Back
1998(8) Supreme 253
Supreme Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., V.N. Khare, J.
Kanwar Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Union of India -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7690 of 1994
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7691-7698/94, 7701/94, Civil Appeal Nos. 5354-56/98
(Arising out of C.C. Nos. 1897 & 1878/95, S.L.P. (C) Nos. 11132/1995)
Decided on 30-10-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : A.B. Rohtagi, Sr. Advocate, Jitender Seth, R.P. Jain and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Rajeev Sharma, Wasim A. Quadri, Advocates.
Held : So far as the first argument that the appellants ought to have been given the same rate of compensation which was given to the claimants of the adjoining village is concerned, the amount of compensation for the land acquired depends on the market value of land on the date of immediately before the notification under Section 4 of the Act or when same land is acquired and offer of compensation is made through an Award, whether such an offer of compensation represent the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, has to be determined on the basis of evidence produced before the Court. The claimants have to prove and demonstrate that the compensation offered by the Collector is not adequate and the same does not reflect the true market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. This could only be done by the claimants by adducing evidence to the effect that on the relevant date, the market value of the land in question was such at which the vendor and the vendee (buyer and seller) were willing to sell or purchase the land. The consideration in terms of price received for land under bona fide transactions on the date or preceding the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act generally shows the market value of the acquired land and the market value of the acquired land to be assessed in terms of those transactions. Sale instances showing the price fetched for similar land with similar advantages under bona fide transaction of sale at or near about the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act is well recognized to be that appropriate evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. The contention of appellants’ counsel that appellants deserved to be awarded the same rate of compensation as it was awarded to the claimants of village Masoodpur and Mahipalpur, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is not tenable. If we go by the compensation awarded to claimants of adjoining village it would not lead to the correct assessment of market value of the land acquired in the village Rangpuri. For example village ‘A’ adjoins village ‘B’, village ‘B’ adjoins village ‘C’, village ‘C’ adjoins village ‘D’, so on and so forth and in that process the entire Delhi would be covered. Generally there would be different situation and potentiality of the land situated in two different villages unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same. The High Court in the present case has found that the situation and potentiality of land in village Malikpur Khoi are different than that of village Masoodpur. This finding of the High Court is based on correct appreciate of evidence on record and does not call for interference. The judgment of the High Court is neither perverse nor illegal and does not call for any interference, since it is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and proper application of law to the established facts. The appeals are, accordingly dismissed. (Paras 7, 8 & 10)
Judgment
V.N. Khare, J.-Leave granted.
This group of Civil Appeals is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court and the questions involved therein relate to the quantum of compensation with regard to acquisition of appellants’ land situated in village Rangpuri @ Malikpur Kohi, Delhi. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in this group of appeals, we propose to decide them by a common judgment noticing the fact of the case appearing on the record of Civil Appeal No. 7690 of 1994.
2. A large tract of land in village Rangpuri near Palam Airport was notified for acquisition vide notification dated 23.1.1965 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for planned development of Delhi. Simultaneously, notifications dated 23-1-1965 were also issued for acquisition of land in villages Masoodpur and Mahipalpur. Some plots of land of village Rangpuri were acquired vide Award No. 1958/67 dated 16.3.1967. The Land Acquisition Collector while assessing the market value of the acquired land covered by the aforesaid Award, divided the said land into three blocks and fixed Rs. 800/-, Rs. 600/- and Rs. 400/- per bigha for Block-I, Block-II and Block-III, respectively. The remaining land of village Rangpuri not covered by earlier award were acquired by Award No. 146/80-81 dated 30.3.1981. The Land Acquisition Collector while giving the said Award divided the land into two blocks and fixed Rs. 1,800 and Rs. 1,500/- per bigha for Block-A and Block-B, respectively as market value as on 23.1.1965. Since the claimants were not satisfied with the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Collector, they preferred references to the District Judge, Delhi. Shri Jagdish Chandra, learned Additional District Judge, while dealing with one set of plots of land covered under Award No. 1958, vide judgment dated 23.3.1971 assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha for Block-A and Rs. 5,000/- per bigha for Block-B. Another set of reference cases also pertaining to remaining land covered by Award 1958 were dealt with by Shri O.N. Vohra, learned Additional District Judge. After hearing the matter, the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 5.11.1973 rejected the reference cases altogether and upheld the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Collector. The third set of reference cases pertaining to land covered by Award No. 146 were decided by Shri T.S. Oberoi, learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 29.4.1986. The learned Additional District Judge, while deciding these cases relied upon the judgment of Shri Jagdish Chandra, Additional District Judge and fixed the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 7,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- per bigha, respectively.
3. In the case of land falling in village Masoodpur, Shri S.R. Goel, learned Additional District Judge fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 18,000/- per bigha as on 23.1.1965. For the remaining land, falling in village Masoodpur, Shri Padam Singh, learned Additional District Judge fixed the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 14,340/- per bigha with Rs. 10,000/- as value of minerals and awarded Rs. 24,340/- per bigha as compensation, vide judgment dated 12.4.1990. The Union of India filed an appeal in the High Court against the judgment of Shri Padam Singh, Additional District Judge which was registered as Regular First Appeal (in short RFA) No. 567/90. The High Court summarily dismissed the said appeal without assigning any reason and the matter ended there, as Union of India did not prefer any appeal challenging the said judgment passed by a Division Bench of the High Court. So far as the compensation awarded to the claimants for acquisition of their lands in village Mahipalpur was concerned, the High Court relied upon a decision of the High Court rendered in RFA No. 567/90, as there was no sale instance available for fixing the market val
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
