http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BRIJESHWAR SINGH CHHAL & ANR. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BHARUCHA S.P. (J) PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (4)   239        1996 SCALE  (3)555

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH      CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7028, 7027, 7029, 7030 & 7026/96   (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3736, 2708, 4065, 8031 and                        16530 of 1994)                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel on both sides.      The only question argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is  with regard  to the  belting of  the land.  An extent of  13 acres  of  land  situated  near  Ludhiana  was acquired     for     commercial-cum-residential     purpose. Notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922  which is  pari materia  to the notification under Section  4(1)   of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894,  was published on  July 13, 1973. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award  dated February  3, 1976  classified the  lands as levelled-up land  and low-lying  land.  In  respect  of  the levelled-up land  he awarded  compensation @ Rs.21/- per sq. yd. and  for the  low-lying land  @ Rs.13/-  per  sq.yd.  On reference,  the   District  Judge   awarded  compensation  @ Rs.107/- per  square yard  in respect  of the lands abutting the main road at a depth of 5 karanams and for other land he awarded compensation  @ Rs.80/- per sq. yd. and for the low- lying area  @ Rs.50/-  per sq.  yd. The claimants challenged the award  of the  District Court  and the High Court in the writ petitions  has held  that  all  the  lands  are  evenly situated. Accordingly,  it awarded compensation uniformly at Rs.107/- per sq. yd. The Improvement Trust felt aggrieved by the direction  given by  the High  Court with  regard to the belting. Hence this appeals by special leave.      The Land  Acquisition Officer has stated that the lands measuring 61  kanals  10  marlas  bearing  different  khasra numbers mentioned  in the  award are  situated in  low-lying area and  are under  the pond  with a  depth of 3 to 6 feet.

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

Unless the  lands are  improved  by  expending  considerable amount, they  cannot be  levelled-up.  Therefore,  the  Land Acquisition Officer  awarded compensation for those lands at Rs.13/- per  sq.yd. The  High Court  in the  impugned  order relying upon  its earlier  judgment held  that  the  belting system adopted  by the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  and  the reference Court  is not  correct in  law. It  is settled  by decisions of  this Court that belting is a fair principle to determine just  and adequate  compensation  lest  unjust  at would ensue.  When large  extent of  land is  acquired, land abutting the  roads or  developed area  and interior land do not command  the same  market value.  When it is proved that the lands  are situated  in low-lying  area,  obviously  the lands situated  at levelled area would command higher market rate than the lands situated in low-lying area.      Shri Ujjagar  Singh, learned  senior counsel  appearing for the  claimants, contended that the allottee would prefer to purchase the lands in low-lying area to build their shops or establishments  underground so  as to have economical use of the land allotted to them. Therefore, the fixation of the market value  at the  uniform rate  by  the  High  Court  is correct in  law. We cannot appreciate the stand taken by the claimants. The  claimants, as a fact, have to establish that the levelled-up  lands and  the low-lying lands command same market value  and that,  therefore, they  are required to be awarded  at  the  same  rate.  It  is  seen  that  the  Land Acquisition  Officer   has  himself  stated  which  was  not disputed in  the reference  Court that the depth of the land is 3  to 6  feet. Unless  the land is levelled-up, it cannot command the  same  market  value  as  the  levelled-up  land possessed. Under  those circumstances,  the High  Court  was clearly in  error in  holding that the belting system cannot be adopted  and compensation should be awarded in respect of all the lands at the uniform rate.      The appeals  are accordingly  allowed and  the order of the reference Court paying compensation @ Rs.50/- per sq.yd. to the  low-lying lands  admeasuring 61 kanals 10 gunthas in the khasra  numbers mentioned  in  the  award  of  the  Land Acquisition Officer stands restored. No costs.