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

PETITIONER: BASANT KUMAR ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH              12566/86, 12567, 12569 & 12570/96                   CIVIL APPEAL NO/ OF 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14764, 17053-55 of 1992 and SLP         of 1991 (CC No. 14103/91) SLP (C) 19899/96)                          O R D E R      These appeals  by special leave arise from the judgment of the  Division Bench  of the  High Court  of Delhi made on July 8,  1996 in  Letters Patent  Appeal No.97/80  and other cases.      Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894  (1 of  1894) (for short, the ’Act’) was published on October 24, 1961 acquiring  a large extent of 1669 bighas 18 biswas  of land for the planned development of Delhi. The said lands are situated in revenue estate of Posangipur. The Land Acquisition  Officer categorised  the lands  in to  two blocks-Block A  and Block B. He assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs.1400/-per bigha for Block A and Rs.1200/- per bigha for  Block 8.  On  reference  under  Section  18,  the Additional District  Judge by  his award  and  decree  dated March 8,  1968 enhanced  the  compensation  to  Rs.3050/-per bigha. On  Regular First  Appeal the  learned  single  Judge dismissed the  appeal confirming  the award of the reference Court. When  the LPA was filed, the Division Bench held that the LPA did not lie.      IN Balbir  Singh vs. Union of India in RFA NO.214/68 by judgment dated  May, 14 1980 the same was taken on merits in the appeal.  Similar  is  the  case  in  SLP(C)  No.17055/92 relating to Chhajju in RFA NO.65/69 of the even number dated May 14, 1980. Thus, these appeals by special leave.      The extent  of the  land  involved  in  Basant  Kumar’s case,viz.,CA NO.4327/91  is not clear as no one is appearing for the appellant. But as regards the appeal of Chhajju, his lands are  of an  extent of 37 bighas 10 biswas in which his share is  one-half. As  regards Balbir Singh’s lands, he has 66 bighas,  10 biswas  in which  he  has  1/3rd  share.  The question for  consideration is:  what will be the reasonable compensation which  the lands under acquisition were capable to secure as on the date of the notification.?      Shri N.C.  Jain, the  learned senior  counsel appearing

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

for the  appellants, contended that in RFA No.55/70 Raghuvir Singh  vs.   Union  of   India  arising   out  of  the  same notification, another  Division Bench  of the High Court had determined the  compensation at  the rate  of Rs.8700/-  per bigha and  less Rs.500 per bigha for the notified lands; and similar was the view taken by another Bench of that Court in LPA No.137/80 and batch decided on April 19.1991 titled Chet Ram and  Ors.vs.Union of  India.    All  these  lends  being situated in  the  same  village,  the  appellants  are  also entitled to  the same  rate of  compensation. The  Union  of India had  not filed  any appeals  against those  cases. The lands are  possessed of same potential value and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the same compensation. We had adjourned the  case on the last occasion, as no one appeared for the  Union Of  India;  Since,  even  today,  no  one  is appearing for  the Union  of India, we have taken assistance of Shri  Jain and  have waded  through the  entire  material evidence.  The  question  is:  whether  the  appellants  are entitled to  the same  compensation as was determined by the High Court  in the  appeals arising  out of Raghubir Singh’s came and  Chet Ram’s case? It has been firmly settled law by beed  role  of  decisions  of  this  Court  that  the  Judge determining the  compensation under Section 23(1) should sit in the  arm chair  of a willing prudent purchaser in an open market and  see whether  he  would  offer  the  same  amount proposed to  be fixed  as market  value  as  a  willing  and prudent buyer  for the  same or  similar  land,  i.e.,  land possessing all the advantageous features and of same extent. This  test   should  always  be  kept  in  view  and  answer affirmatively, taking in to consideration all relevant facts and circumstances.  If feats  of imagination  are allowed to sway he  out steps his domain of judicial decision and lands in misconduct  amenable to  disciplinary law.   We have gone through the  record and  judgments in  Chet Ram’s  case  and Raghubir Singh’s  case decided  by the two Division Benches. The learned  judges have  adopted  the  principal  that  the entire lands in the village shall be treated as one unit and the compensation  shall  uniformly  be  determined  on  that basis.   The principal  is wholly  unsustainable in  law and cannot be a valid ground for determination of compensation. It is common knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands command  same market  value. The  lands abutting  main road or  national highway command higher market value and as the location  goes Backward,  market value  of interior land would less even for same kind of land. It is a settled legal position  that   the  lands   possessed  of   only   similar potentiality or  the value  with  similar  advantages  offer comparable parity  of the value; it is common knowledge that the lands  in the  village spread  over the  vast extent. In this case  it is  seen that  land is  as vast as admeasuring 1669 bighas,  18 biswas  of land  in the  village. So  , all lands cannot  and should  not be  classified as possessed of same market value. Burden is always on the claimant to prove the market  value  and  the  Court  should  adopt  realistic standards  and  progmatic  approach  in  evaluation  of  the evidence. No  doubt, each  individual have different parcels of the  land out  of that  vast land.  If that  principle is accepted as  propounded by  the High  Court, irrespective of the quality  of the  land, all  will be entitled to the same compensation. That  principal is not the correct approach in law. The  doctrine of  equality in determination and payment of same  compensation fro all claimants involved in the same notification  is  not  good  principal  acceptable  for  the aforestated reasons  when both  the lands  are proved  to be possessed of  same advantages, features etc, then only equal

