Back
2001(5) Supreme 321
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
V.N. Khare and Ms. Ruma Pal, JJ.
State of Haryana -Appellant
versus
Ram Singh -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6016 of 1999
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6017-6032 of 1999
Decided on 25-7-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain for Mr. Mahabir Singh, Mr. Vinay Kumar Jain, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed and Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocates.
Held after discussing case law : In Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 3498 : 1996(7) Supreme 199, the sale deeds produced by the claimants were challenged as collusive. It was alleged that the sale transactions had been entered into only for the purpose of inflating the market value in anticipation of acquisition proceedings. It was in this context that the learned Judges of this Court held:
"......There is no proof of passing of the consideration thereunder or the circumstances in which the documents came to be executed. Under these circumstances, all the documents are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into."
The decision is not an authority for the proposition that the certified copy of a registered sale deed is inadmissible in evidence without proof of the execution of the documents by the vendor/purchaser or any other witness. In the present case, there was no allegation by the claimants that Exhibits R/2 and R/3 did not represent genuine transactions and the High Court was in error in refusing to consider the transactions evidenced therein merely because the parties to the documents were not examined. The submission of the learned counsel for the claimants that Exhibits R/2 and R/3 were in any event inadmissible because they were merely photostat copies of sale deeds was not a ground of appeal raised by the claimants in any of the appeals preferred by them from the decision of the District Judge. The original records are not before us and it is not possible to state with any certainty whether the original certified copies of Exhibits R/2 and R/3 had or had not been produced by the State in any of the proceedings under Section 18. Although the references under Section 18 had been decided on the basis of Exhibits R/2 and R/3, in the absence of any challenge on this score before the High Court by the claimants, the High Court did not address itself to this aspect of the matter at all. Therefore, the matter will have to be remanded to the High Court to take a decision on the market value of the acquired land taking into consideration Exhibits R/2 and R/3 unless the claimants are permitted by the High Court to establish their inadmissibility. (Paras 7, 8, 9 & 10)
(ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 6, 18 and 23(1)-Determining compensation for acquired land-High Court granting Rs. 30,000/- per acre for potential value apart from Rs. 1,72,000/- per acre as market value-Whether High Court could have granted a further amount on account of potential value over and above market value by way of compensation? (No)-Case law referred-Result-Case remanded.
Held : We are left with the question whether the High Court could have granted a further amount on account of potential value over and above the market value by way of compensation. Under Section 23(1) of the Act, in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1). The statute does not allow for payment of any further amount on account of `potential value over and above the market value. Besides `market value means exactly what it says viz. the price which the asset would or could be expected to fetch in the open market. Where a property has the potentiality of more profitable use, it will command a better price than property without such potential. In other words, potentiality forms part of the market value and may be a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the market value. But once the market value is determined, there is no question of awarding any further amount in addition thereto by reason of any further future potential. The decision relied upon by the claimants do not hold to the contrary. (Para 11)
After referring case law held : The High Court, therefore, erred in granting an additional sum on account of `potential value in addition to the market value. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the decision of the High Court and remand the issue as to the market value of the land to be re-determined by the High Court in the light of the observations in this judgment. All the appeals preferred by the claimants are accordingly dismissed and the appeals preferred by the State are disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. (Paras 13, 14 & 15)
JUDGMENT
Ruma Pal, J.-The issue involved in all these appeals relates to the compensation awarded in respect of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (referred to briefly as the Act ). The acquisition was made by the State of Haryana for constructing the Shahbad feeder. The area acquired covered about 180 acres and cut through villages Garhi Banjaran, Telipura, Udhampur and Bhukri. For the purposes of the acquisition, a series of notifications under Section 4 followed by declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued between 1986 to 1987. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded the same rate for all the four villages having regard to the nature of the land, namely, Rs. 29,000/- for Chahi or irrigated land, Rs. 20,000/- for Barani or non-irrigated land and Rs.5,000/-per acre for Gairmumkin or non-cultivable land. The References under Section 18 were disposed of by the District Judges by passing widely differing awards. These awards were subsequently challenged by the land owners from villages Telipura and Garhi Banjaran before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Single Judge of the High Court adopting a uniform rate for all types of land in all the villages directed the Sate Government to pay each of the claimants compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- plus Rs.30,000/-per acre, the latter sum being on account of potential value of the acquired land. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the State s appeals without giving separate reasons for upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge.
2. The appeals before us have been preferred both by the State of Haryana and the claimants challenging the compensation granted by the High Court.
3. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain appearing for the State of Haryana has contended that the High Court was wrong in determining the value of the acquired land at Rs.1,72,000/- per acre. The State had produced two sale deeds Exhibits R/2 and R/3 pertaining to a total area of 23 kanals and 4 marlas. The two deeds showed that the rate of land similar to the acquired land was Rs.29,000/- and Rs.37,000/-per acre. It was contended that the learned Single Judge had relying upon the decision of this Court in Baldev Singh and Others v. State of Punjab through Collector1 excluded Exhibits R/2 and R/3 produced by the State from consideration on the ground that neither the vendor nor the purchaser had been examined. It is pointed out that Baldev Singh s case is no longer good law in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah2. Secondly, it was submitted by Mr. Jain that the learned Judge erred in relying upon Exhibit PC produced by the claimants which was a sale deed pertaining to an area of one kanal and 6-1/2 marlas only which was contiguous to a main road. It was argued that Exhibit PC could not be an exemplar relevant to the lands which had been acquired which not only covered a much larger area but were situated at some distance from any habitation or road. It was also submitted that in any event having determined the market value, the learned Judge erred in adding any further sum on account of the alleged potential value of the land and that the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre fixed by the learned Judge for determining such potential value was entirely speculative.
4. Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, submitted that although the learned Judge may have rejected Exhibits R/2 and R/3 on a principle which was unsustainable, no prejudice was caused to the State as both Exhibits were photostat copies of sale deeds and could never have been admitted in evidence. It was further submitted that the High Court had taken into consideration the fact that Exhibit PC relied upon by the claimants related to a small piece of land and that is why as against the stated price of over Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre in Exhibit PC, the learned Judge had deducted 30% from the stated price and determined the v
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
