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

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JOGINDER SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH               CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 480-48 OF 1997    (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.15798, 15800, 15876, 15896,          16049, 16050, 16051-52 and 15831 of 1967)                          O R D E R      Delay condoned , Substitution allowed. Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides,      Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894  acquiring a  long strip  of land admeasuring 2916 acres, for  digging Panjokhara  minor was  published on June 24,1982. The Collector in hes award dated September 13, 1982 determined the  market value  at Rs.26000/-  for Abbi lands, Rs.20,000/- for  barani lands  and Rs.10,000/- in respect of gairmumkin  land.   On  reference   under  section  18,  the Additional District  Judge enhanced  the compensation to Rs. 93,000/- per  acre for       abbi land, Rs.84,000/- per acre for banami  land and  Rs.,50,000/- per  acre for  gairmumkin land. On  appeal by  the claimant, the learned single single Judge awarded  uniform rate  of  value  and  determined  the cmpensation at  uniform rate  of Rs.  93,000/- per  acre  in respect of  all the lands. Letters Ptent Appeal filed by the State ws  dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by this order in LPA, the appellants have fled this appeal by special leave.      The only  question is:  whether the  learned Judge  was right in  awarding uniform  date of compensation? Though the State had  filed an appeal in the High Court questioning the market value determined by the District Judge at aforestated rates ,  it has  placed no  material before  us  to  adjudge whether the  market value  given by  the District  Judge was correct in  law. As  regards potentiality  of the  land  for urban purposes,  as found  by the  High Court,  the District Judge in  his award dealt with in extenso in paragraph 14 of the judgment as under:      "As  regards   the  oral   evidence      produced by the petitioners to show      that the  acquired land  had  great      potential value  for commercial and      residential purposes  I am  of  the      opinion that the said oral evidence      produced by  the petitioners is not

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

    sufficient   to   hold   that   the      acquired  land  had  any  potential      value to  be used for commercial or      residential purposes.  The acquired      land  is  out  side  the  municipal      limits and  is towards  the west of      Ambala  town.  Merely  because  the      Government godowns  or the  railway      station are  a same  distance  from      the  acquired   land  would  be  no      ground to  hold that  the  acquired      land would  be no  ground  to  hold      that  the  acquired  land  had  any      potential  value  unless  there  is      cogent evidence  to show that there      was over  all  development  towards      that side,  similar is the position      with regards to Lyalpur Basti in as      much as  the said  Basti is at some      distance from  the acquired land as      stated by  PW3 Prem  Nath the  said      Basti is  within municipal  limits.      Similarly,   the    existence    of      Agricultural   research   institute      towards  the  acquired  land  would      also not  show  that  the  acquired      land has  any potential value. RW I      Yogdhian  Patwari,   admitted   the      distance of  Ram Dass Nagar at some      distance from the acquired land and      in my  opinion the existence of the      said Ram  Dass Nagar would not show      that  the  acquired  land  had  any      potential value. There is no cogent      evidence on the record to show that      there was  any general  development      of Ambala  city towards to acquired      land not  there is  any evidence on      the  record   to  show   that   the      acquired land  was connected by any      important road.  The Ambala Patiala      road known  as  Kapuri  road  which      goes from  Ambala to  Patiala via a      short  out  through  the  villages,      only bifurcates  the acquired  land      at a  particular point where as the      acquired land  is  along  strip  of      land which  had been   acquired for      construction  of  Panjokhra  Minor.      Even   otherwise,   there   is   no      evidence on the record to show that      there was  any development  on  the      said Kapuri  Road. The existence of      the Kapuri Road and the location of      the acquired land is clear from the      ask Shajra Ex. R.I. produced on the      record  on  behalf  of  the  State.      Accordingly   I   hold   that   the      acquired  land   had  no  potential      value of  any kind and was pure and      simple agricultural land.      In that  view of the matter, it was held that the lands are agricultural  lands and,  therefore. the  lands bore  no potentiality as  on the  date of  the notification for being used for  building purposes.  However, the  opinion  of  the

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

learned single Judge was thus:      "I have  carefully gone through the      site plan  produced on  the  record      and am  of the view that the entire      area is  in the  close vicinity  of      the Ambala  City and  its Municipal      boundary. Although  at the  present      moment crops  are being sown but on      the given  facts, it  can be hardly      disputed that  the land  covered by      the acquisition  had potential  for      urbanpurposes."      The finding,  therefore,  is  a  mere  opinion  of  the learned single  Judge without  any discussion of the factual matrix, as was done by the District Judge. When the canal is passing through  several lands, what is material to be taken note of  is. what would be the price the land was capable to fetch as on the date of Section 4(1) notification in an open market between  willing vender  and willing vender. The High Court took into account future developments.      Accordingly, we set aside the order and confirm that of District Judge  as regards determination of the compensation by the  District Judge  at the rates mentioned hereinbefore. In paragraph  15, The  learned Judge has relied upon similar award, Ex.P3  dated September  4, 1984  with regard  to  the lands in  village Singhwala  about which  he stated that the distance between  the lands  in the  present village and the Singhwala is  hardly 5 to 6 kilas. Under these circumstances and in  the absence of any evidence placed before us. WE are left with  no option but to affirm the award of the District Judge.      The order of the High Court stands set aside. The award of the  District Judge  stands confirmed. The learned single Judge has  also awarded interest on solatium. In view of the decision of  this Court,  the claimants  are not entitled to interest or  solatium and  to that extent also it stands set aside.      The  appeals   are  accordingly   allowed  but  in  the circumstances without costs.