Back
1992 Supreme(Del) 230
High Court Of Delhi
BALJIT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL 42 of 1974
Decided On : 04/09/1992
B.P.GUPTA, B.S.Mathur, MUKUL ROHTAGI, N.S.VASHISHT, R.P.Jain
The market value of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act is to be determined on the basis of the sale instances from the same village. Where there are no sale instances from the village in question, sale instances from the adjoining villages can be considered. If the lands in adjoining villages are also acquired by the same notification, they are more relevant than the sale instances in the adjoining villages which are not acquired simultaneously.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - MARKET VALUE - DETERMINATION - SALE INSTANCES - POTENTIAL VALUE - ADJOINING VILLAGES - ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from the acquisition of land belonging to claimants in village Malikpur Kohi/rangpuri. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23.1.1965.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the market value of the lands in Village Malikpur Kohi/rangpuri on 13.1.1965 when the Section 4 notification was issued was Rs. 3000.00 per bigha. The court also held that the claimants were not entitled to any enhancement of compensation on the basis of the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in RFA 122/78 Hoshiarsingh etc. v. U.O.I.
Issues: 1. What was the market value of the lands in Village Malikpur Kohi/rangpuri on the date of Section 4 Notification? 2. Whether the claimants were entitled to any enhancement of compensation on the basis of the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in RFA 122/78 Hoshiarsingh etc. v. U.O.I.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the best evidence in regard to compensation is the sale instances proved by the vendor and vendee. The sale instances should be from the same village. Where there are no sale instances from the village in question, sale instances from the adjoining villages can be considered. If the lands in adjoining villages are also acquired by the same notification, they are more relevant than the sale instances in the adjoining villages which are not acquired simultaneously. If the High court or the Supreme Court has decided the market value of the land in the same area, the same will have great weight, the reason being that the superior Courts have applied their minds in regard to the potentiality of the land for the purposes of compensation. 2. The court held that the claimants were not entitled to any enhancement of compensation on the basis of the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in RFA 122/78 Hoshiarsingh etc. v. U.O.I. as the said decision related to a different village and the facts and circumstances of that case were different from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Final Decision: The appeals of the claimants and the appeals of the Union of India were partly allowed to the extent stated above. The claimant would be entitled to solatium and interest according to the law prevalent at relevant time. There shall be proportionate costs.
( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of the acquisition of land belonging to claimants in village Malikpur Kohi/rangpuri. The notification undersection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23. 1. 1965.
( 2 ) RFA. 386/71 is filed against the judgment of Shri Jagdish Chandraadj, in LAC No. 415/67 pronounced on 29. 3. 1971 relating to Award No. 1958. Shri Jagdish Chandra, ADJ, (as he then was) had relied upon his own Judgmentin LAC. 434/67 Bhaktawar Singh and Another v. Union of India dated 23. 3. 1971. In Bhaktawar Singh s case the learned ADJ, relying on the sale instance ofkhasra No. 1587/1, where one bigha of land was sold for Rs. 5,000. 00, held thatmarket value for block I lands was Rs. 7,000. 00 per bigha and for block 2 landsrs. 5,000. 00 per bigha. Appellants land was classified by the learned ADJ asblock 2 land and was awarded compensation @ Rs. 5,000. 00 per bigha. Theland Acquisition Collector had awarded only Rs. 600. 00 per. bigha for block2 lands. The appellants/claimants had claimed in the appeal that they shouldhave been paid compensation @ Rs. 7,000. 00 per bigha. The Union of India hasfiled an appeal against the Judgment of Jagdish Chandra. ADJ, viz. RFA. 452of 1971. In the said appeal the claimantss have filed the cross-objections. Afterthe decision of this Court in RFA. 122/78, Hoshiar Singh v. Union ofindia, theclaimants have claimed Rs. 14,340. 00 per bigha as compensation for all categoriesof land.
( 3 ) THERE are cross-appeals filed by the Union of India, viz. RFA. 319/71 and RFA. 386/71, urging that the learned ADJ was wrong in relying on hisown decision in LAC. 415/67, i. e. Bhaktawar Singh vs. Union of India. It isspecifically urged that reliance on the sale instance in regard to Khasra No. 1587/1 (Ex. C/l) was wrong. It was also urged that the compensation@rs. 5,000. 00 per bigha awarded to Nav Ratan and Ors. was without properevidence on record.
( 4 ) RFA. 42/74 is filed against the Judgment of Shri O. N. Vohra,district Judge (as he then was) in LAC No. 455/67 in regard to Award No. 1958. The learned ADJ had relied on his own Judgment in LAC No. 458/67,kanwar Singh and Ors. v. Union of india and dismissed the reference holdingthat the claimants were not entitled to any enhancement of compensation. Thelac had awarded Rs. 800. 00 per bigha for block 1; Rs. 600. 00 per bigha forblock 2; and Rs. 400. 00 per bigha for block 3 lands. The sale instance in regardto Khasra No. 1587/1 (where one bigha of land was sold for Rs. 5,000. 00) wascited before the learned ADJ as Ex. A/5. It was also brought to the notice ofthe learned ADJ that his predecessor Shri Jagdish Chandra had relied on thesaid sale instance in LAC No. 434/67, which was the Judgment cited beforeshri O. N. Vohra, District Judge, as Ex. A/3. On evidence recorded by thelearned District Judge he had come to the conclusion that the sale deed inrelation to Khasra No. 1587/1 was sham and bogus.
( 5 ) RFA. 47/74 arising out of LAC. 419/67 and from Award No. 1598is also directed against the order of Shri O. N. Vohra, District Judge. Thelearned Judge has relied on his own decision in Kanwar Singh and Ors. v. Unionof India in LAC. 458/67. The learned ADJ dismissed the claim for enhancement of compensation and confirmed the compensation awarded by the Collector which was Rs. 800. 00 Rs. 600. 00 and Rs. 400. 00 per bigha for blocks 1, 2 and3 respectively.
( 6 ) THE next lot of appellants are RFA. 333/87 and RFA. 431/86. RFA 333/87, Risal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India arises out of the order inlac No. 29/83 passed by Shri T. S. Oberoi, ADJ on 24. 11. 86. The Award outof which this LAC arose was Award No. 146 of 1980-81. The Land Acquisitioncollector had awarded Rs. 1,800. 00per bigha for block I land and Rs. 1,500 per bigha for block 2 lands. Relying on his own decision in LAC. 316/82shri T. S. Oberoi, ADJ, fixed the market value of land for block I at Rs. 7. 000. 00 per bigha and made the Award accordingly. The learned ADJ reliedupon the d
