KASTURI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of law arises for consideration on similar facts, these appeals and special leave petitions are disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) A large area of 84.23 acres of land was acquired by the State of Haryana for development of residential and commercial area of Sector 13 and 23 in Bhiwani. A preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) was issued on 4th June, 1988 under Section 8, declaration was made on 15-4-1987 and two awards were passed covering the entire area on 10-11-1987 and 31-3-1988 awarding a sum of Rs. 57,500/- per acre and Rs. 55,200/- per acre respectively. The claimants, not being satisfied with the award-amount, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. In all, 151 references were made; the learned District Judge disposed of all these references by awarding uniform rate of compensation @ Rs. 125/- per square yard as against Rs. 11.81 paise per square-yard awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. In all, 251 Regular First Appeals were filed in the High Court by the claimants as well as the State of Haryana against the judgment of the Reference Court. In the said appeals, claimants prayed for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 500/- per square yard while the State sought for reduction of the compensation amount to Rs. 11.81 per square yard as awarded by the Collector. The learned single Judge, having reviewed and re-appreciated the entire evidence, keeping in view the contention of the parties, for the reasons stated in the judgment, reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 79.98 per square yard. In doing so, the learned single Judge applied cut of 20% towards development charges. In the result, the learned single Judge partly allowed the appeals filed by the State and dismissed the appeals filed by the claimants. The claimants, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, filed Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals, affirming the judgment and order of the learned single Judge. Hence, these appeals are filed by the claimants.

(3.) Learned counsel representing the appellants strongly contended that applying cut of 20% on the rate of compensation arrived at on the basis of the sale instances is neither justified nor tenable; the High Court was not right in reducing the rate of compensation from Rs. 125/- per square yard to Rs. 79.98 per square yard; the HUDA in pursuance of the award of the District Judge raised the rate of allotment of the land to Rs. 536/- per square yard as a result of which total rate of allotment of land worked out to more than Rs. 1100/- per square yard, and as such there was no loss to the State or the HUDA so as to ask the appellant to pay back 20% of the amount of compensation already received; according to the learned counsel, if refund is to be made by the appellants, it amounts to unjust enrichment for the HUDA which has already received more money by way of increase in the rate of land from the allottees. The learned counsel finally submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appellants have to make refund now, of the 20% of the compensation amount already received by them, it would result in great hardship to them.