.4.1986, 5.6.1992 and 3.7.1995 and with respect to

the lands acquired of the very village/s, this Court has determined the

compensation at Rs. 435/- per square yard with respect to the lands

acquired under notification dated 7.4.1986; at Rs. 860/- and Rs. 1210/-

per square yard for the lands acquired under notifications dated

5.6.1992 and 3.7.1995 respectively. Therefore, it is prayed to enhance

the amount of compensation at par with all those other landowners

whose lands have been acquired under the same notifications.

5

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana is

not in a position to dispute the above. However, has opposed the

appeals on the ground of delay in preferring the appeals.

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide orders dated

5.9.2022, the delay in preferring the appeals has been condoned by this

Court, subject to rider that the appellants-claimants shall not be entitled

to the statutory benefits including interest on the enhanced amount of

compensation for the period between the date of the judgments of the

High Court till the respective appeals have been preferred before this

Court. Even otherwise, considering Section 28A of the 1894 Act, the

claimants similarly situated whose lands have been acquired under the

same notifications shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of

compensation at par with the other landowners whose lands have been

acquired under the same notifications. Therefore, keeping in mind

Section 28A of the 1894 Act, this Court condoned the delay, however, on

condition to deny the statutory benefits/interest on the enhanced amount

of compensation from the date of the judgment of the High Court till the

respective appeals have been preferred before this Court, considering

the interest of the State and to see that there is no additional burden of

statutory benefits/interest on the State for no fault of the State.

7. Now so far as the merit of the appeals is concerned, it is not in

dispute that with respect to the lands acquired under the same

6

notifications dated 7.4.1986, 5.6.1992 and 3.7.1995, this Court vide a

detailed judgment and order dated 11.03.2019 passed in Civil Appeal

No.2736 of 2019 (Balwant Singh (D) through Lr. Gurbinder Singh v. The

State of Haryana) and other allied appeals, has determined the

compensation @ Rs. 435/- per square yard for the land acquired under

notification dated 7.4.1986; @ Rs. 860/- and Rs. 1210/- per square yard

for the lands acquired under notifications dated 5.6.1992 and 3.7.1995

respectively. Therefore, the appellants herein – landowners – claimants

also shall be entitled to the same compensation as determined by this

Court, as in the case of appellants also the lands have been acquired

under the same notifications dated 7.4.986, 5.6.1992 and 3.7.1995.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and

following the judgment and order passed by this Court in the case of

Balwant Singh (D) through Lr. Gurbinder Singh (supra), all these

appeals are partly allowed. Accordingly, the judgment/s of the High

Court is/are modified and the claimants of the land acquired under

notification dated 7.4.1986 shall be entitled to the compensation @ Rs.

435/- per square yard. The claimants of the land acquired under

notifications dated 5.6.1992 and 3.7.1995 shall be entitled to

compensation @ Rs. 860/- and Rs. 1210/- per square yard respectively.

The landowners shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits under the

1894 Act. However, as observed hereinabove and as observed while

7

condoning the delay in preferring the appeals, it is directed that the

claimants shall not be entitled to the statutory benefits including interest

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced amount of

compensation from the date of the impugned judgment/s of the High

Court till the respective appeals have been preferred before this Court.

All these appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in

the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to

costs.

………………………………..J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………..J.

SEPTEMBER 08, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]

8