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

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BHATINDA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BALWANT SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/07/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (5) 433        JT 1995 (6)   218  1995 SCALE  (4)756

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH            CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6 TO 28/93 AND 58/93                             ORDER      Notification under  s. 4(1)  was published in the State Gazette on April 9, 1976 acquiring an extent of 116 acres of the agricultural lands for the purpose of establishing Water Treatment Plant  and other  allied public purposes. The Land Acquisition Collector  in his  award dated  March  20,  1979 awarded compensation  upto a  depth of 100 yards at the rate of Rs.50,000/-  per acre  and for  the rest  of the  land he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre. On reference under  s.18 of  the Act,  the Additional  District Judge by  his award  and decree  dated the  August 9,  1982, enhanced the market value to a depth of 50 yards at the rate of Rs.  1,50,000/- per  acre and 50 to 100 yards at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre and for the rest at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per  acre. On  further appeal,  the Learned  Single Judge while  upholding the  principle of belting made by the Land Acquisition  Collector disagreed  with the principle of belting, distinction  between 50  yards and  100 yards,  and granted market  value at  the rate  of Rs.1,50,000/-  upto a depth of  100 yards and Rs.65,000/- per acre for the rest of the land.  On Letters  Patent Appeal,  the Division Bench by its Judgment  and Decree  dated the  April 11, 1991, granted uniform flat  rate of  Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre to the entire area. Thus,  these appeals by special leave by the Appellant Municipal Committee.      Admittedly, as on the date of notification published in State Gazette, the lands are agricultural lands. No sanction of the  plan to  sell for  building purposes was obtained by the owners. The question is whether the lands are capable of potential value. The Reference Court on consideration of the evidence found thus:      "The land has obtained potentialites for      being put  to residential, commercial or

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

    industrial uses  and is within the urban      area of  the town  (Bhatinda).  In  such      circumstances agricultural  qualities of      the  land  not  to  be  made  basis  for      determination of  compensation inclusion      of the  land within the municipal limits      earlier to the notification."      The learned Single Judge while accepting that the lands are possessed of potential value, placed reliance on exhibit A-92 plan prepared by AW-4 and stated that the acquired land abut Sirhind Canal towards west and beyond the Sirhind Canal is the  Thermal Colony. Towards the South, the acquired land abuts  on   the  Bhatinda-Barnala   road.  Central  Aviation Microwave Centre  is also  towards the South of the acquired land. The  Aviation Centre also abuts on the aforesaid road. Bhatinda-Mansa-Talwandi Sabo Road joins the Bhatinda-Barnala road just  in the  middle of  the acquired  land towards the west. There  is a  bridge over  the Sirhind  Canal  for  the Bhatinda-Barnala road.  There are  two cinema houses besides numerous residential  houses on  both  sides  of  that  road besides several homes on the Bhatinda-Barnala road. There is a residential  colony in  Khasra No.  1978. It could thus be seen that  though the  lands were  agricultural lands on the date of  notification, since  they are  situated within  the municipal limits  and nearer  to the built up area the lands have potential value for residential or commercial purposes. The Division  Bench also  reaffirmed the  finding  that  the lands are  possessed of potential value. we, therefore, hold that the lands are possessed of potential value.      The next  question is  what is  the market  value to be determined in  the case.  The learned  Single  Judge  having referred to the sale deeds exhibits A-84 to A-89, found that right from  December, 1970,  the lands abutting the road are fetching higher  price of Rs.1,20,000/- per acre than to the land situated  behind  the  belt  of  100  yards  and  that, therefore, it was concluded thus:      "Whereas out  of the  same khasra number      in December  1970, vide Exhibits A-86 to      A-89, that  much area  or area  upto the      extent of  3000 sq. Yards was being sold      at an average price of Rs.1,25,000/- per      acre. The aforesaid instance as also the      other instances brought on the record to      show that  the land  abutting on the two      roads is  of higher value as compared to      the land  lying behind the belt abutting      on the  road. Therefore, the belting has      to  be   resorted  to.  while  the  Land      Acquisition Collector  made the  belting      abutting on the road upto a depth of 100      yards for  which higher market value was      allowed as  compared to  the rest of the      land, the  court below  divided the  100      yards belt  into two  belts, one  upto a      depth   of    50   yards    for    which      Rs.1,30,000/- per  acre were allowed and      the other beyond the first belt upto 100      yards for  which  Rs.60,000/-  per  acre      were   allowed    and   for   the   last      Rs.50,000/- per  acre were allowed. Once      the  belt   abutting  on   the  road  is      considered to  be of higher value, there      was  no   justification  in  making  the      second and  third belts  because  to  my      mind that  would be  of the  same value.

