http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: KARAN SINGH & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/09/1997

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: (with C.A.  Nos. 2980,  3146,  3416,  3417/95,  CC  1122/95, 1148/95, CA  4853, 4854,  4855/95, CC  2059/95, CA  5342/95, 5340, 5341,  5338, 5339, 5343, 5477, 5478, 6120, 6123, 6157, 6158,  6137,  6167,  6166,  6136,  6176/95,  S.L.P  (C)  No. 14365/95, C.A.  8477/95, 8727/96,  S.L.P  (C)  Nos.  800/96, 9355/96, 10365/96, 12933/96, 12934/96, C.A. 10420/96, S.L.P. (C)  Nos.   18707/96,  18721/96,  18768/96,  C.A.  13359/96, 15622/96, 3609/95,  3610/95, 3611/95, 3612/95 and S.L.P. (C) Nos. 15653, 15654/97)                       J U D G M E N T V.N. Khare, J.      This group  of  Civil  Appeals  by  special  leave  and Special leave  Petitions is directed against the judgment of a Division  Bench of  Delhi  High  Court  and  the  question involved therein  relate to  quantum  of  compensation  with regard to  acquisition of  the appellants  land situated  in village Gharoli,  Delhi, Since  common question of facts and law is  involved, we propose to dispose of these appeals and special leave  petitions by  a common judgment, noticing the facts of the case as appearing in Civil Appeal No. 2981/95.      Land measuring  2600.12 bighas  situated in the revenue estate of village Gharoli which included the appellants land was  notified   for  acquisition   vide  notification  dated 17.11.1980 issued  under Section  4 of  the Land Acquisition Act (for short the "Act"). The purpose for acquisition shown was planned  development of  Delhi.  This  was  followed  by declaration issued  under Section  6 of  the Act on 29.9.81. The Collector  by an  award dated 2.7.83 assessed the market value of  the entire  land at  Rs. 9,000/-  per bigha except some portions  of land  the value  of which was fixed at Rs. 7,000/- and  4,000/- per bigha, respectively. The appellants not contend  with the  said award  of the  Collector  sought reference for determination of compensation payable to them. The Learned  Additional District Judge, Delhi determined the market value  of appellants acquired land at the rate of Rs. 23,000/- per  bigha. It  may be  noticed here that for other portions of  the land  the Additional District Judge awarded lower rates  of  compensation.  Thereafter,  the  appellants preferred Regular  First Appeals  in the High Court of Delhi against  the   judgment  dated   21.11.92  of   the  Learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Additional District  Judge.  However,  the  Union  of  India accepted the  judgment of  the Learned  Additional  District Judge as it did not prefer any appeal to the High Court. The High Court  of Delhi  by a  common judgment  rendered in  46 appeals filed  by the  claimants  in  respect  of  the  same village granted  compensation at  the uniform  rate  of  Rs. 76,550/- per  bigha to  all the claimants. It is in this way the present  appeals and  the special  leave petitions  have come up before us.      Learned counsel  for  the  appellants  urged  that  the leases, Ext.  A-8, A-9,  A-10, A-12  and A-13 relied upon by the appellants  for  enhancement  of  compensation  for  the acquired land were erroneously rejected by the High Court on the  ground   that  these  evidences  related  to  the  post notification issued  under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly to learned counsel for the appellants the lands comprised in Ext. A-8,  A-9, A-10,  A-12 and  A-13 are  situate near  the acquired land  and the  leases thereof were executed shortly after the  notification under  Section 4  of the Act, and as such, they  ought to have been relied upon by the High Court in arriving  at the  correct market  value of  the  acquired land.      Ext. A-8,  A-9 and A-10 relate to plots of land situate in Jhilmil  Tahirpur and Ext. A-12 and A-13 relate to leases in respect  of land  situate in  Section  12,  NOIDA.  These leases were  executed much  after  the  notification  issued under Section 4 of the Act in the present case.      Before we  advert to  the argument  raised on behalf of the appellants,  it has  to be  borne in mind while deciding these appeals, this Court is not required to re-appraise the avidences which were considered by the Court below. But what concerns us  is whether  correct or  legal  principles  were applied in arriving at the market value of the acquired land in awarding  compensation to  the claimants.  When a land is compulsorily acquired, what is basically required to be done for awarding  compensation is  to arrive at the market value of the  land on  the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The market value of a piece of land for determining compensation under  Section 23 of the Act would be the price at which  the vendor  and the  vendee (buyer and seller) are willing to  sell or  purchase the land. The consideration in terms of price received for land under bone fide transaction on the  date of  notification issued  under Section 4 of the Act or  few days  before or  after the issue of notification under Section  4 of the Act generally shows the market value of the  acquired land  and the  market value of the acquired land has  to be assessed in terms of those transactions. The sale of  land on  or about  the issue  of notification under Section 4  of the  Act is  stated to  be the  best piece  of evidence for  determining the  market value  of the acquired land. Often  evidence on  transaction of  sale of land on or few days  before the  notification under  Section 4  is  not available. In  the absence  of such evidence contemporaneous transactions  in   respect  of   lands  which   had  similar advantages and  disadvantages would  be the  good  piece  of evidence for  determining the  market value  of the acquired land. In  case the  same is  not also  available, the  other transaction of  land having similar advantages nearer to the date of  notification under Section 4 of the Act would guide in determination  of the  market value  of acquired land. In the  present  case,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  of  any transaction or  sale  of  land  on  the  date  of  issue  of notification under  Section 4  of the Act which can be taken as a  guide for determining the market value of the acquired land and  compensation to  be awarded to the claimants. Thus

