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

PETITIONER: GURDIAL SINGH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/03/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2283            1995 SCC  (3) 333  JT 1995 (3)    87        1995 SCALE  (2)235

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   A notification under Section 4 of the Land  Acquisition Act,  1994,  was published on Feb. 15, 1979,  acquiring  4.5 acres   of  land  for  establishing  a  Milk   Chilling-cum- Demonstration  Centre  at  Village  Sardulgarh  in  Bhatinda District  of Punjab State.  The Land Acquisition Officer  in his  award  dated  March  23, 1979, awarded  a  sum  of  Rs. 13,816/-  per  acre  as  compensation.   On  reference,  the Additional  District Judge, Bhatinda, by decree dated  April 30  1981,  enhanced the compensation to Rs.  2,50,000/-  per acre.   On  appeal under Section 54 by the State,  the  High Court  in  R.F.A. No. 1065 of 1981 and batch, by  its  order dated  September  15,  1982,  reduced  the  compensation  to Rs.30,000/- per acre.  Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High  Court, the appellants filed these appeals  by  special leave. 2.   Shri  Prem Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for  the appellants,  has  strenuously contended that  the  sale-deed (Ex.Al to A5) and Mutation Proceedings (Ex.A7 to A16)  would show  that the market value ranged between  Rs3,12,000/-  to Rs.  1,08,000/-.  He submitted that the High Court  was  not justified in relying upon the solitary mutation  proceedings noted  in  the  judgment to determine  the  compensation  at Rs.30,000/per  acre, We find no -force in  this  contention. It  is  seen that under the unamended Act, by  operation  of Section  9,  the claimant or the owner is enjoined  to  make claim  giving particulars of the claim.  Section 25  of  the Act,  as originally stood, provided that in a case  where  a claim is made the amount awarded by the court shall not  ex- ceed  the amount claimed or less than the amount awarded  by the Collector under Section 11. This is by operation of sub- section (1) of Section 25.  But in case where the claim  was not made, sub-section (2) operated and held the field.  Sub- section (2) Section 25 read thus :               "When  the applicant has refused to make  such

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

             claim or has omitted without sufficient reason               (to  be  allowed by the Judge)  to  make  such               claim,  the amount awarded by the Court  shall               in  no case exceed the amount awarded  by  the                             Collector." Thus, it can be seen that in a case where the applicant  had omitted   to  make  the  claim,  then  the  court  had   not jurisdiction 88 to award the compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector.  In these cases, no claim had been admittedly made by the appellants. 3.This provision was not noted by the High Court.  The  High Court, by referring to the mutation proceedings in which the market  value was shown to be ranging between Rs.9,400/-  to Rs.  14,000/-  per  acre had enhanced  the  compensation  to Rs.30,000/-  per  acre.  That appeal was allowed  to  become final;  and so nothing can be done with the market value  as fixed by the High Court.  But these appeals are dismissed in view  of the statutory prohibition contained in  sub-section (2) Section 25 of the Act.  We make no order as to costs. 89