Back
1997(6) Supreme 102
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddin and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Basant Kumar etc. -Appellants
versus
Union of India etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4327 of 1991
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 12566/96, 12567, 12568, 12569 & 12570/96
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14764, 17053-55 of 1992 and 19899/96)
(CC No. 14103/91)
Decided on 12-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.C. Jain, N.K. Jain, Ms. Sheela Goel, Advocates.
Held : It has been firmly settled law by beed role of decisions of this Court that the Judge determining the compensation under Section 23(1) should sit in the arm chair of a willing prudent purchaser in an open market and see whether he would offer the same amount proposed to be fixed as market value as a willing and prudent buyer for the same or similar land, i.e., land possessing all the advantageous features and of same extent. This test should always be kept in view and answer affirmatively, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. If feats of imagination are allowed to sway, he out steps his domain of judicial decision and lands in misconduct amenable to disciplinary law. We have gone through the record and judgments in Chet Ram s case and Raghuvir Singh s case decided by the two Division Benches. The learned Judges have adopted the principle that the entire lands in the village shall be treated as one unit and the compensation shall uniformly be determined on that basis. The principle is wholly unsustainable in law and cannot be a valid ground for determination of compensation. It is common knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands command same market value. The lands abutting main road or national highway command higher market value and as the location goes backward, market value of interior land would be less even for same kind of land. It is a settled legal position that the lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages offer comparable parity of the value; It is common knowledge that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent. In this case, it is seen that land is as vast as admeasuring 1669 bighas, 18 biswas of land in the village. So, all lands cannot and should not be classified as possessed of same market value. Burden is always on the claimant to prove the market value and the Court should adopt realistic standards and progmatic approach in evaluation of the evidence. No doubt, each individual have different parcels of the land out of that vast land. If that principle is accepted, as propounded by the High Court, irrespective of the quality of the land, all will be entitled to the same compensation. That principle is not the correct approach in law. The doctrine of equality in determination and payment of same compensation for all claimants involved in the same notification is not good principle acceptable for the aforestated reasons when both the lands are proved to be possessed of same advantages, features etc., then only equal compensation is permissible. (Para 5)
(ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23(1)-Determination of compensation-Reference Court assessed compensation at Rs. 3050/- per bigha-Lands were agricultural-Value was rightly determined on bigha basis instead of yards basis-Appellants had produced sale deeds indicating the maximum which was secured at Rs. 3250 per bigha-Appellants would be entitled to maximum rate of Rs. 3250 per bigha. (Para 8)
(iii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 54-Dismissal of appeal by High Court-When appeal on basis of the pecuniary value was decided by single Judge, an appeal would lie to same Court in form of LPA to Division Bench-High Court was wrong to hold that CPA did not lie. (Para 9)
ORDER
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi made on July 8, 1996 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 97/80 and other cases.
2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the Act ) was published on October 24, 1961 acquiring a large extent of 1669 bighas 18 biswas of land for the planned development of Delhi. The said lands are situated in revenue estate of Posangipur. The Land Acquisition Officer categorised the lands into two blocks-Block A and Block B. He assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1400/- per bigha for Block A and Rs. 1200/- per bigha for Block B. On reference under Section 18, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated March 8, 1968 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3050/- per bigha. On Regular First Appeal, the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the award of the reference Court. When the LPA was filed, the Division Bench held that the LPA did not lie.
3. In Balbir Singh v. Union of India in RFA No. 214/68 by judgment dated May 14, 1980, the same was taken on merits in the appeal. Similar is the case in SLP (C) No. 17055/92 relating to Chhajju in RFA No. 65/69 of the even number dated May 14, 1980. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
4. The extent of the land involved in Basant Kumar s case, viz., CA No. 4327/91 is not clear as no one is appearing for the appellant. But as regards the appeal of Chhajju, his lands are of an extent of 37 bighas 10 biswas in which his share is one-half. As regards Balbir Singh s lands, he has 66 bighas, 10 biswas in which he has 1/3rd share. The question for consideration is: what will be the reasonable compensation which the lands under acquisition were capable to secure as on the date of the notification?
5. Shri N.C. Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that in Raghuvir Singh v. Union of India1 arising out of the same notification, another Division Bench of the High Court had determined the compensation at the rate of Rs 8700/- per bigha and less Rs. 500 per bigha for the notified lands; and similar was the view taken by another Bench of that Court in Chet Ram & Ors. v. Union of India2. All these lands being situated in the same village, the appellants are also entitled to the same rate of compensation. The Union of India had not filed any appeals against those cases. The lands are possessed of same potential value and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the same compensation. We had adjourned the case on the last occasion, as no one appeared for the Union of India; Since, even today, no one is appearing for the Union of India, we have taken assistance of Shri Jain and have waded through the entire material evidence. The question is: whether the appellants are entitled to the same compensation as was determined by the High Court in the appeals arising out of Raghubir Singh s case and Chet Ram s case? It has been firmly settled law by beed role of decisions of this Court that the Judge determining the compensation under Section 23(1) should sit in the arm chair of a willing prudent purchaser in an open market and see whether he would offer the same amount proposed to be fixed as market value as a willing and prudent buyer for the same or similar land, i.e., land possessing all the advantageous features and of same extent. This test should always be kept in view and answer affirmatively, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. If feats of imagination are allowed to sway, he out steps his domain of judicial decision and lands in misconduct amenable to disciplinary law. We have gone through the record and judgments in Chet Ram s case and Raghuvir Singh s case decided by the two Division Benches. The learned Judges have adopted the principle that the entire lands in the village shall be treated as one unit and the compensation shall uniformly be determined on that basis. T
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
