IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4028-4029 OF 2007

Sardar Jogendra Singh (D) By LRs. …… Appellant (s)

Vs.  

State of UP & Anr.          .….. Respondent (s)  

WITH

Civil Appeal No.4007 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.4025 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.4026 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.4027 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.4062 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.4086 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.4303 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.524 of 2008 Civil Appeal No.926 of 2008

O R D E R

Civil Appeal Nos.4028-4029 of 2007 are filed by claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation. The other nine appeals are by the UP State

Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (‘Parishad’ in short) which acquired the land,

seeking reduction in compensation.

2. Certain lands  in  Village  Samiuddinpur  were  acquired  for  the Ram

Sagar Misra Nagar Extension Scheme, on the outskirts  of Lucknow. The

preliminary  notification  under  section  28  of  the  UP  Avas  Evam  Vikas

Parishad  Adhiniyam,  1965  was  issued  on  17.3.1979  and  the  final

declaration  was  issued  on  25.5.1980.  The  Land  Acquisition  Officer  by

award dated 13.1.1983 made an offer of Rs.1.88 per sq.ft. as compensation.

The  Tribunal  to  which  the  claims  of  the  land  owners  for  higher

compensation was referred, determined the market value as Rs.3 per sq.ft.

The Tribunal  based  its  decision on its  award (Ex.C-141)  in  regard to  an

earlier acquisition  of lands in the same village for the Ram Sagar Misra

Nagar  Scheme, under  preliminary notification  dated  12.12.1969.  In other

words, C-141 related to acquisition for a Residential Layout and the subject

acquisition was of adjoining lands for the extension of the said layout. The

Tribunal  had awarded Rs.1.50 per sq.ft  in regard to the 1969 acquisition

under Ex.C-141. As there was a gap of about 10 years between the date of

earlier acquisition (12.12.1969) covered by Ex.C-141 and the date of subject

acquisition (17.3.1979), the Tribunal adopted an increase of 10% per year

(or  100%  for  10  years)  to  arrive  at  the  market  value  of  the  subject

acquisition. It thus determined the market value as on 17.3.1979 as Rs.3 per

2

sq.ft. It also considered two sale transactions relied on by claimants, dated

24.2.1978 and 12.4.1978 (Ex.C-26 and C-46) relating to sale of plots in the

neighbouring Bastauli village (which was nearer to Lucknow as compared

to  Samiuddinpur),  at  a  price  of  Rs.4.50  per  sq.ft.  and  Rs.4.57  per  sq.ft.

Having regard to the fact that those sale deeds related to small extents of

land in a village nearer to Lucknow and the subject acquisition related to a

large extent of land in a village farther away, the Tribunal was of the view

that at least one-third should be deducted from the sale price reflected by

those  deeds.  The Tribunal  thus  arrived at  the market  value at  Rs.3/-  per

sq.ft.  even  with  reference  to  sale  transactions  of  1978.  Consequently,  it

allowed the reference by judgment and order dated 12.9.1991 and held that

the  claimants  were  entitled  to  compensation  at  Rs.3/-  per  sq.  ft.  with

solatium at 30%,  additional amount at 12% per annum under section 23

(1A) and interest at 9% per annum on the unpaid compensation amount.  

3. The Parishad preferred appeals before the High Court. The claimants

also  filed  appeals.  The  High  Court  disposed  of  the  said  appeals  by  a

common judgment dated 23.9.2002. The High Court affirmed the judgment

of the Tribunal in regard to market value. It however increased the rate of

interest payable from the date of expiry of one year from the date of taking

3

possession. Feeling aggrieved, the Parishad has filed nine appeals and two

claimants filed Civil Appeal Nos. 4028-4029 of 2007. While the Parishad

contends that the increase from Rs.1.88 per sq.ft. to Rs.3/- per sq.ft. was not

warranted, the claimants contend that the market value ought to have been

fixed as Rs.5/- per sq.ft. on the basis on another award – Ex.C146.   

4. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal and the High Court have

concurrently determined the compensation payable as Rs.3 per sq.ft. as on

17.3.1979. The said market value has been determined with reference to an

award (Ex.C-141) relating to acquisition of land by the Parishad in the same

village and for the same purpose. In view of the gap of 10 years between the

two acquisitions, the market value of Rs.1.50 per sq.ft. determined for the

1969 acquisition has been adopted as the base price, and an increase of 10%

per annum, for ten years was provided to arrive at the market value as on

17.3.1979 at Rs.3/- per sq.ft. The question is whether the said market value

is  excessive  as  contended  by  the  Parishad  or  low  as  contended  by  the

claimants.

5. This Court in a series of judgments taken judicial notice of the fact

that there is a steady increase in the market value of lands and have adopted

the procedure of increasing the market value in the relied-upon transaction,

4

at  a  given  rate  per  year.  In  General  Manager,  ONGC  vs.  Rameshbhai

Jivanbhai Patel (Civil Appeal No.5192 of 2002 decided on 31.7.2008), this

Court held that in regard to urban and semi-urban areas, in the absence of

other  acceptable  evidence,  a  cumulative  increase  of  10%  to  15%  was

permissible  with  reference  to  acquisitions  in  the  1990s.  In  the  decades

preceding 1990s, the quantum of increase was considered to be less than

10% per annum. This Court however observed that transactions beyond five

years before the acquisition, should be considered with caution and may not

always be a reliable guide.  

