Whether tenant is entitled to get 3/4 th of compensation under land acquisition Act?

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeals Nos. 8879-80 of 1996.

Decided On: 22.04.1996

Appellants:Mangat Ram, etc. 
Vs.
Respondent: State of Haryana and others, etc.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Patnaik, JJ.

 Citation: 1996VAD(SC)115, AIR1996SC3347, JT1996(5)SC470, 1996(4)SCALE667, (1996)8SCC664, [1996]Supp1SCR634

Property - Acquisition - Compensation - Apportionment - Whether determination of compensation by High Court is correct in law? - Held, Municipal Committee had not filed any appeal against enhancement of compensation by Single Judge to Division Bench - Dissatisfied with enhancement of compensation, claimants filed L P A and Division Bench enhanced compensation - It would appear that in similar cases, land situated in similar situation, High Court had granted compensation at same rates and Division Bench reduced developmental charged from 40% to 33 1/3% - Therefore in other cases compensation was determined which was allowed to become final - Court decline to interfere with determination of compensation - In regards to apportionment of compensation, High Court has directed to pay 1/4 to tenant and 3/4 to Wakf Board - In matter of Inder Parshad vs Union of India and Ors, Supreme Court hold that tenants are entitled to 3/4 of compensation while landlord is entitled to 1/4 of compensation - Relied on above law, order of High Court modified to extent that tenants are entitled to 3/4th while Wakf Board is entitled to 1/4th of compensation amount - Hence, appeals disposed of and appeals of municipal committee dismissed

2. Heard learned counsel for all the parties.

3. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on August 16, for acquiring 49 acres 1 canal 15 marlas of land for establishing a commercial market of Auto Vehicles and for commercial purposes in 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.

4. The Municipal Committee filed appeals 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 apportionment in a reference under Section 30.

5. The question is : whether the determination of the compensation 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 compensation 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%.

6. In view of the fact that in other cases the compensation was determined 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.

7. As regards apportionment of the compensation, the High Court has directed to pay 1/4 to the tenant and 3/4 to the Wakf Board. In view of the Judgment Col. Sir Harinder Singh Barar Bans Bahadur v. Bihari Lal and Ors. Etc. MANU/SC/0738/1994 : [1994]3SCR87 and Inder Parshad v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0790/1994 : (1994)5SCC239 , 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 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.

8. The appeals are disposed of. The appeals of R.C. are dismissed. No Costs.

Print Page