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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1067-1068 of 2001

PETITIONER: R.P. Singh                                                       

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors.                            

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/08/2005

BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & S.B. SINHA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T With CA No. 4427-4435 of 2001,  CA No.4572 of 2005 @  SLP(C) No.15709 of 2005  @ CC 4827 of 2001,   CA  No.________of 2005 @ SLP(C) No.  8773 of 2002, CA  No. 1734 of 2003 CA No. 3236 of 2005, CA No. 3237 of  2005,  CA No. 3238 of 2005, CA No. 3239 of 2005 and  CA Nos. 3395-3399 of 2002.       

BHAN, J.

       Aggrieved against the judgments & orders dated  3.3.2000 and 7.2.2003 the claimants/appellants have  come up in these appeals.  The judgment and order  dated 3.3.2000 relates to the acquisition of land  situated at village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi and order  dated 7.2.2003 relates to the acquisition of land  situated in village Mangolpur Khurd, Delhi.  

       Though the notifications under Section 4 of the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to  as "the Act"] for the acquisition of land for  village Mangolpur Kalan and Mangolpur Khurd were  issued on different dates i.e. 24.10. 1961 and  4.3.1963, the High Court determined the market value  for the land of both the villages at the same rate  of Rs. 6,500/- per bigha.  In addition to the market  value of Rs.6,500/- per bigha the appellants were  awarded solatium at the rate of 30%, interest  at  the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year  from the date of taking over of possession of the  land by the Collector and thereafter at the rate of  15% per annum till the payment is made to them.    They have also been held entitled to simple interest  at the rate of 6% per annum on the market value from  24.10.1964 onwards under Section 4 (3) of the Land  Acquisition (Amendment and Revalidation) Act, 1967  because of the difference of more than 3 years  between the issuance of the notifications under  Section 4 and 6 of the Act provided there was no  overlapping of interest.  

       Facts are being taken from CA No. 1067-68 of  2001 relating to village Mangolpur  Kalan.

       Notification under Section 4 of the Act was

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

issued on 24.10.1961 notifying the intention of the   State Government to acquire land, measuring 16,000  acres marked in blocks 1 to 24 covering number of  revenue estates of Union Territory of Delhi at  public expense for public purpose, namely, planned  development of Delhi.  The notification was followed  by declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on  6.12.1966 for 928 bighas, 18 biswas  of land  situated in village Mangolpur Kalan.  Similar  notifications under Section 6 of the Act were issued  for different revenue estates.  Land Acquisition  Collector vide its award dated 23.5.1980 fixed the  compensation for Nehri Land at Rs. 5,000/- per bigha   and for G.M. Gadha (pits) at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-  per bigha.  Another award was given on 25.7.1980  fixing the market value of Nehri land situated along  the Khanjhwala Road at Rs. 6,000/- per bigha and for  the land away from the road at the rate of Rs.  5,000/- per bigha.

       Appellants being aggrieved filed reference  application under Section 18 of the Act.  Reference  Court vide its order dated 12.11.1986 fixed the  market value of the Nehri land at Rs. 5,000/- per  bigha and Rs. 4,800/- per bigha for the land under  pits.  Statutory benefits of 30% solatium and  interest as payable after the amendment of the Land  Acquisition Act No.68 of 1984 [hereinafter referred  to as the "amending Act"] were also ordered to be  paid.  High Court in appeal filed under Section 54  of the Act enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,500/-  per bigha for the entire land over and above the  statutory benefits made available as per the amended  provisions of the Amended Act.    

For the acquisition of the land of village  Mangolpur  Khurd notification under Section 4 was  issued on 4.3.1963.  Though the land of village  Mangolpur Khurd was acquired after 18 months of the  acquisition of the land at village Mangolpur Kalan  the amount of compensation was fixed at the same  rate as the value of the land at village Mangolpur  Khurd was found to be less than the value of land of  village Mangolpur Kalan being farther away.

       Being aggrieved the claimants/appellants have  come up in these appeals.  In theses appeals they  have claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.  20,000/- per bigha.

       Counsels for the parties have been heard.

       Counsels appearing for the appellants submitted  that only a meagre amount of compensation at the  rate of Rs.6,500/- has been paid to them, while the  respondents are selling the land at the rate of  Rs.25 lacs per bigha and therefore they are entitled  to compensation at a rate  much higher than what has  been awarded to them.

       Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to  be considered by the Court while determining the  compensation.  It provides that claimant would be  entitled to the market value of the land as on the  date of publication of the notification under

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

Section 4 (1) of the Act.  He would also be entitled  to damage, if any, suffered by him because of the  acquisition of the land.

       The function of the Court in determining the  amount of compensation under the Act is to ascertain  the market value of the land as on the date of the  notification under Section 4 and the methods of  valuation may be (1) opinion of the experts (2) the  price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide  transaction of purchase of the lands acquired or the  lands adjacent to the lands acquired possessing  similar advantages and (3) capitalisation method or  its potential value being close to the developed or  developing colonies, nearness to road etc.  The Land  Acquisition Collector awarded the compensation  treating the land to be agricultural and on the  basis of the comparable sales near about the date of  acquisition.  It has not been shown that the land at  the time of acquisition had any potential for use  other than the agriculture.  Claimants have also not  produced any evidence to show that they suffered any  special damage because of the acquisition. Counsels  appearing for the appellants were also not able to  show any instance of sale close in time to the  issuance of Section 4 notification for fixing the  market value of the adjacent lands at a price higher  than Rs.6,500/-.  They were also unable to refer to  any other piece of evidence on record which could  help us in determining the market price of the land  as on the relevant date.  However, they have place  on record a copy of the judgment of the Delhi High  Court in RFA No. 531 of 1969 dated 11.9.1984 wherein  the High Court has fixed the market value of the  land of village Mangolpur Kalan acquired under the  same notification at Rs. 7,000/- per bigha. In the  absence of any other evidence and relying upon the  instance of fixing the market value relating to the  same village under the same notification by the High  Court in RFA No. 531 of 1969 we fix the market value  of the land at   Rs. 7,000/- per bigha.  Claimants  shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits for  the enhanced amount of compensation as per Act after  its amendment.

       Contention raised by the counsel for the  appellant  that they should be paid higher  compensation because the respondents were now  selling the land at the rate of Rs.25 lacs per bigha  cannot be accepted.     Counsel for the respondent has  brought to our notice that the land is now fully  developed and for its development the respondents  have spent  a lot of money and the claimants would  not be entitled to a higher price simply because  after 40 years of acquisition and its development  the land was being sold at a higher price.  As  already stated above, the market value of the land  has to be determined as on the date of publication  of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act  and not as it prevails at a later date after the  land has been fully developed.   

       Counsels appearing for the appellants belonging  to village Mangolpur Khurd argued that since the  land of village Mangolpur Khurd was acquired 18

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

months after the acquisition of the land for village  Mangolpur Kalan they are entitled to an increase in  the amount of compensation as during this period  price of land had escalated.  We do not find any  substance in this submission.  The reference Court  has recorded a finding which has been upheld by the  High Court that the market value of the land of  village Mangolpur Khurd was less than the market  value of land of village Mangolpur Kalan being  farther away.  The High Court has awarded the same  amount of compensation for the land of village  Mangolpur Khurd only because it had been notified  for acquisition on a later date.    We agree with  the view taken by the High Court.  Counsels  appearing in these cases have not shown that the  market price of the land of village Mangolpur Khurd  was the same as that of village Mangolpur Kalan.   The land of village Mangolpur Khurd being farther  away from the land of village Mangolpur Kalan the  claimants would not be entitled to the same amount  of compensation as it did not carry the same market  value.  Since the land at village Mangolpur Khurd  was acquired after 18 months of the acquisition of  the land at village Mangolpur Kalan they are  entitled to the same amount of compensation as has  been awarded for the land of village Mangolpur  Kalan.  The appellants whose land had situated at  village Mangolpur  Khurd would also be entitled to  the compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per  bigha.  This would be over and above the statutory  benefits available under the Act.   

We are given to understand that in some of the  cases the land owners have been awarded solatium at  the rate of 15% per annum as per the unamended  provisions of the Act.  It is made clear that they  would be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on  the entire amount of compensation along with  statutory interest payable after the amendment of  the Act.

       For the reasons stated above, the appeals are  disposed of in terms of the observations made  hereinabove.  Parties shall bear their own costs in  these appeals.