1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6409 OF 2009 (@ SLP(C) No.5678 of 2007)

RANDHIR SINGH ....APPELLANT VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ....RESPONDENTS

WITH

C.A.NO.6471 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 5959 of 2007

C.A.NO.6410 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 5961 of 2007

C.A.NO.6411 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 6036 of 2007

C.A.NO.6412 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 6141 of 2007

C.A.NO.6413 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 6143 of 2007

C.A.NO.6414 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 6173 of 2007

C.A.NO.6415 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 6182 of 2007

C.A.NO.6416 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 6183 of 2007

C.A.NO.6417 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 6184 of 2007

C.A.NO.6418 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 6193 of 2007

C.A.NO.6419 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 6195 of 2007

C.A.NO.6420 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 6246 of 2007

C.A.NO.6421 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 6647 of 2007

C.A.NO.6422 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 6660 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6423 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9358 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6424 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9712 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6425 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9718 of 2007

C.A.NO.6426 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9229 of 2007

C.A.NO.6427 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9517 of 2007

2

C.A.NO. 6428 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9716 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6429 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9227 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6430 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9414 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6431 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9231 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6432 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9407 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6472 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9490 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6433 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9180 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6434 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9209 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6435 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9184 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6436 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9207 of 2007

C.A.NO. 6437 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9208 of 2007

C.A.NO.  6440 of 2009 @ SLP(C) NO. 9185 of 2007

C.A.NOs.6441-6470 of 2009  @ SLP(C) NO. 2769-2798 of 2008

O R D E R

      Delay condoned.   

Leave granted.   

Heard learned counsel for the parties.   

These appeals by special leave arise out of  

land acquisition proceedings by which large area of  

land, namely, in 4 villages Gopalpur, Nusi, Nangli  

Viran  and  Lidhran  was  sought  to  be  acquired  in  

Jalandhar in the State of Punjab by a Notification  

dated 20th of May, 1983 under Section 4 of the Land

3

Acquisition Act,  1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the  

Act”)  for  the  public  purpose  of  setting  up  of  a  

Government  Engineering  College.   The  Land  

Acquisition Collector, by an award dated 7th of March,  

1986, assessed the market value of the acquired land  

at the rate of Rs. 53,560/- per acre in respect of the  

Chahi land, Barani land at the rate of Rs. 28,500/- per acre  

and  Banjar  kadim  at  the  rate  of  Rs.  14,250/-  per  acre.   The  

appellants,  who are  the land owners/claimants,  were dissatisfied  

with the award and filed reference cases under Section 18 of the  

Act.   The  Reference  Court  determined  the  market  value  of  the  

acquired land up to a depth of 100 karams situated on the G.T.  

Road at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre and the market value of  

the remaining land was determined at the rate of Rs. 1,10,000/- per  

acre.  With this determination, the Reference Court also held that  

the  land  owners/claimants  were  also  entitled  to  other  statutory  

benefits as admissible to them in law.  

4

Feeling  aggrieved  by  this  determination  of  the  Reference  

Court made under Section 18 of the Act, appeals were filed before  

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which, by the impugned  

Judgment, were allowed in part, holding that the market value of  

the  entire  acquired  land  must  be  assessed  at  the  rate  of  Rs.  

1,60,000/- per acre inter alia on a finding that when the acquired  

land was having such potential, then adopting of Belting System  

and classifying the land into two categories i.e. one, upto the depth  

of 100 karams on the G.T. Road and the remaining land beyond  

that depth, was not at all justified.   

Feeling  aggrieved  and  dissatisfied  with  the  Judgment  and  

order of the High Court, these Special Leave Petitions have been  

filed by the land owners/claimants, and on the other hand, the State  

of Punjab were aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court  

also filed Special Leave Petitions, which on grant of leave, were  

heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties.   

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

claimants/appellants  and  the  learned  counsel  for  the

5

Respondent/State of Punjab.  We have also examined the Judgment  

of the High Court as well as the order of the Reference Court and  

other  materials  on  record,  including  the  oral  and  documentary  

evidence.  The only question that was agitated before us by the  

learned counsel for the claimants/appellants was in respect of the  

rejection of the application for acceptance of additional evidence  

filed by the claimants/appellants.  It appears that the application for  

acceptance  of  additional  evidence  was  filed  by  the  

claimants/appellants to admit the Aks Shajra by way of additional  

evidence.   While  dealing with the application for  acceptance of  

additional evidence, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  

claimants/appellants  had  sought  to  produce  Aks  Shajra  as  an  

additional  evidence in the said appeal.   While  dealing with this  

aspect of the matter, the High Court observed as follows :-

“Dealing with the question of additional evidence,   at  the first  instance, it  must  be noticed that the  perusal of the aforesaid Aks Shajra clearly shows  that the land of Chara Mandi is at quite distance   from  the  present  acquired  land.  There  are  two  canals intervening in between the land acquired  for  the  Chara  Mandi  and  the  present  acquired   land.  The land of Chara Mandi is also shown to  

