http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SHER SINGH ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/01/1991

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. SHARMA, L.M. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 2048            1991 SCR  (1)   1  1991 SCC  (3) 335        JT 1991 (1)   149  1991 SCALE  (1)25

ACT:      Land Acquisition Act, 1984-Section 25-Compensation Enhancement-Not  permissible  when evidence not  brought  on record.

HEADNOTE:      The  appellants were the claimants-land  owners,  whose lands  were  acquired for establishing  a  residential  cum- commercial complex.  The Land Acquisition Collector  belting the  land in three parts awarded compensation for block  ‘A’ at  the  rate of Rs. 4.13 per sq.yd.; for block ‘B’  at  the rate  of Rs. 2.43 per sq.yd. and for block ‘C’ at  Rs.  1.65 per sq. yd.      In First Appeal the High Court was persuaded to confine to belting ‘A’ & ‘B’.  The High Court fixed compensation  at the rate of Rs. 23 per sq.yd. for belt ‘A’ and for belt  ‘B’ Rs. 16 per sq.yd.      The  Claimants by special leave filed  present  appeals for enhancement contending that the acquired land  comprises of a large area, situated alongside the G.T. Road in a strip approximately  3 kms. in length on the other side  of  which was  the railway line; that the belting had been done  in  a haphazard  way;  that  the land  having  been  acquired  for building  purposes, its quality as agricultural land  should not have weighed; and compensation should have been assessed uniformally.      Dismissing the appeals, this Court,      HELD:  1.  The rate of Rs. 42 per sq.yd. is claimed  on the  basis that  a part of land measuring about  125  sq.yd. which  found  part  of the acquired land,  was,  before  the acquisition, purchased by a purchaser at the rate of Rs.  42 per  sq.  yd.  and  that was an  indication  that  the  land acquired would have fetched Rs. 42 per sq.yd. [3E]      2.   The High Court had rejected the contention of  the appellants  taking  the  twin view  that  firstly  the  land involved  was  small in measure and secondly  it  was  fully constructed having a house and a godown facing the G.T. Road itself.  This reasoning is sound. [3F]      3.   The judgement in which Rs. 42 had been awarded  in another                                                        2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

case  has not been brought on record as a piece of  evidence to  be relied upon by the claimants, and no  permission  has been  sought  to  adduce   additional  evidence.   The  said judgement  cannot therefore be used as a precedent  even  to persuade this Court to take the view that the rate should be Rs.  42  per sq.yd. for belt ‘A’ if  not  uniformally.   All these factors cumulatively lead to the view that  appellants have  no  case  for enhancement  and  have  been  adequately compensated for the land acquired. [3H; & A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2646-52 of 1986.      From  the Judgement and order dated the  12.10.1981  of the  Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular  First  Appeal Nos. 758, 760, 787, 814, 769, 1011 and 789 of 1979.      Govind  Mukhoty, R.P. Bhatt, D.K. Garg, Prem  Malhotra, K.C. Sharma and R.C. Kaushik for the Appellants.      S.P. Goel and Mahabir Singh for the Respondents.      The Judgement of the Court was delivered by      PUNCHHI,  J.  This bunch of appeals and  special  leave petitions  are  at  the instance of  the  dissatisfied  land owners  whose  lands were acquired in bulk by the  State  of Haryana,   in  the  town  of  Hissar,  for  establishing   a residential-cum-commercial complex.      The   land  totalled  approximately  331  acres.    The Acquisition    Collector   appointed   to   determine    the compensation  belted  the land in three parts  awarding  for block ‘A’ compensation at the rate of Rs. 4.13 per sq.  yd.; for  block ‘B’ at the rate of Rs. 2.43 per sq. yd.  and  for block  ‘C’  at  Rs.  1.65 per  sq.  yd.   The   dissatisfied claimants took the matter in reference to the  Addl.District Judge,  Hissar  who maintained the belting, but  raised  the compensation for block ‘A’ to Rs. 10 per sq. yd., block  ‘B’ to Rs. 6 per sq. yd. and block ‘C’ to Rs. 4.50 per sq. yd.      When the matter was taken up in First Appeal before the High Court, it was persuaded to wipe out ‘C’ and confine  it to belting ‘A’ & ‘B’.  The entire evidence was considered by the  High Court meticulously to come to the conclusion  that belt ‘A’ should fetch compensation at the rate of Rs. 23 per sq. yd. and belt ‘B’ Rs. 16 per sq. yd.  Still                                                        3 not satisfied the claimants/appellants by special leave have approached this Court for further enhancement.      The goal of the appellants is that the belting as  such should  go  and the land should uniformally be  assessed  to compensation  at  the  rate  of Rs.  42  per  sq.  yd.   The foundation  for the argument in the first instance  is  that the  acquired  land  comprises of  a  large  area,  situated alongside  the G.T. Road leading from Delhi to  Hissar  town in a strip approximately 3 kms. in length on the other  side of  which was the railway line.  It was also commented  that the  belting had been done in a haphazard way.   Keeping  in regard the nature of the land, it was asserted that the land having  been acquired for building purposes, its quality  as agricultural  land should not have weighed with  the  courts below  and  compensation should  have  assessed  uniformally space-wise.  These arguments does not appeal to us.   Though the  acquisition of ground space is the object in view,  yet the tiller’s affect to keep his land more productive  cannot be  lost  sight of in awarding compensation.   In  fact  the belting has kept in regard the quality of the land. This  is the  reason for its appearing to be a haphazard line on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

plan.  On  the second limb of the argument, that  it  should have  fetched  uniform  rate of  compensation,  we  find  no supportive  material  on record and done  has  been  pressed before  us on which we could change the decision, merely  on the  comment that belting is normally not resorted  to.   We are not persuaded in the instant case to discard the belting system and lean towards uniformity.      The rate of Rs. 42 per sq. yd. is claimed on the  basis that a part of land measuring about 125 sq. yd. which formed part  of  the acquired land, was,  before  the  acquisition, purchased  by a purchaser at the rate of Rs. 42 per sq.  yd. and that was an indication that the land acquired would have fetched Rs. 42 per sq. yd.  The High Court had rejected  the contention  of  the appellants taking the  twin  view   that firstly the land involved was small in measure and  secondly it was fully constructed having a house and a godown  facing the  G.  T.  Road itself.  We  find  this  reasoning  sound. Having not been able to persuade us, each of learned counsel for  the  appellants  differently  putforth  that  the  sole instance  which the High Court had rejected had  later  been relied by it in another case pertaining to other land  under acquisition  under the same notification and having  awarded the  rate of Rs. 42 per sq. yd.  We regret our inability  to entertain the argument because there is nothing on record to support  the  same.  The judgement in which  such  view  has statedly  been  taken has not been brought on  record  as  a piece of evidence to be relied upon by the claimants and  no permission has                                                        4 been  sought  to  adduce  additional  evidence.   The   said judgement cannot be used as a precedent even to persuade  us to take the view that the rate should be Rs. 42 per sq.  yd. for  belt  ‘A’  if  not  uniformally.   All  these   factors cumulatively  lead  us to the view that appellants  have  no case  for enhancement and have been  adequately  compensated for the land acquired.  No interference is thus required  in the instant case.      Accordingly  for the view above taken, we  dismiss  the appeals  as  also  the special  leave  petitions.  I.A.  for condonation of delay in SLP unnumbered titled Kanhya Lal  v. State  of Haryana, is dismissed as withdrawn at the  askance of the learned counsel for the appellant.  There shall be no order as to costs in all these cases. V.P.R                                   Appeals dismissed.                                                        5