“REPORTABLE”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    2856   OF 2010 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 6178 OF 2005)

Prem Chand & Ors. … Appellants

Versus

Union of India … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein the  

High Court has awarded the land acquisition compensation @ Rs.39,300/-  

per bigha.  The High Court relied on its earlier judgment without citing the  

same  wherein  it  had  fixed  the  land  acquisition  compensation  @  

Rs.34,150/- per bigha in respect of the Notification under Section 4 of the  

Land Acquisition Act dated 19.08.1976.  On that basis, the High Court,  

considering the difference of 1-1/2 years, enhanced the amount at the rate  

1

of 10 per cent per year and thus granted compensation @ Rs.39,300/- per  

bigha.

3. The concerned lands are from village Dallupura which have been  

acquired by the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act  

dated 22.03.1978 which ripened into the Notification under Section 6 dated  

27.09.1978.   The  High  Court,  however,  specifically  ordered  that  the  

appellants would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the  

Land Acquisition Act (hereafter ‘the Act’).   

4. Shri P.H. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel pointed out firstly that the  

claimants in this case could not have been deprived of the benefit under  

Section 23 (1-A) of the Act since the award was passed on 25.02.1983 and  

it was pending on 24.09.1984.  He invited our attention to the Constitution  

Bench decision of this Court in  K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala &  

Ors.  [1994 (5) SCC 593] wherein this Court had culled out the ratio in  

paragraph 110 as follows:

“110. For  all  these  reasons  the  questions  raised  in  these petitions are answered as below:

(1) Section  23(1-A)  providing  for  additional  compensation  is  attracted  in  every  case  where  reference  was  pending  under  Section 18 before the Court [Section 23(1- A)].

2

(2)   No  additional  compensation  is  payable  in  appeals  pending  on  or  after  24-9-1984  either in High Court or this Court.

(3)   Additional compensation  under  Section  23(1-A) is also payable in all  those cases  where  the proceedings were  pending and  the  award  had  not  been  made  by  the  Collector  on or  before 30-4-1982 [Section  30(1)(a)].

(4)   Similarly  every  landowner  is  entitled  to  additional  compensation  where  the  land  acquiring  proceedings  started  after  30-4- 1982 whether  the  award  by  the  Collector  was made before 24-9-1984 or not [Section  30(1)(b)].

      (5)  XXX”

5. Accordingly as per the sub-para (3) of paragraph 110, it is clear that  

the claimants would be entitled to the compensation under Section 23 (1-

A) read with Section 30 (1) (b) since the award had not been made on or  

before  30.04.1982.   The claimants  would,  therefore,  be entitled  to  that  

benefit though the benefit seems to have been rejected by the High Court  

without giving any reasons.  That direction of the High court is, therefore,  

set aside and it is held that the claimants would be entitled to the benefit  

under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act.

6. However, Shri P.H. Parekh argued that the High Court had erred in  

fixing the compensation @ Rs.39,300/- per bigha.  He further pointed out  

that the claimants herein had moved an application under Order VI Rule 17  

3

read  with  Section  151 of  the  Code of  Civil  Procedure,  enhancing their  

claim before the High Court to Rs.350 per sq. yds.  He pointed out that in  

the case reported as Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma  

& Others [2004 (6) SCC 533] in respect of the villages Kondli, Gharoli and  

Dallupura, this Court had awarded compensation @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha.  

In that case, this Court, relying on Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India   

[1997 (8) SCC 186] had scaled down the compensation to Rs.76,550/- per  

bigha from the one awarded by the High Court @ Rs.3.45 lakh per bigha.  

Shri  Parekh,  therefore,  suggests  that  even  the  claimants  in  this  case  

whose lands have been acquired in Dallupura would be entitled at least to  

the compensation @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha.  The lands at Dallupra, Kondli  

and Gharoli  have been held to be identically circumstanced.  In fact,  in  

Bali Ram Sharma’s case (cited supra), the Court was dealing with the  

lands at Gharoli, Kondli and Dallupura where the High Court had awarded  

the compensation @ Rs.3.45 lakhs.  This Court did not agree with that and  

scaled it down to Rs.76,550/-.  It is, therefore, the learned Senior Counsel  

claims the compensation at least at that rate.  It is to be noted that even in  

this case, the claimants had claimed the compensation @ Rs.350/-  per  

bigha  by  way  of  an  amendment.   Shri  Parekh  pointed  out  that  the  

Notification  in  Bali  Ram  Sharma’s  case (cited  supra)  was  dated  

17.11.1980 which  is  comparable  to  the Notification in  the present  case  

which is dated 22.03.1978.  He further pointed out that there is evidence  

4

that the lands at Dallupura, compensation of which is in question in the  

present  appeal,  were  actually  converted  into  the  plots.   He,  therefore,  

claims compensation @ Rs.76,550/-.

7. On the other hand, Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing  

for the Union of India disputes this and claims that the High Court was right  

in fixing the compensation @ 39,300/- per bigha.   

8. On the question of parity, there can be no dispute that the lands at  

Kondli, Dallupura and Gharoli are identically circumstanced, as held by this  

Court in Bali Ram Sharma’s case (cited supra).  It would, therefore, be  

not proper to grant the compensation at much lesser rate of Rs.39,300/-  

per bigha.  The learned Counsel also pointed out a decision of this Court to  

which one of us, (Cyriac Joseph, J.) was a party reported as  Union Of  

India v.  Harpat Singh & Ors. [2009 (8) SCALE 201].  This Court followed  

the  judgments  in  Karan  Singh’s  case  (cited  supra)  and  Bali  Ram  

Sharma’s case (cited supra) and approved them.  These judgments were  

in respect of Gharoli, Kondli and Dallupura, where the compensation was  

paid @ Rs.76,550/-.   He, therefore,  urged to maintain the parity in this  

case also.   

9. However,  it  is  pointed  out  by  Shri  Malhotra  that  the  rate  of  

Rs.76,550/-  is  in  respect  of  the  Notification  dated  17.11.1980  and  the  

5

Notification in the present case was published only on 22.03.1978 and,  

therefore, some allowance would have to be given for that.  Shri Malhotra  

is  undoubtedly  right.   We,  therefore,  scale  down the  compensation  by  

deducting 10 per cent  of  the rate of  Rs.76,550/-.   Ordinarily,  we would  

have scaled down by 20 per cent but considering the fact that the lands in  

this case have been found to be already developed into plots, we would  

choose to scale down the compensation by 10 per cent to the round figure  

of  Rs.69,550/-   The compensation shall  be paid @ Rs.69,550 plus the  

benefit under Section 23 (1-A) read with Section 30 (1) (b) of the Act.

10. With these directions, the appeal is allowed in part.

………………………………….J. (V.S. Sirpurkar)

…………………………………….J. (Cyriac Joseph)

New Delhi; March 30, 2010.  

6