Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SMT. SANTOSH KUMAR! ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Decided
28 August 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 315 · 1996 INSC 960

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) {for short, the 'Act') was published on September 25, 1979 acquiring large tracks of land for urbanisation within the municipal limits of Panipat. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated April 7, 1981 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 24,960 per acre for Block I and Rs. 19,992 per acre for Block-II. On reference, the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation by his award and decree dated January 24, 1984 to Rs. 18 per sq. yd. On further appeal by the State as well as the claimants, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 21.25 per sq. yd. without any deductions for developmental charges. The High Court has also granted additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

pp. 315–316, margin G

Shri Sehgal, learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the notification relied upon by the District Judge relates to third acquisition dated October 10, 1978 while the acquisition in this case is of September 25, 1979. Therefore, the learned Judge ought to have granted escalated charges rather than what was granted in the earlier cases. We find no force in the contention. In fact, the Additional District Judge relying upon small piece of land which did not find favour with the High Court, enhanced the compensation. The High Court also on the comparative evaluation and considering the evidence adduced before the reference Court, deterlT'ined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 21.25 per sq. yd. It is settled law that when the compensation is determined on yardage basis for housing development and the lands are to be developed, the direction to deduct 1/3rd towards the development charges, is required to be given. The High Court has not adopted that principle but the State has not come in appeal. The High Court has also granted additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act to which the appellants are not entitled. Under these circumstances, we do not find any justification warranting further enhancement of the compensation.

p. 316, margin B

The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. G.N. Appeals dismissed.

p. 316, margin E