SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Smt. Padma Uppal etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and others, Respondents.
23-8-1976.
(2) Civil Appeals Nos. 2694-2695, 2697-2700 and 2703-2704 of 1972.
State of Punjab, Appellants
Versus
Jagdish Rai etc., Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2394-2403, 2694-2695, 2697-2700 and 2703-2704 of 1972,
D/- 23-8-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. T. Desai, Sr. Advocate, (In C. As. 2394-2397 of 1972); Mr. F. S. Nariman, Sr. Advocate (In C. As. 2394 to 2402 of 1972). (Mr. Naunit Lal and Miss Lalita Kohli, Advocates with them), for Appellants in C. As. 2394-1403/72 and for Respondents in C. As. 2694-2695, 2697-2700 and 2703-2704/72; Mr. C. P. Sharma, Advocate, for Appellant in C. As. 2694-2695, 2697-2700 and 2703-2704/72 and for Respondents in C. As. 2394-2403 of 1972.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Acquisition of land – Claim of compensation - It appears that a vast area of land measuring situate in Amritsar and village Amritsar was acquired by the Government of Punjab for a public purpose expansion of the existing Medical College and allied institutions in the city of Amritsar - Whereas the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in respect of the aforesaid area was issued on March notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on July 4, 1959 – Collector Amritsar classified the aforesaid area for fixation of compensation into two categories potential building area and the agricultural land - Collector categorized which abutted on the Circular Road as potential building area and the remaining as agricultural land and by his order dated December awarded as compensation for the potential building area for agricultural land. Dissatisfied with the award erstwhile proprietors approached Collector requesting him to make references to Senior Sub-Judge, Amritsar under Section 18 of the Act - Senior Sub-Judge made a spot inspection for the purpose of appraisal of evidence adduced before him and by his judgment and award accepted the classification made by Collector but enhanced the compensation of the agricultural land and of the potential building area - On appeal High Court after taking into consideration some transactions of sales in locality proximate in point of time to the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of Act opinion of values regarding trend of the prices of land in the locality and the situation and potentialities of the land in question by its aforesaid judgment and decree dated January for agricultural land and for potential building area - It is against this judgment and decree that the present appeals as already stated have been preferred – Held, A court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under attack is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong - First contention advanced on behalf of the State that the erstwhile owners of the land in question could not be given compensation higher than that assessed for acquisition made by the State for the construction of Hygiene and Vaccine Institute is devoid of force - Whereas the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act with regard to that acquisition was published on May notification under the said provision of the Act in respect of the instant acquisition was published on March when market value of the land in the locality had risen very high - Rate of compensation assessed for the former acquisition cannot therefore serve as a safe guide for determination of compensation for the acquisition in question - Similarly consideration paid in March for purchase of land cannot also serve as a safe guide as this transaction also took place in March nearly two years before the publication of the aforesaid notification in respect of the present acquisition - High Court was in court opinion perfectly justified on the basis of the material before it in fixing compensation for potential building area and for the agricultural area in respect of plots of land involved in appeals - High Court however was wrong in overlooking an important point affecting compensation payable to the erstwhile owners of the potential building area involved in appeals - Said claimants having claimed compensation only at the rate in the first appeals filed by them in the High Court they could not have been awarded compensation exceeding that rate - Thus said appeals filed by the State cannot but be allowed to the extent to which compensation awarded to claimants in respect of the potential building area acquired exceed - Ordered accordingly
Judgment
JASWANT SINGH, J.:- This batch of 18 appeals Nos. 2394 to 2403 of 1972 and 2694, 2695, 2697 to 2700, 2703 and 2704 of 1972 by certificates granted under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution which arise out of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and are directed against the common judgment dated January 3, 1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana shall be disposed of by this judgment. While the first group of ten appeals Nos. 2394 to 2403 of 1972 are by the erstwhile proprietors of land claiming enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the High Court, the rest of the eight appeals are by the State of Punjab challenging the quantum of compensation as enhanced by the High Court.
2. It appears that a vast area of land measuring 832 kanals and 2 marlas (i.e. 416050 sq. yds.) situate in Amritsar (Urban) and village Tungbala, Amritsar, was acquired by the Government of Punjab for a public purpose viz. the expansion of the existing Medical College and allied institutions in the city of Amritsar. Whereas the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in respect of the aforesaid area was issued on March 18, 1959, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on July 4, 1959. The Collector, Amritsar, classified the aforesaid area for fixation of compensation into two categories viz. the potential building area and the agricultural land. The Collector categorised 60 kanals and 18 marlas (i.e. 30450 sq. yds.) which abutted on the Circular Road and Majitha Road as potential building area and the remaining 771 kanals and 4 marlas as agricultural land and by his order dated December 2, 1959 awarded Re. 1/- per sq. yd. as compensation for the potential building area and Re. -/6/- per sq. yd. for agricultural land. Dissatisfied with the award, the erstwhile proprietors approached the Collector requesting him to make references to the Senior Sub-Judge, Amritsar, under Section 18 of the Act. The Senior Sub-Judge made a spot inspection for the purpose of appraisal of the evidence adduced before him and by his judgment and award dated June 9, 1962, accepted the classification made by the Collector but enhanced the compensation of the agricultural land to Re. 1/- per sq. yd. and of the potential building area to Rs. 1.50 per sq. yd. On appeal, the High Court after taking into consideration some transactions of sales in the locality proximate in point of time to the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the opinion of the valuers regarding the trend of the prices of land in the locality and the situation and potentialities of the land in question by its aforesaid judgment and decree dated January 3, 1968, awarded Rs. 3/- per sq. yd. for the agricultural land and Rs. 4.50 per sq. yd. for the potential building area. It is against this judgment and decree that the present appeals, as already stated, have been preferred.
3. At the hearing of these appeals, counsel for the appellants in the first set of ten appeals have, in the first instance, urged that as the plots of land in question formed one consolidated block, the entire area thereof should have been treated as potential building area and compensation awarded accordingly. It has been next contended by counsel for the appellants particularly in Appeals Nos. 2402 and 2403 of 1972 that the High Court has erred in overlooking the evidential value furnished by (i) the award made by the Collector, Amritsar fixing Rs. 4/12/- per sq. yd. as compensation for the land measuring 28.75 acres in Amritsar (Urban) and 32.04 acres in village Tungbala, Urban which was sought to be acquired in February, 1947, and notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act in respect whereof was published on February 22, 1947, (ii) the price paid by the appellants in purchasing some of the plots in question in October, 1946, and January, 1947, and (iii) the transactions of sale of the
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.