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

PETITIONER: SATPAL & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/09/1997

BENCH: A. S. ANAND, V. N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH C.A.Nos. 9401-9428/96,  4595/97, 1998/97  and  S.L.P.(C)  No 4185/97.)                       J U D G M E N T V.N. KHARE, J.      This group  of civil appeals by grant of special leave, and Special  Leave Petition  which pertain to enhancement of compensation for  the acquired land, is directed against the judgment and  order dated  22nd February, 1995 passed by the High Court  of Delhi.    Since  common  facts  and  law  are involved, all  the appeals  and special  leave petition  are being disposed of by a common judgment.      A Notification  under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act  (for   short  "the   Act")  was  issued  on  27.01.1984 prosposing to  acquire land  of the appellants as well as of other in  Village Palam,  Delhi for  the purpose  of planned developed of  Delhi.   This was  followed by  a  declaration under Section  6 of  the Act.   For  the purpose of awarding compensation in  respect of  the  acquired  land,  the  Land Acquisition Officer  (collector) divided  the land, which is the subject  matter of acquisition, in three blocks, namely, "A" "B"  and "C",  By an award, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation  in respect  of the  land acquired as Rs. 8,400 per bigha for block "A", Rs. 6,000 per bigha for block "B" and Rs.3,000 per bigha for block "C.      Being    dissatisfied     with    the     award,    the claimants/appellants preferred  references under  Section 18 of the  Act, contending  that the land in question could bot be valued  at less than Rs. 300 per square yard on the State of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, being situated near  the Indira  Gandhi International  Airport and Palam Airport,  and also  surrounded by residential colonies of Janakpuri  and Vikaspuri  and by  Delhi Cantonment.   The Additional District  Judge, Delhi  assessed the market value of the  land, for  the purposes of compensation, @ Rs.36,400 per bigha  uniformly.   Aggrieved by the same, the claimants preferred regular  appeals before  the High  Court of Delhi. The High  Court disposed  of the  appeals in  terms  of  the earlier decision  dated 3.2.1995  rendered in RFA No.710/90. The High  Court held  that marked value of the acquired land

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

on the date of the notification was Rs. 47.224 per bigha and that in  addition to  the said  market value, the appellants are also entitled to an amount calculated @ 12% per annum of the market  value for the period commencing from the date of publication of  the notification  under Section  4(i) of the Act to  the date  of taking  possession of the land, besides solatium @ 30% as also interest @ 9% per annum till the date of deposit of enhanced amount of compensation awarded by the Additional District  Judge.   The  claimants/appellants  not being satisfied  with the  said judgment  of the High Court, have come  up before  this Court  by filing separate Special Leave Petitions.      Learned Counsel  for  the  appellants  urged  that  the courts below erroneously rejected Ex.A.W. 1/7 to Ex.A.W.1/10 while determining the market value of the land acquired.  In short,  the  argument  is  that  the  market  value  of  the claimant’s land  ought to  have been determined on the basis of Ex.A.W.1/7  to Ex.  A.W.1/10 which  related to  the  sale transactions of  the land  between 20.10.1981 and 29.9.1982. The  highest   sale  consideration  shown  in  the  Exhibits referred to  above,  is  Rs.  1,34,666  per  bigha.    These evidences were excluded y the courts below while arriving at the market value of the appellants’ acquired land.  The High Court fixed  the market  value of  the acquired land relying upon Ex.A.W.1/1 to Ex.A.W.1/6 wherein sale consideration for the land was Rs.56,470 per bigha.  The sale deeds covered by the said  exhibits relate to the period between October 1981 and September  1982.   The reasoning given by the High Court in excluding  Ex.A.W.1/7  to  Ex.A.W.1/10  for  purposes  of assessing the market value of acquired land was that, it was not sufficiently  explained by  the claimants  as to how the price of  the land in question has jumped from Rs. 56, 470/- per bigha  to Rs.  1,34,666 per bigha within a short span of time.      We have  looked into the record and found that there is no explanation whatsoever for such a sharp increase in price of land  in such  a short  time.   The rise in price is more than 100  per cent  within a  very short period which is not the usual  prevailing trend  in rise  of prices  in the area where the  acquired land is situated.  The Court below found that    sale     consideration    shown     in    Ext.    A. W. 1/1  to Ext.  A.W. 1/6  is more  realistic and  therefore relied those  instances for  assessing the  market value  of disputed land.      In the  absence of  any such  explanation, we feel that the High  Court was  justified in  rejecting  Ex.A.W.1/7  to Ex.A.W.1/10  while   assessing  the   market  value  of  the claimants’ acquired land.  The judgment of the High Court is neither perverse  nor illegal  and does  not  call  for  any interference, since  it is  based on correct appreciation of the evidence  on the record and proper application of law to the established  facts.   The appeals  and the special leave petition are  accordingly dismissed  with  no  order  as  to costs.