# THE ST A TE OF PUNJAB v. HARCHAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS

- **Citation:** [2006] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 868
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2006-05-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3890-3891 of 1999
- **Bench:** Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Lokeshwar Singh Panta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-st-a-te-of-punjab-v-harchal-singh-dead-through-lrs-21279
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

c
D
E
F
Land Acquisition Act-Section 4-"Chahi" land situated in village
acquired for public purpose-High Court f1Xed compensation at Rs. I, 7 5, 000
per acre--Challenge to-Held: On facts, reason given by High Court while
awarding compensation was cogent and convincing-Compensation awarded
could not be characterized as excessive-Hence interference by this Court
not warranted
In 1981, vide a notification issued under Section ·4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, "Chahi" land situated in a village was acquired for
expansion of an Industrial Focal Point. The land in question was quite
close to a developed colony. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded
Rs. 85,000 per acre for the said land. The District Judge maintained the
award. High Court, in appeal, however raised the compensation to
Rs. 1,75,000 per acre by taking into consideration a sale transaction in
respect of a very small size of plot in the developed colony. Hence the
present appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 per
acre by taking into consideration the sale dated 12.1.1978 of a land of
407 sq. yds. The sale price for the said land was Rs. 23,635 and the price
per acre comes to Rs. 2,81,065. The High Court taking into consideration
the said sale transaction pertaining to 407 sq. yds. for Rs. 23,635 and
that it was in a developed colony reduced the compensation amount
from Rs. 2,81,065 per acre to Rs. 1,40,532.50 per acre. It applied 50 per
G cent cut keeping in view the submissions of the State that the High Court
should not grant the same amount of compensation for the acquired
li-.nd because the sale transaction, which the High Court took into
consideration, related to a very small size of plot and that too in a
developed colony. The High Court keeping in view the long period,
H awarded a further enhancement of Rs. 35,000 per acre, which according
868
STATE v. HARCHAL SINGH [LAKSHMANAN, J.]
869
to it met the ends of justice. [871-B-E)
1.2. The reasons given by the High Court in fixing the compensation
at Rs. 1,75,000 per acre is cogent and convincing. The compensation
awarded cannot at all be characterised as excessive or on the high side.
Since the High Court has awarded the compensation at Rs. 1,75,000 per
acre in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does
not propose to interfere with the said award. This apart, Section 4(1)
Notification was issued in the year 1981 and the special leave petitions
were filed in this Court in the year 1989 and the leave was granted in
the year 1999 and the appeal is being disposed off now in the year 2006,
which is only due to "Laws Delays" and that the delay is not attributable
to any one. (871-F-G)
l.3. Further, the claimant shall also be entitled to all other statutory
benefits under the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as
contained in Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The High Court
A
B
c
has also awarded cost of the appeal to the claimants which is affirmed.
D
(872-A)