6. These cases relate to an acquisition in the year 1979. The relied-upon

award  related  to  an  acquisition  of  the  year  1969.  The  general  increase

between 1969-1979 can be taken to be around 8-10% per annum. If the said

increase is calculated cumulatively, we find that the total increase for ten

years  would  be  around 100%.  Therefore  the  assessment  by the  Tribunal

affirmed by the High Court, does not suffer from any infirmity. The other

evidence also broadly support such an increase. There is nothing to show

that the market value could be less than Rs.3 per sq.ft, as contended by the

Parishad. Therefore, we find no need to reduce the market price fixed at

Rs.3/- per sq.ft.  

5

7. Learned  counsel  for  the  Parishad  submitted  that  out  of  the  rate

determined  with  reference  to  the  Ex.C-141  a  deduction  of  at  least  30%

should  be  made  towards  development  charges.  He  attempted  to  draw

support from the decision of this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D)

by LRs. vs. State of Gujarat – 2005 (4) SCC 789. The said decision is not

relevant.  It  does  not  lay down any proposition that  while  calculating  the

market value of an acquired land, with reference to market value determined

by  courts/tribunal  for  similar  land,  any  deductions  should  be  made  for

development cost. Therefore, we reject the contention that 30% should be

deducted.  

8. In  the  appeals  by  the  claimants,  the  submission  is  that  the

compensation awarded is very low. It is pointed out that in regard to the

acquisition under notification dated 20.12.1969 for Ram Sagar Misra Nagar

Scheme,  there  were  two  awards.  One  was  Ex.C-141  relied  on  by  the

Tribunal where the amount awarded was Rs.1.50 per sq.ft. The second was

an marked Ex.C-146 under which, in regard to acquisition in the very same

village  under  the  same notification  dated  20.12.1969,  market  value  was

determined at Rs.2.50 per sq.ft. Claimants contend that there was no logical

6

reason for the Tribunal and the High Court to adopt Rs.1.50 as the base rate

with  reference to  Ex.C-141,  when another  award  (Ex.C146)  in  regard to

very same village and very same notification was available under which rate

is Rs.2.50 per sq.ft.  The contention is that if the market price of Rs.2.50

under Ex.C-146 is taken as the base rate with appropriate increase of 100%

increase for ten years, the compensation  would be Rs.5 per sq.ft. It is also

submitted  that  having  regard  to  the  evidence  showing  that  the  acquired

lands  though agricultural,  was in a village near to Lucknow and had the

potential of being used for residential  purposes and the evidence of steep

increases in prices, the tribunal and the High Court ought to have awarded a

minimum of Rs.5 per sq.ft.  

9. There is concurrent findings by the Tribunal and the High Court in

regard  to  the market  value of  Rs.3/-  per  sq.ft..  In  exercising  jurisdiction

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not interfere

with concurrent finding of facts unless there are special circumstances. The

claimants attacking the concurrent finding regarding market value should be

able to demonstrate that the determination is arbitrary or that some relevant

evidence was totally ignored or that some irrelevant material was taken into

account.  Such a contention  is  not  available  in regard to  judgment  of  the

Tribunal and the High Court. The claimants do not dispute that in regard to

7

the acquisition under  the notification  dated  20.12.1969,  the  Tribunal  had

determined Rs. 1.50 as market value under Ex.C-141. It is true that Rs.2.50

per sq.ft. was also awarded under Ex.C-146. This would show that the lands

covered  by  Ex.C-146  were  clearly  superior  or  situated  in  a  more

advantageous position when compared to lands covered by Ex.C-141. The

Tribunal and the High Court have held that the acquired lands were similar

to the lands considered in Ex.C-141 and therefore, they accepted Ex.C-141

and rejected  Ex.C-146.  If  the  claimants  want  us  to  ignore  Ex.C-141 and

prefer  Ex.C-146,  they  must  demonstrate  with  reference  to  oral  or

documentary  evidence,  that  their  lands  were  on  par  with  the  lands

considered in  Ex.C-146, and that  the lands considered  in  Ex.C-141 were

inferior  to  their  lands.  There  is  no  such evidence.  The claimants  merely

chose to produce both the awards i.e. Ex.C-141 and Ex.C-146. The fact that

claimants themselves had produced and relied on Ex.C-141 apart from Ex.

C-146 shows that they were satisfied if the market value under Ex. C-141

was adopted as the basis. When on consideration of the evidence, both the

Tribunal and the High Court have chosen to rely on Ex.  C-141, we find no

reason  to  interfere  with  such  decision,  in  the  absence  of  special

circumstances  or  evidence  to  choose  Ex.C-146  as  the  basis.  The  other

8

evidence relied on by the claimants do not establish a market value of Rs.5/-

per sq.ft. Therefore, we find no reason to increase the market value.  

10. In view of the above, the appeals by the Parishad as also the appeals

by the Claimants are dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs.   

…………………………..J [R. V. Raveendran]

……………………………J [Lokeshwar Singh Panta]

New Delhi;  August 28, 2008.  

9