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

compensation is permissible.      It is  then to  be seen  that the  learned judges  have further pointed out that when the amount claimed in the High Court in  appeal under  Section 54  was more  than what  was determined by  the reference  Court: to  what extent  of the said amount,  as Claimed in appeal, could be granted was the test laid down. It is also obviously illegal principal. What has to be determined under Section 23(1) is the market value prevailing as  on the  date of  notification published under Section 4(10  but not  what was  claimed by the parties even pursuant to  notice under  Section 18  or grounds  of appeal under Section 54. Prior to Amendment Act 68/84 under Section 22(1), the  Court had  no power  to grant  higher  than  was claimed under  notice in  Section 9 and 10. But now it stood deleted. Even  the estimate of the market value given by the claimant is  not decisive.   Therefore,  the principle  laid down by the Court in the said two cases is obviously illegal and cannot form a legal basis, though these judgments became final, we  cannot  repeat,  on  principal  of  parity,  same illegality..      It is  true as  pointed out  by the High Court and also stressed very  vehemently by  Shri Jain,  that  compensation cannot be  determined on  the  basis  of  the  face  of  the claimants  or  the  status  of  the  claimants  Compensation requires to  be determined  for the land acquired and not on the basis of the status of the person from whom the land was acquired. In Raghbir Singh’s Case as the lands acquired were developed ones,  Rs.9,000/- and  Rs.8700/-  per  bigha  were determined. It is settled legal position that if the land is already developed  then what has to be seen is the nature of development then  what has  to  be  sen  is  the  nature  of development and  money expended  by the  developer and as to what was the market value prevailing on that basis as on the date of  notification., and  what was  the situation  of the acquired land  on that  date; all  these and  other relevant facts have  to be  taken in to consideration and then market value  should  be  determined.  Merely  because  a  land  is developing   land, it would not to be that some compensation is to  be adopted  to determine  the market  value  for  the entire land as a developed land. If land is to be developed. It is  settled legal  position that  at least  1/3rd of  the compensation has to be deducted towards providing amenities, like roads,  parks electricity, sewage water facilities etc. This  Court   had  upheld  deduction  of  even  60%  towards development charges. The High Court, therefore, was also not right in adopting ad hoc principle.      The question  then is  ; what  would be  the reasonable compensation which  the lands  of appellants were capable to secure as  on the  date of notification? It is seen that the appellants have  produced two  sale transactions: in respect of land  acquired in September 1961 the market price fetched was not  more than Rs.3250/- per bigha; for land acquired in the year  1958 the  market value fetched was about Rs.5000/- per bigha. We do not have any material indicating as to what were the reasons behind the sale and situation of that land. Under these  circumstances, the  reference Court rightly had not placed  reliance on the 1958 sale transactions since the appellants have  not produced any evidence on record to show whether the  lands of the appellants were developed land fit for constructions  of the houses. Therefore, what we have to consider is that the lands are agricultural lands and posses potential for  being used  for  building  purposed  only  in future which  is not  relevant. Therefore since the lands as on the  date of  notification were  agricultural lands,  the value has rightly been determined on the bigha basis instead

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

of yards  basis. Since  the appellants  have  produced  sale deeds  indicating   the  maximum  which  was  secured,  viz, Rs.3,250/- per  bigha, necessarily  the appellants  would be entitled to the maximum rate of Rs.3,250/- per bigha.      The next  question is  :  whether  the  LPA  would  lie against the  judgment of  the learned  single judge?  it  is settled legal  position that  under Section  54 of  the Land Acquisition Act,  the appeal  would lie  to the  High Court; when the  appeal on  the basis  of the  pecuniary value  was decided by a signal judge necessarily, it being the judgment of the  single judge,  an appeal would lie to the same Court in the form of LPA to Division Bench. The Division Bench was not right  in holding that the LPA would not lie to the High Court against  the judgment  of the  single judge.  To  that extent, the  view of  the High  Court is  not  correct.  The judgment in  cases of  Chet Ram and Raghuvir Singh proceeded on wrong  principles of law and determined the compensation. We do  not approve  of the views as correct and , therefore, we cannot  base the same market value to be the market value for the lands under consideration.      The   appellants   are   entitled   to   the   enhanced compensation  at  the  rate  of  Rs.3,250/-  per  bigha  and interest on  enhanced compensation  at the  rate of  6%  per annum from  the date  of taking  possession till the date of deposit in  to court. They are also entitled to 15% solatium on  the  enhanced  compensation  from  the  date  of  taking possession till the date of deposit.      The appeals are accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs.