The market value of land plays a crucial role in determining compensation in land acquisition cases.

( 1 ) THIS batch of Appeals assails the Award No. 245/1986-87 in respect of village Poothkalan passed by the Additional District Judge, Delh. The learned additional District Judge has implemented the decision of the Supreme Court of india in Union of India v. Ram Phool (2003) 10 SCC 167 and has awarded compensation at the same rate. e. Rs. 18,500/- per bigha. Ram Phool's case was in respect of Notification dated 11. 12. 1981 whereas the Notification in question before us is dated 13. 2. 1981. In other words for a later Notification, the compensation has already been determined by the Apex Court and would, therefore, prima facie apply to earlier Notifications also.

( 2 ) MR. Khosla, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants has raised two contentions in an attempt to persuade us to charter of course different to that in Ram Phool's case. Firstly, he relies on a transaction of sale by which a parcel of land was sold by the DDA to the Union of India for construction of a police Station, in which the compensation was substantially higher. It is his contention that since the land is situated in the same village, and since this transaction had not been disclosed in the previous proceedings which have been decided by the Supreme Court, this was sufficient reason for us to grant enhanced compensation.

( 3 ) SO far as this contention is concerned, what is relevant is that the notification is dated 20th August, 1976 in respect of the land which was sold by the DDA to the UOI for construction of a Police Station. There is, therefore, no identity or similarity in the two lands since the Appellants' land is agricultural in nature and the land transferred by the DDA was developed land. The price/value of the latter is bound to be much higher than the former.

( 4 ) THE second contention is that the compensation determined for the village Rithala should also be awarded in the present case. It is not controverted that Rithala and Poothkalan are contiguous to each other. Learned counsel for the Appellants, however, submits that the Notification for both villages is the same in all respects including the purpose for which the acquisition has gone through. e. "for construction of a supplementary drain".

( 5 ) WE are of the view that the purpose of acquisition is not at all relevant for determining the quantum of compensation. On the question of contiguity of the two villages, there is a plethora of precedents on both sides of the watershed. Our attention has been drawn to Division Bench judgments in union of India v. Nand Kishore 21 (1982) DLT 214 (DB), Bharat Singh v. Union of india 112 (2004) DLT 172 (DB) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanwar singh v. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 136, paragraph 9 of which states that mere fact that two villages are contiguous to each other, would not be sufficient reason for granting the same compensation to owners of lands in these two villages.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the Appellants also relies on Nand Ram v. The State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 3147 of 1988, in which while disposing of the special Leave Petition by the Orders dated 6th September, 1988, it has been observed that the "state cannot refuse to pay in respect of lands acquired under the same notification compensation at the reasonable market value reflected in the compensation awarded to the land owners whose similarly-situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date. " However, these very observations would militate against the Appellants inasmuch as they are not seeking parity with the compensation paid to persons in their own village, already finally calculated by the Apex Court, but in a village adjoining thereto.

( 7 ) THE law relating to fixation of compensation has been dealt with in detail in Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 1 in which it has been opined "that one of the modes of computing the market value may be base