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

PETITIONER: TALROCHAN SINGH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/11/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. SINGH N.P. (J) VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (2) 424        JT 1995 (2)    91  1994 SCALE  (5)321

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition  Act, 1894  (for  short  ’the Act’) was  published  in  the  State Gazette  on  March 1, 1974 acquiring a total extent  of  881 acres  of land for planned development of the  municipality. The Land Acquisition Collector in his award dated March  31, 1976  determined the compensation to the plain lands at  Rs. 39,400/per acre and to the land abutting upto a depth of 100 karams (5-1/2 feet each karam) from the  Ludhiana-Chandigarh main  road  @ Rs.42,400/- per acre and for the  other  lands different  rates were given with which we are not  presently concerned.  On  reference under s. 18, the  Addl.   District Judge  by his award and decree dated October 18, 1978  fixed the   market  value  of  the  land  abutting  the   Ludhiana Chandigarh  Road upto a depth of 100 karams  at  Rs.72,600/- per acre and for the remaining land @ Rs.58,080/- per acre. 92 The State filed no appeals.  On appeal by the claimants  for further  enhancement,  the  learned  Single  Judge  by   his judgment  and  decree dated August 20, 1980  determined  the market  value upto a depth of 100 karams abutting  Ludhiana- Chandigarh  Road at Rs. 89,000/- and for the remaining  land at  Rs.39,000/- per acre.  On L.P.A., the Division Bench  by its  judgment  and  decree dated  December  23,  1981  while maintaining  the award of the compensation to the land  upto the  depth  of 100 karams abutting  the  Ludhiana-Chandigarh main road has enhanced the market value for the rest of  the lands from 100-200 karams at Rs.58,080/- and for the remain- ing  lands  @  Rs.50,000/- and  Rs.48,400/per  acre.   Still dissatisfied  therewith,  the  appellants  have  filed   the appeals for further increase in the compensation. 2.   Firstly,  it  was  contended that  the  Division  Bench having  determined  the compensation was  not  justified  in deducting  1/3rd towards developmental charges as the  sales

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

therein  though  were on yardage basis  and  determined  the compensation  on acreage basis Rs.58,000/-, Rs.50,000/-  and Rs.48,000/-  etc.  Though we find force in  the  contention, the  matter does not rest with that conclusion.  It is  seen that the High Court in its judgment has relied upon the sale transactions small extents of 150 to 250 sq. yards which was worked out on an average of Rs. 1,37,600/ -. They were  sold on yardage basis.  The learned Judges have determined market value   on   acreage  basis  and  deducted   1/3rd   towards development charges and determined the market value on  that basis.   The  question  emerges,  ultimately,  whether   the fixation  of the market value @ Rs.50,000/- and  Rs.48,000/- is  unwarranted  on  the facts and  circumstances  of  these cases.   It  is seen that a land of magnitude of  881  acres when  was  acquired for planned development of the  town,  a willing purchaser would offer the same rates at which  small plots  admeasuring  to 120 to 250 sq. ft. were  offered  and sold.  It is impossible to accept that the lands would fetch that  price when a large track of land was offered for  sale in open market to willing buyer.  Under those circumstances, sale transactions are absolutely and totally irrelevant  and cannot  form the basis to determine the compensation.   Even though the vendor or vendees were examined to prove the sale transaction, we cannot determine market value on that  basis and  award  compensation.  The court has power and  duty  to evaluate  the evidence in proper perspective, apply  correct principles and award compensation.  Since the State did  not file any appeals, we cannot interfere with the award of  the market value determined @ Rs.50,000/- and Rs.48,400/- by the Division Bench for the lands in appeals. 3.   It  is  next  contended that  for  lands  in  Jamalpur, compensation  was  awarded at the rate of  Rs.50,000/-.  The lands  in  Kuliawal were equally situated  and  compensation paid  at  the  rate  of Rs.39,000/per  acre  is  unjust  and arbitrary.  We find no force in the contention.  Though some plans  have  been produced before us to show that  both  the lands are on the side of Tajpur Road, they were not filed in the reference court not subjected them for cross-examination of the L.A.C. of the respective distances of the place,  the quality of the land at the respective village and the prices prevailing  in  each village.  It is common  knowledge  that even  all the lands in the same village may not possess  the same quality and command common 93 market  prices.  It is seen that the lands in  Jamalpur  are cutting  across the main road Ludhiana-Chandigarh and  that, therefore, the learned Judges have awarded the  compensation at  different  rates  on  the  basis  of  belting.   Whereas Kuliawal  lands are on the northern side below  Tajpur  Road and the road is not an important one.  It was also stated in the judgment that lands in Kuliawal village is not  abutting main road and that, therefore, the lands do not command  any higher value.  Accordingly, the market value was  determined for  the lands abutting 55 karams at different rate and  for the   rest   of  the  lands  compensation  was   awarded   @ Rs.39,000/-. The appellants’ lands are not within the  belt. Therefore,  the  classification  made on the  basis  of  the situation  of the land cannot be said to be  illegal.  Since the lands situated in Kuliawalare not on par with the  lands in Jamalpur village, the distinction made by the High  Court was right.  The learned Judges determined different rates of market value on that basis. 4.   It  is next contended that the State did not  file  any appeal  and  that, therefore, the reduction of  the  belting from 100 to 55 karams is not correct.  On verification  when

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

it  was  pointed  out to Shri D.V.  Sehgal,  learned  Senior counsel,  that  the State did file  Letters  Patent  appeals against the Single Judge’s decrees, he has fairly stated, on verification,  that the State had filed the  appeals  before the  Division  Bench.   The Division Bench  had  taken  that factor  of  belting into consideration  in  determining  the market value. 5.   It  is  next  contended that the  lands  in  the  small extents  of about 33 sale transactions would show  that  the lands are capable of fetching in future higher market  value and the notification itself was published for the purpose of planned-development of city.  Therefore, the High Court  was not justified in determining the market value @  Rs.58,000/- for  Jamalpur area.  Potential value for future  development should  have  been taken into consideration  in  fixing  the market  value.  Section 24 of the Land Acquisition  Act  ex- pressly prohibits and puts an embargo on the Court in taking the factors mentioned in s.24 as relevant in determining the market   value.   Under  these  circumstances,  the   future development and potential prospective use of the acquisition etc.  are not relevant circumstances.  Even the  purpose  of acquisition  also  is not relevant.  We are of  the  opinion that the appellants are not entitled to further increase for determination of compensation and the appeals do not warrant interference.   The  appeals are accordingly  dismissed  but without  costs since the respondents are not represented  by any counsel. 94