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

PETITIONER: PAIMDER SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/08/1995

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

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (5) 310        1995 SCALE  (4)726

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH            S.L.P. Nos. 2397, 2620 & 2622 OF 1990                          O R D E R      The notification  under  Section  4  (1)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (for  short, ‘the  Act’) acquiring  a large extent  of land  for development  of  Delhi  city  was published on  6th April,  1964. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation  @ Rs.5,000/- and Rs. 4,500/- per bigha by his  award No.87  of 1980-81.  On  reference,  the  Civil Court, viz.,  the Additional  District Judge, enhanced it by his award  and decree  dated 30th August, 1983 to Rs.7,260/- and Rs.7,000/-  per bigha  respectively. On appeal, the High Court by  the impugned judgment dated 22nd August, 1989 made in R.F.A.  No.52/89 and  batch uniformly enhanced the market value to  Rs.12,000/- per  bigha.  Feeling  aggrieved,  this petition  has   been  filed   for  further   enhancement  to Rs.25,000/ per bigha.      The learned  counsel for  the petitioners  states  that these lands  relate to  village Madanpur Khadar. He contends that  for   the  adjacent  lands  in  village  Badarpur  and Molarband, the  Reference Court  and the High Court enhanced the compensation  to Rs.43,000/-  per bigha  etc. Therefore, the High  Court was  not justified  in confining  the market value to Rs.12,000/- per bigha.      We have  gone through  the judgments  in  those  cases. Reliance was  placed on the circular, issued obviously under Section 48  of the  Stamp Act,  by  the  Central  Government fixing the  market value  for the purpose of registration at Rs.60/- per  sq. yard.  This Court has considered the entire gamut of  the operation  of the relevant provisions of Stamp Act and  S.23 (1)  of the  Act and held that the fixation by the Government  of the  amount under  Stampt Act  for fiscal purpose bears  no relevance  to determine  the market  value under Section  23 (1)  of the Act. The claimant aliunde need to establish  the prevailing  market value as on the date of the  notification  under  Section  4  (1)  by  adduction  of

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

evidence to  prove the acquired land and the land covered by sale transactions  bear similar  or same  potentialities  or advantageous features.  The courts below have relied only on the circular  issued by  the Government  for fiscal purpose, viz., for  stamp duty.  The contra  view taken  by the  High Court in  that behalf is clearly illegal and the same cannot form basis  for  further  enhancement.  De  hors  the  above judgment, there  is no  other evidence  to  enhance  further compensation.      Learned counsel  for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of  the High  Court in relation to the motification dated 5th July, 1973 in which the compensation was awarded @ Rs.68,000/- per  bigha for village Tughlakabad. That is also founded upon  the circular  issued by the Government on 26th March,  1966   referred  to   earlier  and   relates  to   a notification issued  after about 10 years of the notifiction at hand. So this judgment also renders little assistance.      Accordingly, the special leave petitions are dismissed.