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

    Accordingly, the  belting  made  by  the      court below is set aside and that of the      Land Acquisition  Collector is restored.      For the  belt up to a depth of 100 yards      on Bhatinda-  Barnala road,  I am of the      view that  the market  value deserves to      be fixed at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre."      The Division  Bench while referring to the decisions of that Court  with reference  to the belting without reference to the  evidence on  record and  consideration  thereof  had concluded thus:      "On an  analytical  examination  of  the      aforementioned  judicial  pronouncements      of  this   Court,  it   can  safely   be      reiterated or  held that  the courts  of      law would  generally be  disinclined  to      categorise  the   land  and   would   be      inclined to  evaluate the entire land at      a flat  rate whenever  it  has  got  the      potentialities  for   being   used   for      residential, commercial  and  industrial      purposes. The  factum of  the land being      situated in  a compact  block is another      consideration which  must weigh with the      court  to   do  away  with  the  belting      system. The  location  of  the  land  in      urban area  is  another  factor  leaning      towards the  grant of flat rate when the      entire   land   is   acquired   by   one      notification. Even  suburban  properties      near or  around the  Municipal town  can      have the  same potentialities  until and      unless  evidence   to  the  contrary  is      produced.      The only  question is  whether the  Division Bench  was right in  awarding uniform rate at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre to the entire  land. We think that the Division Bench committed patent error  of law  in awarding flat rate. It is seen that the learned  Single Judge  had noticed the prevailing prices of lands, abutting the roads and lands behind 100 yards from the road.  Because it  was found  from intrinsic evidence on the factual  matrix, he  recorded the finding that the court has to  resort to  belting. In  our view, the learned Single Judge is right. It is also further to be noted that the sale deeds executed  on the  same day  with reference to the land situated abutting  the road  and the  lands interior  to the road did  not fetch  the same  price. Thus, it could be seen that fixation  of the  flat rate  to the  entire land  is  a manifest illegality  committed by the Division Bench. We may also state  that the  Division Bench had not referred to the factual matrix  available on record except discussion on the principles of  law laid  down in  various decisions  of that Court. This  Court has  also considered  this aspect  of the matter in  several decisions and held that in an appropriate case, where  evidence on record is available the Court would be justified  in fixing  the belting  and to  determine  the market value  of the  land on  that  basis.  Therefore,  the Division Bench was not right in awarding the compensation at a flat rate to the entire land.      The counsel  for the  claimants contended that when the evidence  shows  that  the  value  of  different  lands  are available and  the lands  are contiguous  and situated  in a developing area,  application of the principle of belting is illegal.  We   find  it   difficult  to   accept  the  broad contention. The  principle of average will not be applied in

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

the case  to determine  the compensation. The Division Bench did not  look into the instrinsic evidence on record. On the other hand,  as a  general proposition of law, the principle of flat rate was adopted which is clearly illegal. As stated earlier, when  the transactions  and the sale deeds relating to  the  land  abutting  the  road  and  the  land  situated interior, effected  on the same day, shows the difference in the price,  the former  fetched higher  value and the latter securing  lesser   value,  it   itself  would   lead  to  an irresistible  conclusion   that  the   application  of   the principle of  flat rate  is clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious.      The question  thus is,  what would  be  the  reasonable price that the lands would be capable to fetch. We have seen that the  learned single  Judge and  the Division  Bench had awarded Rs.1,50,000/- to the lands. The learned single Judge had applied the belting while the Division Bench without the application of the belting awarded a flat rate. We hold that the compensation  of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre of the land upto a depth of 100 yards is clearly legal and just and fair. For the rest  of the land we think that a sum of Rs.80,000/- per acre would  be just  and appropriate  compensation since the lands situated  interior fetched  lesser prices as evidenced by the sale deed on record.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The claimants  are not entitled to the payment of additional amount under s.23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, but they are entitled to the enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% and interest on  enhanced market  value, at  the rate of 9% from the  date   of  taking  possession  for  one  year  and  15% thereafter till  the date  of the  payment or deposit in the Court whichever is earlier.      The  appeals   are  allowed   accordingly  but  in  the circumstances the  parties are  directed to  bear their  own costs. In  working out  the decree,  if the total amount has not already  been paid  by now, the appellant is directed to pay the  amount within 8 months from the date of the receipt of the order. The cross appeals are dismissed.