MANGAT RAM ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. APRIL 22, 1996 fK. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 23(1-A), JO-Compensation-Award of-Enhancement by
C Additional Disllict Judge and by the High Cowt-Held, compensation deter- nzined allowed to becon1e final in sin1ilar cases and hence no inte1ference called for. Appoltiomnent of compensation-Held, tenants entitled to 3/4 and landlord entitled to 1/4.
Col. Sir Hminder Sing/1 Brar Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal & Ors. Etc., [1994] 4 SCC 523 and Inder Pa1,-had v. Union of India & Ors., (1994] 5 sec 239, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8879-80
of 1996 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.93 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in LP.A. Nos. 1337 and 1318 of 1988. H.N. Salve, Rajiv K. Garg and N.D. Garg for the Appellants. Jrshad Ahmad for the Respondents.
I.S. Goyal, Ms. Indu Malhotra and Shailendra Bhardwaj for the State. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for all the parties. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on August 16, H for acquiring 49 acres 1 canal 15 marlas of land for establishing a MANGATRAMv. STATE
commercial market of Auto Vehicles and for commercial purposes in A 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. When 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.
The Municipal Committee filed ".ppeals 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. 535-536/94 are filed by the tenants for the appor- tionment in a reference under Section 30.
The question is : whether the determination of the compensation c 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 compen- sation 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 33-1/3%. In view of the fact that in other cases the compensation was deter- mined at the rate of Rs. 40 per sd. yd. which was allowed to become final, we decline to interfere with the determination of the compensation by the Division Bench of the High Court.
As regards apportionment of the compensation, the High Court has directed lo pay 1/4 to the tenant anJ 3/4 to the Wakf Board. In view of the Judgment Col. Sir Hminder Singh Barar Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal & Ors. Etc., [1994] 4 SCC 523 and lnder Parshad v. 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 H entitled to 1/4th 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.
The appeals are disposed of. The appeals of R.C. are dismissed. No Costs. G.N. Appeals disposed of.