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

PETITIONER: JAI PRAKASH AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/03/1997

BENCH: CJI, SUHAS C. SEN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: WITH CIVIL  APPEALS NOS.  2044 to  2052, 2056,  2058,  2091, 2055, 2057,  2059, 2060 to 2065, 2068 to 2079, 2080-84, 2085 to 2089, 2066, 2067 AND 2090 OF 1997. (Arising out  of Special Leave petitions (c) Nos.7902, 7919, 7920, 7921,  7922, 7923,  7984, 7985, 7979, 74, 7986 & 13192 of 1986, 808, 2421, 4489, 3748, 4247, 4241, 4216,4234, 4270, 4337, 4325,  2821, 4825,  5440, 13086-92,  5536-5536D, 6762, 2644, 10238,  9659 &  13177 of  1988, 7419 of 1989 and 55 of 1990, & 13757/86)                       J U D G M E N T SEN, J.      Leave granted.      This  group   of  appeals   relates  to  assessment  of compensation for  land acquired  in the  village Keshopur by the Union of India by two notifications dated 13.11.1959 and the other  dated 24.10.1961.  under Section  4 of  the  Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).      So far  as the  land acquired  under notification dated 13.11.1959 was  concerned, the  Land  Acquisition  Collector divided the  acquired land  into two  Blocks -A  and B - and fixed compensation  for Block  A land  at Rs.600/- per bigha and for  Block B  land at  Rs.300/- per  bigha. On reference under Section  18 of  the Act, the Additional District Judge raised the  amount of  compensation to  Rs.3,500/- per bigha for Block A and Rs.3,000/- per bigha for Block B.      The High  Court took into consideration various factors including compensation  for similar  lands acquired  by  the Government where  compensation was  fixed at  a much  higher rate. The High Court noticed that the instances cited by the appellants were  of the  land situated in Chokhandi, whereas the dispute  of the  present case  related  to  lands  in  a different village  keshopur. The  High Court  also took into notice from  the  facts  produced  before  it  that  in  the neighbourhood of  this village  prices  of  the  lands  were showing an  upward trend.  The lands  were being  bought and sold by  people for purposes of building houses. Small plots were being sold. Sale of small plots indicated that the land in village keshopur had potentiality as a building site. The High Court,  therefore, was  of the view that no distinction should be  drawn between  the land falling under Block A and

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

Block B.  The High  Court, therefore,  fixed market value of the  land   acquired  pursuant  to  the  notification  dated 13.11.1959 at Rs.7000/- per bigha.      For the  land acquired  pursuant  to  the  notification dated 24.101961,  the Land Acquisition Collector had divided the land  into three Blocks - Block A, Block B and Block C - and  fixed  the  compensation  at  the  rate  of  Rs.1000/-, Rs.600/- and  Rs.400/- per  bigha respectively. On reference the Additional  District Judge fixed the market value on the same basis  as he  had done  for the land acquired under the previous notification dated 13.11.1959.      The High Court, however, raised the compensation to Rs. 8,000/- per bigha and gave the following directions:-      "In addition  to the  market  value      the appellants  will be entitled to      an additional amount at the rate of      15% per  annum on  the market value      in terms  of section  23  (1-A)  as      amended   by the  Land  Acquisition      (Amendment) Act, 1984 from the date      of notification  under section 4 of      the Land  Acquisition Act (the Act)      till the  date of the making of the      award   or    taking    possession,      whichever    is     earlier.    The      appellants will be further entitled      to solatium  at the  rate of 30% on      the market  value under the amended      law.           Further the appellants will be      entitled to interest at the rate of      9% per  annum for  a period  of one      year  from   the  date   of  taking      possession and  thereafter  at  the      rate of  15% per annum till payment      on the  excess amount, that is, the      amount which  was increased  by the      Addl. District  Judge  and  now  by      this  court  because  that  is  the      excess in  terms of  section 28  of      the Act  as amended.  Whatever  has      already been  paid  either  towards      the market  value  or  solatium  or      interest will be deducted.           As there  is a  difference  of      more than  three years  between the      notification under s.4 (13.11.1959)      and  the   declaration  under   s.6      (17.8.64)  of  the  Act  in  R.F.A.      369/70 (Jai  Prakash  v.  Union  of      India)  the  appellants  in  R.F.A.      369/70 will  also  be  entitled  to      interest at rate of 6% per annum on      the market  value of the land under      s.4(3)  of   the  Land  Acquisition      (Amendment  and   Validation)  Act,      1967   provided    there   is    no      overlapping  in   the  payment   of      interest under  s.28 of the Act and      s.4(3)  of  the  Amendment  Act  of      1967. They will also be entitled to      proportionate costs.           In    R.F.A.     527/70    the      appellants  will   be  entitled  to      costs. However  they  will  not  be

