IMPORTANT POINT
It is not necessary to specify in the order of detention itself the particular supplies and services essential to the community which are affected by the activities of the detenu. It will suffice if the particulars are mentioned in the grounds for detention.
Advocates AppearedMr. K. B. Rohtagi, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. R. N. Poddar, Advocate, for Respondent.

ORDER:- Special Leave granted.

2. By a notification dated June 29, 1966,under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act for short), respondent State of Haryana acquired land admeasuring 495 bighas, 9 biswas and 12 biswansis pukhta situate in Village Faridabad, for the planned development of Sector 14 of Faridabad Complex. A declaration under S. 6 of the Act followed. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Collector proceeded to determine the compensation on the footing that the land was agricultural land. The measure of compensation determined by him was as under : (i) cultivated land at the rate of Rs. 190/- per biswas pukhta (ii) Banjar jadid and banjar qadia at the rate of Rs. 152/- per biswa pukhta, and (iii) Ghair mumkin land at the rate of Rs. 100/- per biswa pukhta. Various claimants who were covered by the Award sought reference under S. 18 of the Act. The learned District Judge enhanced the compensation in respect of some plantation land but otherwise affirmed the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector. The present appellant filed R. F. A. No. 667 of 1973 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh; The High Court proceeded to ascertain and evaluate the market price of the land acquired as on the date of notification under Sec. 4. of the Act. During the pendency of the appeal the appellant moved an application under O. VI, R. 17 read with O. XLI, R. 3 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Proceeding for amendment of the memorandum of appeal seeking higher compensation on the allegation that the acquired land had the potentiality of a building site. The High Court rejected the application by a cryptic order which reads as under :

"We see no reason for the amendment, particularly after a lapse of six years of the filing of R. F. A. Dismissed.

Hence this appeal by special leave.

3. In the application seeking leave to amend the memorandum of appeal the appellant urged that in Regular First Appeal No. 416 of 1974 decided on April 4, 19791, the High Court held that all lands in Ballabhgarh Faridabad Controlled Area between Delhi-Mathura Road and Agra Canal except a strip up to 500 feet along the Mathura Road had the same potentiality and awarded compensation for the land acquired for the development of Sector 16 of Faridabad Complex at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard. It was further alleged that in Regular First Appeal No. 381 of 1977 and Regular First Appeal No. 563 of 1977, while evaluating the market value of the land for development of Sector 17 of the Faridabad Complex, the High Court was pleased to award compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard on the footing that the land had the potentiality of building site. It was also alleged that for the land acquired for development of Sector 13 of Faridabad Complex situated in Ballabhgarh Faridabad Controlled Area compensation was awarded by the High Court at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard on the footing that the land had the potentiality of building site. After reciting the aforementioned averments, the appellant had stated that the land involved in dispute and acquired for development of Sector 14 is situated in the Ballabhgarh Faridabad Controlled Area and must be held to have the same potentiality and, therefore, the compensation ought to be awarded on the footing that it has the Potentiality of a building site. The appellant accordingly sought amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal for change of ascertainment of compensation. It is this application which was dismissed, by the High Court in limine principally, on the ground as transpires from the order extracted above that the application was moved nearly six years after the appeal was filed.

4. It is a well, settled Principle that the best evidence with regard to evaluation of price of land in a proceeding for ascertainment of compensation for land acquired under the Act and is the Award of the Court, subject of course, to the comparison of the land areawise, topographywise and usewise. The appellant sought