IMPORTANT POINT
When a large extent of land under acquisition comprises of lands of several persons and some lands are abutting main road and some lands are in the interior, necessarily, reasonable demarcation/Classification should be made before determination of compensation.

ORDER

In CA Nos. 3816, 3818-35 4070-4139, 3947, 4157-58, 4036-69, 4033-35, 3936-46/97 @ SLP Nos. 1013, 1545-1662, 3004-73, 19017, 8255-56/95, 2947-80, 2920-22 and 16892-902/96)

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) was published on June 18, 1984. The land Acquisition Collector classified the lands into four blocks, viz., A, B, C and D and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 25,000/- and 15,000/- respectively. The total of 3781 kanals and 2 marlas and 1138 kanals and 11 marlas of land was acquired and compensation was accordingly granted. On reference under Section 18, the Additional District Judge classified the lands as Classes A and B and awarded the compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000/- for Class A and @ Rs. 50,000/- for Class B . On appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court granted uniform rate of compensation @ Rs. 1,05,000/-. The Division Bench heard L.P.A. No. 664/91 and batch and dismissed the appeals on January 5, 1994. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

2. The question that arises for consideration is: whether the view of the High Court in not making any belting and granting uniform rate of compensation for all the lands is correct principle of law? We find that the High Court has adopted absolutely incorrect principle of law. It is seen that several fake deeds have been filed, in particular as per Ex. BA spoken through PW-3, 16.7 kanals of land were sold for Rs. 1,40,000/-. It is settled legal position that it is the duty of the Court to sit in the arm chair of a willing and prudent purchaser and seek answer to the question whether he would purchase the lands offered for sale with the existing features, at the same market value proposed by the Court. It is also settled law that though determination involves some guess work, it must have reasonable basis and feats of imagination should be eschewed. It is salutary duty of the court to award reasonable and adequate compensation. The plan has been placed before us. The Land Acquisition Officer has marked the lands in red colour the lands classified as A and B class lands in green colour.

3. The question that arises for consideration is: whether the belting is necessary in the circumstances of these cases? When a large extent of land under acquisition comprises of lands of several persons and some lands are abutting the main road and some lands are in the interior, the same would not have the uniform rate market value. Necessarily, reasonable demarcation/classification should be made before determination of the compensation. Accordingly, we justified the classification of the lands into category A and B . The Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned the total extent of the land in his respective awards. Since the lands are admittedly abutting the Delhi-Hissar National Highway by-pass, the same would necessarily be granted a higher market value than the lands situated in the interior. Accordingly, we are of the view that lands situated around 500 yards from the main road should be classified as A class land irrespective of the quality of the land, i.e., whether it is Nehari, Chahi, Banjar Quadium, Banjar Jadid or Gair Mumkin. The uniform rate of compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre would be granted to such lands. For the rest of the A Class lands, the compensation would be at Rs. 60,000/- per acre. Banjar Quadim, Banjar Jadid and Gair Mumkin lands are classified as B class lands and for that land, the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per acre would be reasonable, just and adequate compensation.

4. Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants, contends that if a claimant does not seek a reference under Section 18 and if the award is made in respect of other persons covered under the same notification and they have secured enhanced compensation, the respondents should not be put in a wors