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

    entitled to the amount of court fee      on Rs.1,10,160/-  which  they  have      paid on solatium."      The Union of India has not preferred any appeal against the direction to pay interest and solatium under the amended provisions.      The contention of the appellants is that valuable lands of the  appellants have been taken away by the Government at a  throwaway   price  fixed  in  an  arbitrary  manner.  The appellants derive  their livelihood  from the land. The land having been taken away, they have been rendered Jobless. The High Court  failed to realise the lass caused by acquisition proceedings.      It has  been further argued on behalf of the appellants that lands  situated  in  adjoining  areas  have  also  been acquired by  the Union  of India  for which  the Trial Court assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.9000/- per bigha which was  raised by  the High Court to Rs.15000/- per bigha (R.F.A. No.  159/1972 -  Shri Attar Singh & Ors. v. Union of India). There  is no  Justification for  the High  Court for valuing the  appellants’  land  situated  in  the  adjoining village of  Keshopur at  Rs.8000/- per  bigha. The  land  at keshopur has  the same  economic potentialities  as the land situated in Chaukhandi.      The valuation  of the  land at chaukhandi has been done on the  basis of  the area  of the  land in question and its potential value.  It has  been pointed  out in the Judgments that  the   land  had  two  well  developed  colonies  where buildings had  come up.  Therefore,  having  regard  to  the proximity  of  the  surrounding  colonies  as  well  as  the potential value  of the  land in  question, the  High  Court valued the  lands at  chaukhandi at  Rs.15000/-  per  bigha. There is  nothing to  indicate  that  land  which  has  been acquired at  keshopur has  the same  market potential as the land at  Chaukhandi. Several  sale  deeds  were  taken  into consideration by  the High  Court. Merely  because  in  some neighbouring villages,  valuation has  been made at a higher rate, it  cannot be  said that  the appellants  must also be given same rate of compensation.      On behalf  of the  respondents, our  attention has been drawn to  a case  - Sukhlal  (dead) through Lrs. v. Union of India &  Ors. (S.L.P. No. 4149/1988) where in a similar case the High  Court had  enhanced the  compensation to Rs.8000/- per bigha.  This Court  dismissed the special Leave petition against the  enhancement of  the compensation  on the ground that similar  enhancements fixing  Rs.8000/-  per  bigha  as compensation had  already been  approved by  this Court in a number of other cases.      We are  of the  view that the order under appeal passed by the  High Court  does not  call for  interference. Merely because higher  compensation was given for lands situated in a neighbouring  village does  not entitle  the appellants to get the  same compensation.  The High  Court has  taken into consideration all  the same compensation. The High Court has taken into  consideration all  the relevant  facts like  the size of  the plot, location, potential value of the land and also a  few relevant  sale. deeds.  No error of law has been shown to have been committed by the High Court.      We are,  therefore, of  the view that there is no merit in this  appeal. The  appeal. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. CIVIL APPEALS  NOS. 2044-2052, 2056, 2058, 2091, 2055, 2057, 2059, 2060-2065,  2068 -  2079, 2080-2084,  2085-2089, 2066, 2076 AND 2090 of 1997. (Arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 7902, 7919,

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

7920, 7921,  7922, 7922,  7923, 7984, 7985, 7979, 74, 7986 & 13192 of 1986, 808, 2421, 4489, 3748, 4247, 4241, 4216, 4234 4270, 4347,  4325, 2821,  4825, 5440,  13086-92, 5536-5536D, 6762, 2644, 10238, 9656 & 13177 of 1988, 7419 of 1989 and 55 of 1990) & 13573/86).      In view  of our  judgment in  Civil Appeal  No. 2043 of 1997 (Arising  out of  S.L.P. No. 81 of 1986), these appeals are also dismissed with no order as to costs.