Surender Mohan vs. State of Haryana

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The facts admitted is that the Government of Haryana had acquired land containing 481.61 acres in the areas of revenue estate of Mewla Mahrajapur village, tehsil and the district of Faridabad for the motive of public utilization particularly for development of the land to use in residential, commercial and institutional areas in Sector 44 and 47 of Faridabad occurring in Faridabad and Ballabhgarh controlled area. Notifications were given according to Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on 7th September, 1992 and 2nd August, 1993 respectively. The Land Acquisition Collector evaluated on 8th August, 1995 regarding the compensation that is to be paid to the landowners at the rate of Rs. 1,96,800 per acre which is Rs. 40.66 per square yard. As the landowners were unsatisfied with the compensation awarded, the present appellant i.e. RFA No. of 3476 of 2010 along with appeals of RFA Nos.601, 954, 1306, 1942, 1943, 157, 1588, 892, 1699 of 1999 and RFA No. 262 of 2011 sought the improvement of the compensation for the property acquired by the government on the date 6th August 2012 as per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Also, on 6th August, 2012, RFA Nos. 1725, 2012, 105, 106, 107, 1639, 854, 1123, 857 of 1999 also appealed against the State trying to reduce the claim of the compensation.


ISSUE OF THE CASE:

Whether the appeal of the various landowners to improve the amount of compensation acquired to be considered and what will be the amount to be compensated to them?


JUDGMENT OF THE CASE:

As on 6th August, 2012, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana addressed by Hon’ble Justice Kannan handled this appeal by the landowners. Advocate Mr. Adish Gupta appeared for the respondent in RFA No. 1725 and 2012 of 1999. Senior Advocate Mr. Amit Rawal for appellant in RFA No.601 of 1999, Advocate Sandeep Vermani for the appellants in RFA Nos. 1942, 1943 of 1999, Advocate Mr. Roshan Lal Sharma for appellants in RFA Nos. 157, 954, 1306 of 1999, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Gupta for appellants in RFA No. 1588 of 1999, Advocate Mr. Surinder Batra and Senior Advocate Mr. Atul Lakhanpal for the appellant in RFA No. 892 of 1999, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Sharma for the appellant in RFA No.1699 of 1999, Advocate Mr. Shiv Kumar for the appellant in RFA No. 3476 of 2010 and Advocate Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma for the appellant in RFA No. 262 of 2011 appeared for the appellants i.e. landowners.

The Registry gave notice to the Court that already there was an adjudication made by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the same property that was under the similar notification and category on the compensation in the set of RFA No. 4438 of 2008 which is the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Sailak Ram decided on 1st September 2009. These cases were brought in only on the specific ground for disposal and since these cases are already been decided, the High Court had held that these appeals will be disposed off according to the adjudication previously been made.

Thereby, the High Court held that all the appeals and cross objections will be disposed off according to the judgment of RFA No, 4438 of 2008 where the value of land acquired will be retained at Rs. 280 per sq. yard. It also held that all the awards/compensation accordingly of the Reference Court will remain modified upto the said extent.

Then in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Dairy No(s). 6715 of 2020 on 21st May, 2020 addressed by the bench of Hon’ble Justices Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit, Mr. Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Mr. Vineet Saran in Supreme Court which arised from the judgment decided on 6th August, 2012 in RFA No. 3476 of 2010, a petition was called for hearing. According the judgment passed by the High Court of the present case, the compensation payable was Rs. 280 per square yard. As per the matters of the same notification, the compensation finally attained by the Court was Rs. 325 per sq. yard. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will not ask for any kind of interest for the delay that is for about 2659 days in filing of the petition, but can be given the basic compensation of Rs. 325 per sq. yard and statements were recorded. The Court held that notice to be issued and returnable in the second week of July in additional to Dasti and the Court gave the liberty to the standing counsel for the State to serve.

On 5th July, 2021, the Special Leave Petition based on the judgement made on 6th August, 2008 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground of delay for about 2659 and 3017 days and for lack for satisfactory explanations.

On 11th January, 2022 in the Review Petition (Civil) No. 1407 of 2021 was heard by the Supreme Court of India by the Bench of Justices Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit and Mr. Ajay Rastogi. The Court stated that there was delay of 2659 and 3017 days with no proper justification for which the special leave petition was dismissed on the basis of limitation, whose order is under the instant review petition by the Court.

The Court after going through the grounds being advanced in this instant review petition, held that there is no error evidently in the recording to justify the interference. Thereby, the Court dismissed the current review petition.



This article is written by Jwaalaa Suresh of SVKM's NMIMS School Of Law, Navi Mumbai.

Recent Posts

See All

Heading – John Ryland and John Horrocks vs Thomas Fletcher Citation –John Ryland and John Horrocks vs Thomas Fletcher (1868) UKHL 1, (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 Names Of Judges Involved in the Judgment – L