6

be  on  an  intersection  of  G.T.  Road  and  Jalandhar-Hoshiarpur  Road.  The  present   acquired land is not only at quite a distance from  the land of Chara Mandi but also cannot be held   to be comparable. A perusal of Aks Shajra further   shows that the adjacent area to the acquired land  of Chara Mandi was covered with factories and  houses.  A 74.9 acres Transport Nagar Scheme by  Improvement  Trust  Jalandhar  was  in  existence.   Industrial Focal Point was also situated nearby.   A  further  perusal  of  the  judgment  rendered  in  Mukesh  Kumar’s  case  (supra)  shows  that  the  aforesaid  land  for  Chara  Mandi  was  situated  within  the  limits  of  Jalandhar  Municipal   Corporation. All these factors show that the land  of  Chara  Mandi  is  neither  comparable  nor  the  assessment of the market  value of  the aforesaid  land  is  relevant  for  assessment  of  the  market   value in the present appeals. Consequently, I do   not  find  any  merit  in  the  prayer  made  by  the   appellants  to  allow  the  present  application  for   additional evidence. Thus, the application filed by  the  appellants  for  additional  evidence  is   disallowed.”

In the impugned Judgment itself, the High Court had taken  

into  consideration  the  application  for  acceptance  of  additional  

evidence  and  also  considered  the  case  of  Mukesh  Kumar  vs.  

Collector [1987 (2) PLR 370] and on a comparison of the facts in  

Mukesh Kumar’s case (supra) and the present appeals, came to a  

finding  that  the  facts  of  Mukesh  Kumar’s  case  were  totally

7

different  from  the  facts  involved  in  the  present  case.    After  

considering the facts on which Mukesh Kumar’s case was based,  

the High Court, in the impugned order, came to the conclusion that  

the  land  of  Chara  Mandi  was  neither  comparable  nor  the  

assessment of the market value of the acquired lands was relevant  

for  the  assessment  of  the  market  value  in  the  present  appeals.  

Therefore, we are of the view that neither the decision in Mukesh  

Kumar’s case nor the facts of the present appeals were similar to  

that of the same.  Hence, we do not find any reason to hold that  

any enhancement would be possible on the basis of the documents  

produced by the parties before us.   

For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the clear opinion that the  

High Court has rightly rejected the application for acceptance of  

additional evidence although in its judgment it discussed the effect  

of Aks Shajra and concluded that such a document which is sought  

to be produced is not comparable with the facts of present appeal.  

No other submission was advanced by the learned counsel for the  

parties.

8

In  this  view of  the  matter,  we  do  not  find  any  reason  to  

interfere with the impugned order in these appeals.  Accordingly,  

these appeals are dismissed with a direction that the compensation  

awarded  by  the  High  Court  shall  be  paid  to  the  

claimants/appellants within two months from this date.   

Accordingly,  the  appeals  of  the  claimants/appellants  are  

dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.   

In so far as the appeals of the State of Punjab are concerned,  

in view of the discussions made hereinabove and in view of the  

fact  that  the learned counsel  for  the respondents  also could  not  

satisfy us that the enhancement made by the High Court was in any  

way,  irregular,  illegal  or  arbitrary,  we  are  of  the  view that  the  

appeals  filed  by  the  State  of  Punjab  have  no  merit  also  and  

accordingly, the said appeals are also dismissed.   

We find from the record that at the time of issuance of notice  

in the Special Leave Petition Nos. 2769-2798 of 2008 preferred by  

the State of Punjab, the State of Punjab was directed to deposit a  

sum of Rs. 20,000/- as costs and such cost is now lying with the

9

Registry of this Court.  Since we have condoned the delay in filing  

the  appeals  of  the  State  of  Punjab,  we  direct  that  the  

claimants/respondents  should  be  allowed  to  withdraw  the  costs  

deposited with the Registry of this Court.   

With the aforesaid directions, these appeals stand dismissed.  

There will be no order as to costs.   

Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.    

…………………… …J.

[Tarun Chatterjee]

………………………J.               [R.M.Lodha]

NEW DELHI: SEPTEMBER 04, 2009