http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BALDEV SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (6)42

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1  of 1894  (for short,  the  ‘Act’)  was  published  on January 29,  1982 acquiring  a total  extent of 193 kanals 3 marlas of land situated in village Lamin in Punjab State for construction  of   Hydel  Channel.   The  Land   Acquisition Collector awarded  compensation at  the rate  of Rs.16,000/- per acre  and also awarded 5% additional amount thereon with solatium and  interest. On reference the Additional District Judge in  his award  and  decree  dated  December  13,  1983 enhanced  the  compensation  to  Rs.30,000/-  per  acre.  On appeal, the  High Court  reduced  the  compensation  to  the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector by judgment and decree  dated February  25, 1985.  Thus, this  appeal by special leave.      It  is   contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellants that  the High Court has committed grievous error in reducing  the compensation from Rs.30,000/-to Rs.16,000/- per acre.  It is  contended that  Exts.A-12 and 13, the sale deeds of February 12, 1981 and 30th March, 1981 respectively executed one  year prior  to the  date of  acquisition would show that  the market  value of  which  land  commanded  was Rs.40,000/- per  acre; even  the sale  deeds  Ex.A-14  dated March  23,   1981,  Ex.A-15   dated  July   1,  1981   which commanded  market   value   was   Rs.60,000/-,   though   of smaller extent  of 5  bighas each;  hence, the  market value will not  less than  Rs.40,000/-. Therefore,  the additional District Judge  was right  in granting  compensation at  the rate of  Rs.30,000/- per acre. In support thereof, he placed reliance also  on another judgment in respect of land in the neighboring village  wherein  the  same  learned  Judge  had confirmed the  market value  at the  rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre in  respect of  the cultivable  Chahi land.  We find no force in  the contention  of the learned counsel. It is seen that none of the persons connected with documents Ex.A-12 to 15 has  been examined.  It would also be seen that one Kanal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

was  sold  in  the  same  village  under  Exts.A-12  and  13 respectively which worked out to Rs.40,000/- per acre or Rs. 5,000/- per  kanal. The  High Court  has rightly pointed out that no  prudent cultivator would purchase one kanal of land for the purpose of cultivation. In other words, the purchase for the purpose of cultivation would be uneconomical and not valid one.  Looked at  from  another  angle,  it  is  common knowledge that  it would  take long  time for publication of the notification  under section  4(1). In  the meanwhile  it would be  known to  the villagers  that. the  land would  be under acquisition. Therefore, it would be obvious that these documents were  brought into existence to inflate the market value. Obvious,  therefore, none  of the  persons  connected with the  documents has  been examined. 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.  If they are excluded, the only  other evidence  is the oral evidence. It is not in dispute that.  the land situated in the neighbouring village and acquired  for the  same purpose  fetched compensation at the rate  of Rs.15,000/-  per acre  in respect  of the Chahi land and  Rs.9,000/- and  Rs.10,000/- for  Baravi land  etc. That. judgment  of the  High Court  has become  final. Under those circumstances,  the High  Court was  well justified in relying upon  that document  and in  upholding the  award of the. Collector but with modification as indicated;           "The     Land      Acquisition      Collector  has  not  been  able  to      point out  any distinction  between      the value  of land  in village Uchi      Bassi,  this   Court  has   allowed      market price  for Chahi land at the      rate of  Rs.15,000/- per  acre, and      still lesser  for inferior  quality      of agricultural land. Hence it will      be safe  to rely  on  the  judicial      instance  coupled  with  the  State      instances Exhibit. RW3/3, to RW3/7.      However,   the   Land   Acquisition      Collector was  not right  in giving      different value for Chahi and Nahri      land, which  are generally  treated      of the award of the Court below and      restore  the   award  of  the  Land      Acquisition  Collector   and   also      restore the value fixed by the Land      Acquisition  Collector  except  for      Nahri land and fix the market value      as follows:      Chahi/Nahri    Rs.16,000/- per acre      Barani         Rs.10,000/- per acre      Banjar Qadim   Rs.8,000/- per acre      Gair mumkin    Rs.6,000/- per acre"      In addition,  4% of  the aforesaid amount was the Court allowed by  the Land  Acquisition Officer.  In addition  the Court also granted the benefit under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Under  the circumstances, we do not think there is any error of law in judgment. The judgment in another case which is not  a part  of the  record nor was brought on record and filing of  an application  under Order  41, Rule  27, C.P.C. cannot  be   looked  into   for  that  reason.  Under  these circumstances, the judgement cannot be relied upon.             The appeal  is according  dismissed but  in  the circumstances without costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3