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

the  transaction   of  sale  of  land  after  the  issue  of notification under  Section 4 of the Act can guide the Court in fixing  the market  value of  the  acquired  lands  under certain conditions.  In the case of Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943, it was held thus :-      "Such subsequent  transaction which      are not  proximate in point of time      to the  acquisition  can  be  taken      into  account   for   purposes   of      determining whether  as on the date      of acquisition  there was an upward      trend in  the prices of land in the      area.   Further    under    certain      circumstances  where  it  is  shown      that  the  market  was  stable  and      there were  no fluctuations  in the      prices  between  the  date  of  the      preliminary  notification  and  the      date     of     such     subsequent      transaction, the  transaction could      also be relied upon to ascertain be      market value."      It is,  therefore, no  longer  in  doubt  that  in  the absence of any evidence of sale of land on the date of issue of notification  under Section  4 of  the Act, under certain conditions the  post notification  transactions of  sales of land can  be relied  upon in determining the market value of the acquired  land. One of the conditions being that it must be shown  before the  Court by  reliable evidence that there was no  appreciation of  the value of land during the period of issue  of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the date of  transaction of  sale. In  the present  case what we find is  that excepting  filing of Ext. A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12 and A-13,  no effort  was made by the claimants to establish before the  Court that there was no upward rise in the price or increase  in the  price of  land in  village Gharoli  and NOIDA during  the period  between the  issue of notification under Section 4 and date of execution of the Exhibits sought to be relied upon.      Before we  part with  the  first  argument  of  learned counsel for  the appellants, we would like to notice the two decisions in  the cases  of State of U.P. vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and  others, AIR  1982 SC 876 and in Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (deceased  by LRs)  and others vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 2051, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. In  these cases  there is  no controversy  as to whether the  burden to  establish that  there was no rise in price of  land after the issue of notification under Section 4 of  the Act,  was on  the claimant or on the State, and as such, these  decision are  of no assistance for deciding the controversy at hand. For these reasons we are of the opinion that the  High Court  did not  commit any error in rejecting Ext. A-8, Ext. A-9, Ext. A-10, Ext. A-12 and Ext. A-13 while arriving at the market value of the acquired land.      Learned counsel  for the appellants then urged that the High Court  erroneously discarded  Ext. A-11  which  was  an award in  respect of  a land  at village Jhilmil Tahirpur on the ground that it was not a previous judgment of the Court. The  land   comprised  in   the  award  was  acquired  under notification issued  under Section  4 of the Act on 27.7.81. By the  said award,  the Court  awarded compensation  @  Rs. 625/- per  sq. yds.  It has   earlier  been seen that in the present case  the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was  earlier in  point of  time  than  the  notification

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

issued for acquisition of land comprised in Ext. A-11. There is no  quarrel with the proposition that judgments of Courts in land  acquisition cases  or  awards  given  by  the  Land Acquisition Officers  can be  relied upon as a good piece of evidence for  determining  the  market  value  of  the  land acquired   under   certain   circumstances.   One   of   the circumstances being  that such  an award  or judgment of the Court of  the Court  of law  must be a previous judgment. In the case  of Pal  Singh and  others vs.  Union Territory  of Chandigarh, JT 1992 (5) SC 371, it was observed thus:-      "But what  cannot be overlooked is,      that for  a  judgment  relating  to      value of  land to  be  admitted  in      evidence either  as an  instance or      as one  from which the market value      of  the   acquired  land  could  be      inferred or deduced, must have been      a previous judgment of Court and as      an  instance,  it  must  have  been      proved by  the person  relying upon      such judgment  by adducing evidence      aliunde that due regard being given      to   all    attendant   facts   and      circumstances, it could furnish the      basis for  determining  the  market      value of the acquired land."      Following this  decision, we  hold that  it is only the previous judgment  of a  Court or an Award which can be made basis for  assessment of  the market  value of  the acquired land subject  to  party  relying  such  judgment  to  adduce evidence for  showing that  due regard  being given  to  all attendant facts  it could  form the  basis  for  fixing  the market value of acquired land.      In view of the fact that Ext. A-11 was not the previous judgment, it  was rightly  rejected and not taken as a guide for arriving at the market value of the acquired land.      Learned counsel  for the  appellants lastly relied upon three decisions  of this  Court in support of his arguments. Baldev Singh  and others  vs. State of Punjab, 1996 (10) SCC 37, State of Madras vs. A.M. Nanjan and another, 1976(1) SCC 973, and  Land Acquisition  Officer, City  Improvement Trust Board vs.  H. Narayanaiah  etc. 1977(1)  SCR  178.  We  have perused the  judgments and  in none  of  the  decisions  the controversy  related  to  previous  judgment  or  subsequent judgment and as such, these decisions are not helpful to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants.      For the  foregoing reasons,  there is no merit in these appeals  and   the  special   leave  petitions,   which  are accordingly dismissed.  There shall  not be  any order as to costs.