SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 564

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S.Chauhan and Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.
Premwati - Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
With
Rajinder Singh (D) by Lrs. - Appellants
VERSUS
Delhi College of Engineering - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.949 OF 2005, CIVIL APPEAL NO.2443 OF 2005
Decided on: 02-07-2013

IMPORTANT POINT
Rates fixed for similarly situated lands of adjoining villages can be adopted under L.A. Act.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - Determination of value of land - Rates fixed in earlier decisions for adjoining villages adopted - No infirmity. (Paras 14 and 15)

        50 (1993) DLT 40; 93 (2001) DLT 150 - Cited with approval

       Facts of the case:

        These appeals relate to determination of value of land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

       Finding of the Court:

        While application of Balbir Singh’s case is fully justified, there is no need for any deduction.

       Result : Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court dated 07.02.2003, passed in batch of first appeals commencing from RFA No.167 of 1991 etc. We are concerned with the judgments passed in RFA No.132 of 1999, wherein the appellant in C.A.No.949 of 2005, was the appellant before the High Court and RFA No.129 of 1999, wherein the appellant in C.A.No.2443 of 2005 was the appellant before the High Court. The appellants were husband and wife. The appellant in C.A.No.2443 of 2005, died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and the appeal was pursued by his LRs.

2. The question involved in these two appeals is about the value of the land to be determined under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). There was a Notification under Section 4 of the Act, issued on 26.03.1983, followed by a Notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act, in respect of the lands situated in Shahibabad Daulatpur, Khera Kalan, Siraspur and Samaipur villages. Under Section 6 of the Act a declaration was also made on the same date viz., 26.03.1983. The lands of the appellants before us were all situated in the village Shahibabad Daulatpur. The extent of land acquired from the appellants were 94 bighas and 2 biswas bearing different Khasra Nos. covered by LAC case Nos.27 of 93 and 23 of 1993. The other extent of land was 4 biswas in Khasra No.33/26, covered by LAC case Nos.28 of 1993 and 29 of 1993. The concerned Awards were Award Nos.26/83-84 and 57/83-84 respectively. The Awards were dated 01.08.1983 and 26.09.1983 respectively. As per the Award, the value of the lands were fixed by the Acquisition Officer in a sum of Rs.13,000/- per bigha, in respect of the lands falling under Block-A and Rs.6,000/- per bigha, in respect of the lands falling under Block-B. The same was the value fixed in Award No.57/83-84. Aggrieved by the compensation fixed under the Award, the appellants preferred LAC case Nos. 23, 27, 28 and 29 of 1993.

3. The reference Court by its judgment dated 07.01.1998, determined the value in respect of both categories of land viz., A and B in a sum of Rs.17,500/- per bigha and in respect of the lands abutting the road in a sum of Rs.18,000/- per bigha. Before the reference Court, the appellants initially claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per bigha, but later on they amended their petition and claimed the market value in a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- per bigha. Aggrieved by the value fixed by the reference Court, the appellants approached the High Court and the High Court by the impugned judgment enhanced the value to a sum of Rs.42,000/- per bigha. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants have come forward with these appeals.

4. We have heard Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms.Rekha Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent (s). We have also perused the Award, the judgment of the Reference Court, as well as that of the Division Bench of the High Court and other material papers placed before us.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and the judgment impugned, along with the other material papers, we are of the considered opinion that further enhancement to a marginal extent can be justifiably granted in favour of the appellants.

6. When we perused the judgments of the Reference Court, we find that on behalf of the appellants, four witnesses were examined. P.W.1 Shri Jasbir Rana, is the son of the original appellant Rajinder Singh, P.W.2 Shri Rehmat Ilahi, who was a Reader in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi at the relevant time, P.W.3 Halqa Patwari Rajinder Singh, was examined to show that Aks Sajra of village Shahibabad Daulatpur and P.W.4 Shri Jaswahar, was a witness from the Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. On the side of the respondents, no evidence was let in, while two documents were tendered at the i










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top