## Text

A
THE ST A TE OF PUNJAB
v.
HARCHAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
MAY 23, 2006
B
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
c
D
E
F
Land Acquisition Act-Section 4-"Chahi" land situated in village
acquired for public purpose-High Court f1Xed compensation at Rs. I, 7 5, 000
per acre--Challenge to-Held: On facts, reason given by High Court while
awarding compensation was cogent and convincing-Compensation awarded
could not be characterized as excessive-Hence interference by this Court
not warranted
In 1981, vide a notification issued under Section ·4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, "Chahi" land situated in a village was acquired for
expansion of an Industrial Focal Point. The land in question was quite
close to a developed colony. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded
Rs. 85,000 per acre for the said land. The District Judge maintained the
award. High Court, in appeal, however raised the compensation to
Rs. 1,75,000 per acre by taking into consideration a sale transaction in
respect of a very small size of plot in the developed colony. Hence the
present appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 per
acre by taking into consideration the sale dated 12.1.1978 of a land of
407 sq. yds. The sale price for the said land was Rs. 23,635 and the price
per acre comes to Rs. 2,81,065. The High Court taking into consideration
the said sale transaction pertaining to 407 sq. yds. for Rs. 23,635 and
that it was in a developed colony reduced the compensation amount
from Rs. 2,81,065 per acre to Rs. 1,40,532.50 per acre. It applied 50 per
G cent cut keeping in view the submissions of the State that the High Court
should not grant the same amount of compensation for the acquired
li-.nd because the sale transaction, which the High Court took into
consideration, related to a very small size of plot and that too in a
developed colony. The High Court keeping in view the long period,
H awarded a further enhancement of Rs. 35,000 per acre, which according
868
STATE v. HARCHAL SINGH [LAKSHMANAN, J.]
869
to it met the ends of justice. [871-B-E)
1.2. The reasons given by the High Court in fixing the compensation
at Rs. 1,75,000 per acre is cogent and convincing. The compensation
awarded cannot at all be characterised as excessive or on the high side.
Since the High Court has awarded the compensation at Rs. 1,75,000 per
acre in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does
not propose to interfere with the said award. This apart, Section 4(1)
Notification was issued in the year 1981 and the special leave petitions
were filed in this Court in the year 1989 and the leave was granted in
the year 1999 and the appeal is being disposed off now in the year 2006,
which is only due to "Laws Delays" and that the delay is not attributable
to any one. (871-F-G)
l.3. Further, the claimant shall also be entitled to all other statutory
benefits under the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as
contained in Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The High Court
A
B
c
has also awarded cost of the appeal to the claimants which is affirmed.
D
(872-A)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3890-3891
of 1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.1.1989 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.F.A. Nos. 2853/1986 and 82/87.
H.M. Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Anil Hooda, Ms. Shabana Saifil and Arun
K. Sinha, Advs. for the Appellant.
Nikhil Goel for Mrs. Sheela Goel, Adv., for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : Heard Mr. H.M. Singh, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel for the
respondent. The matter relates to the acquisition of the land owned by the
respondent for public purpose. Notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act was issued on 4.2.1981 for the acquisition of the land in
question situate in village Kambali, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar for the
purpose of expansion oflndustrial Focal Point Mohali. The Land Acquisition
E
F
G
H
870
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
Officer by its award dated 22.12.1983 awarded a sum of Rs.85,000 per acre
for Chahi land. We are concerned only with Chahi land in these appeals and
not other lands. On 2.9.1986, the District Judge maintained the award of
Rs.85,000 per acre as regards Chahi land was concerned. The matter was
taken up on appeal by the State of Punjab. The respondent claimant also filed
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
an appeal. Both the appeals were disposed of by the High Court by a common
judgment on 18.1.1989. The High Court awarded the compensation at Rs.
1,75,000 per acre for the acquired land and dismissed the appeal of the
appellant State and allowed the appeal of the claimants. Special Leave
petitions were filed by the State of Punjab in the year 1989 as S.L.P. (C)
No. 8647-8648 of 1989. This Court on 19.7.1999 granted leave and also
stayed the operation of the order passed by the High Court after a period
of 10 years and odd. During the pendency of the civil appeals, respondent
Harchal Singh died and his LRs. were brought on record by order dated
2.9.2005, on which day, this Court also set aside the abatement.
These appeals are now listed before this Bench for final disposal. We
have perused the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and order
passed by the District Judge and the common Judgment rendered by the High
Court. The High Court on a consideration of the exhibits filed and marked
before it and the oral evidence came to the conclusion that "phase nos. X
and XI of Urban Estate Mohali have come up in the land of village Kambali
earlier and the claimant's land is at a distance of three killas from phase XI
and the situation of the acquired land admittedly is quite close to the area
already under development of the Urban Estate". In the instant case, the very
purpose for acquisition of this land is for expansion of the Industrial Focal
Point, which itself implies that the acquired land of the claimant was fit for
industrial purposes or expansion of similar kind of construction etc. The
Land Acquisition Collector also considered potentiality and assessed the land
which was recorded as "Chahi" in the revenue record at the rate ofRs.85,000
per acre. According to the claimant, his land was irrigated by the sewerage
drain. This fact further stood confirmed from the award of the Collector in
which it is mentioned that the land is extremely fertile being irrigated by
"Ganda Nala"and is in a level shape. P. W.l in his evidence has stated that
in phase X in Mohali plot no.2330 was sold in auction for Rs.2,31,000 and
this plot measured 507 sq. yds. Another plot in phase IX was sold for
Rs.25,998 which was of 407 sq. yds. However, these plots were sold on
27.3 .1982 much after the notification regarding the acquisition of the land
of the claimants. These plots were sold in a fully developed area and the price
STATE v. HARCHAL SINGH [LAKSHMANAN, J.]
87I
was to be paid by the purchasers in instalments. P.W.2 Hardev Singh states
A
in his own evidence that phase nos. X and IX are a part of vilalge Kambali
and claimants' land is at a distance of three killas from phase IX. In his crossexamination, he admitted that there was brick kiln very close to the acquired
land and admitted that there was no house existing in between the acquired
land and phase IX. The'learned Single Judge also relied upon the evidence
rendered by these witnesses. The High Court has now awarded a sum of
Rs.1,75,000 per acre taking into consideration of the sale dated 12.1.1978
of a land of 407 sq. yds. The sale price for the said land was Rs.23,635 and
the price per acre comes to Rs.2,81,000. The High Court taking consideration
the sale transaction in phase IX pertaining to 407 sq. yds. for Rs.23,635 and
that it was in a developed colony reduced the compensation amount from
Rs.2,81,065 per acre to Rs. l,40,532-50 per acre. The High Court has applied
50 per cent cut keeping in view all the submissions of the learned counsel
{or the State that the High Court should not grant the same amount of
compensation for the acquired land because the sale transaction, which the
High Court took into consideration, related to a very small size of plot and
that too in a developed colony. The High Court keeping in view of the long
period, awarded a further enhancement of Rs.35,000 per acre, which
according to the High Court would meet the ends of justice. In other words,
the compensation payable could be rounded off to Rs.1,75,000 per acre of
the acquired lafld. The High Court was of the view that on the ground of
high potentiality of the acquired land, the compensation now awarded could
not be said to be on the higher side.
In our opinion, the reasons given by the High Court in fixing the
compensation at Rs.l,75,000 per acre is cogent and convincing. The
compensation awarded at Rs.l,75,000 per acre cannot at all be characterised
as excessive or on the high side as argued by the learned counsel for the State.
Since the High Court has awarded the compensation at Rs.1,75,000 per acre
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to
interfere with the said award. This apart, aforesaid 4(1) Notification was
issued in the year 1981 and the special leave petitions were filed in this Court
in the year 1989 and the leave was granted in the year 1999 and the appeal
is being disposed off now in the year 2006, which is only due to "Laws
Delays" and that the delay is not attributable to any one.
We, therefore, have no other option except to dismiss the appeal. We
also make it clear that the claimant shall also be entitled to all other statutory
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
872
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
benefits under the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as
contained in Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. The High Court has
also awarded cost of the appeal to the claimants. We affirm the same.
B
The Government having acquired the land in the year 1981, at least
now pay the compensation and other benefits within three months from this
date to the claimants.
In our opinion, there is absolutely no warrant for interference with
the order passed by the High Court fixing the compensation at Rs.1,75,000
per acre. The appeals accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no orders
C as to costs.
8.8.B.
Appeals dismissed.
..