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

PETITIONER: KARAN SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (6)100

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  arises from  the judgment  dated July  23, 1984 of  the Division  Bench of the Delhi High Court made in RFA No.281 of 1979.      Notification  under   Section  4   [1]  of   the   Land Acquisition Act,  1894 [for  short, the  "Act"] acquiring  a large extent  of land  was published  on March  8, 1957. The land of  the appellant  admeasuring one  biga and  14 biswas formed part  of that  land.  Reference  Court  relying  upon judgment of  the High  Court in  A.N. Bhandari  v. Union  of India [LPA  No.81 of  1979 decided  on May  1, 1990] awarded compensation @  Rs.10/- per  square yard.  On appeal, it was confirmed. The  High Court relied upon a single sale deed in similar case  in which market value had been fixed @ Rs.12/- per square  yard. Therefore, the appellant also claimed that rate. Since  he was  not awarded the rate claimed by him, he has filed  appeal in  this Court  challenging  the  impugned judgment of the High Court.      Shri  Juneja,   learned  counsel   for  the   appellant contended that  the High Court, having found that the market value of  the land  in question  could fetch was Rs.12/- per square yard,  would have  granted compensation at that rate. Though prima  facie we  find the  contention  plausible  and acceptable, in  view of  the legal  position that  at  least 1/3rd  of  the  market  value  has  to  be  deduced  towards development charges  and that the said consideration was not adopted in  the case  on which  reliance is placed, the fact boils down  that if  the award is to be interfered with, the appellant would  get less  than what has been granted to him by the  High Court.  However, since  the State has not filed any appeal  and in  the facts and circumstances of the case, we are  of the  view  that  it  is  not  a  case  warranting interference.      The appeal under Section 54 of the Act would not lie to this Court.  A reading  of Section 54 would clearly indicate that the  appeal shall  lie in any proceedings under the act

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

only to  the High  Court against the award and decree of the reference Court  and further  appeal to  this Court would be under Article  136 of the Constitution read with Section 11, CPC. by way of special leave and not under Section 54 of the Act.      Accordingly, this  appeal cannot  be treated  to be  an appeal under  Section 54 of the Act but one by special leave under Article 136. In either case, we do not find any ground warranting interference.  Hence the  appeal is dismissed. No costs.