IMPORTANT POINT
In the absence of any evidence of sale of land on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, under certain conditions the post notification transactions of sales of land can be relied upon in determining the market value of the acquired land provided it is proved that there was no upward rise in the price of the land during the period of issue of notification and date of sale.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 and 23-Compensation claim-Determination of-Sale of land on or about the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act-Best piece of evidence for determining market value of acquired land-Post notification transaction of sales of land-Can be relied upon-Claimant to prove that there was no upward rise in price of land during period of issue of notification under Section 4 and date of transaction of sale.
       Held : The consideration in terms of price received for land under bone fide transaction on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act or few days before or after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act generally shows the market value of the acquired land and the market value of the acquired land has to be assessed in terms of those transactions. The sale of land on or about the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act is stated to be the best piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. Often evidence on transaction of sale of land on or few days before the notification under Section 4 is not available. In the absence of such evidence contemporaneous transactions in respect of lands which had similar advantages and disadvantages would be the good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. In case the same is not also available, the other transaction of land having similar advantages nearer to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act would guide in determination of the market value of acquired land. (Para 5)
       Further held that in the absence of any evidence of sale of land on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, under certain conditions the post notification transactions of sales of land can be relied upon in determining the market value of the acquired land. One of the conditions being that it must be shown before the Court by reliable evidence that there was no appreciation of the value of land during the period of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the date of transaction of sale which is sought to be relied upon for the purposes of fixing the market value of the acquired land. It has also to be borne in mind that if the claimant relies on any post notification transaction, the burden is upon him to show that the price of the land remained static and there was no upward rise in the price of the land during the period of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the date of transaction of sale. (Para 6)
       (ii) LAND ACQUISITIONS-Compensation claim-Determination of-Judgments of Courts in land acquisition cases or awards given by Land Acquisition Officers can be relied upon-Such an award or judgment must be a previous judgment.
       Held that it is only the previous judgment of a Court or an Award which can be made basis for assessment of the market value of the acquired land subject to party relying such judgment to adduce evidence for showing that due regard given to all attendant facts it could form the basis for fixing the market value of acquired land. (Para 8)
       (iii) Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal-Scope-Land acquisition cases-Compensation claim-This Court is not required to re-appreciate evidences considered by Courts below.
       Held : While deciding these appeals, this Court is not required to re-appraise the evidences which were considered by the Courts below. But what concerns us is whether correct or legal principles were applied in arriving at the market value of the acquired land in awarding compensation to the claimants. When a land is compulsorily acquired, what is basically required to be done for awarding compensation is to arrive at the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

V.N. Khare, J.-This group of Civil Appeals by Special Leave and Special Leave Petitions is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court and the questions involved therein relate to quantum of compensation with regard to acquisition of the appellants land situated in village Gharoli, Delhi. Since common question of facts and law is involved, we propose to dispose of these appeals and special leave petitions by a common judgment, noticing the facts of the case as appearing in Civil Appeal No. 2981/95.

2. Land measuring 2600.12 bighas situated in the revenue estate of village Gharoli which included the appellants land was notified for acquisition vide notification dated 17.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the "Act"). The purpose for acquisition shown was planned development of Delhi. This was followed by declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.81. The Collector by an award dated 2.7.83 assessed the market value of the entire land at Rs. 9,000/- per bigha except some portions of land the value of which was fixed at Rs. 7,000/- and 4,000/- per bigha, respectively. The appellants not contend with the said award of the Collector sought references for determination of compensation payable to them. The Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi determined the market value of appellants acquired land at the rate of Rs. 23,000/- per bigha. It may be noticed here that for other portions of the land the Additional District Judge awarded lower rates of compensation. Thereafter, the appellants preferred Regular First Appeals in the High Court of Delhi against the judgment dated 21.11.92 of the Learned Additional District Judge. However, the Union of India accepted the judgment of the Learned Additional District Judge as it did not prefer any appeal to the High Court. The High Court of Delhi by a common judgment rendered in 46 appeals filed by the claimants in respect of the same village granted compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 76,550/- per bigha to all the claimants. It is in this way the present appeals and the special leave petitions have come up before us.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the leases, Ext. A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12 and A-13 relied upon by the appellants for enhancement of compensation for the acquired land were erroneously rejected by the High Court on the ground that these evidences related to the post notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. According to learned counsel for the appellants the lands comprised in Ext. A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12, and A-13 are situate near the acquired land and the leases thereof were executed shortly after the notification under Section 4 of the Act, and as such, they ought to have been relied upon by the High Court in arriving at the correct market value of the acquired land.

4. Ext. A-8, A-9 and A-10 relate to plots of land situate in Jhilmil Tahirpur and Ext. A-12 and A-13 relate to leases in respect of land situate in Sector 12, NOIDA. These leases were executed much after the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in the present case.

5. Before we advert to the argument raised on behalf of the appellants, it has to be borne in mind while deciding these appeals, this Court is not required to re-appraise the evidence which were considered by the Courts below. But what concerns us is whether correct or legal principles were applied in arriving at the market value of the acquired land in awarding compensation to the claimants. When a land is compulsorily acquired, what is basically required to be done for awarding compensation is to arrive at the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The market value of a piece of land for determining compensation under Section 23 of the Act would be the price at which the vendor and the vendee (buyer and seller) are willing to sell or purchase the land. The consideration in terms of price received

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1265

Cases Referred (6)

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009