http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANGATU RAM ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G. B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Saghir Ahmad               Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik N.N. Goswami, V.C. Mahajan,  G.L. Sanghi, Sr. Advs., S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ms. Anil Katiyar, ms. Niranjana Singh, Satpal Singh, K.P. Mittal, M.S. Dahiya and Prem Malhotra, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.                          O R D E R Following order of the Court was delivered:                             WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3817-3947, 4195-4207, 3951/97 (Arising out of  SLP   (C)  Nos.  14176/97,    1545-1662/95,16892-902/96, 19017/95,     19100-112/94,    19153-162/95,  212771-819/97, 4535/97,  5222-31/95, 7285-90/97, 8255-56/95, 8823-48/96 and 9144-50/97)                          O R D E R In CA  Nos. 3816, 3818-35, 4070-4139, 3947,4157-58, 4036/69, 4033-35,  3936-46/97  @  SLP  Nos.  1013,  1545-1662,  3004- 73,19017, 8255-56/95, 2947-80, 2920-22 and 16892-902/96)      Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.      Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (for short,  the ’Act’) was published no June 18, 1984. The  Land Acquisition  Collector Classified  the lands into blocks,   viz.,  A. B. C and D and awarded compensation at the  rate of  Rs.60,000/-, Rs.  40,000/- Rs.25,000/-  and Rs.15,000/- respectively.   The  total of  3781 kanals and 2 marlas   and 1138  kanals and 11 marlas of land was acquired and compensation   was  accordingly   granted.  On reference under Section  18. The  Additional District Judge classified the lands  as  Classes  "A’ and ’B’ awarded the compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/-  for class  ’A’ and @ Rs. 50,000/- for Class ’B’. on  appeal. the  learned single Judge of the High Court granted uniform   rate of compensation  @ Rs.1,05,000/-. The Division     Bench  heard  L.P.A  No.664/91  and  batch  and dismissed the  appeals on  January 5,  1994.    Thus,  these appeals by special leave.      The question  that arises for consideration is: whether the view  of the  High Court in not  making any belting  and granting uniform  rates of compensation for all the lands is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

correct principle  of law?  We find  that the High Court has adopt absolutely  incorrect principle  of law.   It  is seen that several  fake deeds  have been  filed, in particular as per Ex.  BA spoken  through PW-3,   16.7 kanals of land were sold for Rs.1,40,000/- It is settled legal position  that it is the  duty of  the court  to sit  in the  arm chair  of  a willing and  prudent purchaser  and  seek    answer  to  the question whether  he   would purchase  the lands offered for sale with  the existing features,  at the same  market value proposed by  the Court.  It is also settled law that  though determination involves  some  guess  work,    it  must  have reasonable  basis  and  feats  of  imagination    should  be eschewed.   It is   salutary  duty of   the  court to  award reasonable and  adequate compensation.   The  plan has  been placed before  us.   The Land Acquisition officer has marked the lands  in red   colour the lands  classification  as ’A’ and ’B’ class lands  in green colour.      The question  that arises for consideration is: whether the belting is necessary in the circumstances of these cases ?   when a large extent of land under acquisition  comprises of lands   of  several persons  and some  lands are abutting the main   road  and some  lands   are in the  interior, the same would  nor have  the uniforms  rate  of  market  value. Necessarily,   reasonable demarcation/classification  should be  made     before    determination  of  the  compensation. Accordingly, we  justified the  classification  of the lands into category  ’A’ and ’B’. The Land Acquisition officer has mentioned the  total extent  of the  land in  his respective awards.   Since the lands are admittedly abutting the Delhi- Hissar National  Highway by-pass, the same would necessarily be granted  a higher market value than the lands situated in the interior.   Accordingly,  we are  of the view  the lands situated around  500 yards  from the  main  road  should  be classified as ’A’ class land  irrespective of the quality of the land,  i.e.,    whether  it  is  Nehari,  Chahi,  Banjar Quadium, Banjar  Jadid or  Gair Mumkin,  the uniform rate of compensation at  Rs.1,00,000/- per acre would  be granted to such lands.   For  the rest  of the  ’A’  Class  lands,  the compensation  would  be  at  Rs.60,000/-  per  acre.  Banjar Quadim, Banjar Jadid and Gair Mumkin lands are classified as ’B’ class  lands and  for that land, the compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per  acre would be reasonable,  just and adequate compensation.      Shri G.L. Sanghi,  learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants,   contends that if a claimant does not seek a reference under  Section   18 and  if the  award is  made in respect  of   other  persons     covered   under  the   same notification and  they secured  enhanced compensation,   the respondents should  not be  put in a worse off position that such persons  in that  behalf.  He seeks  to places reliance on judgment  of this Court as an instance of confirmation of the enhancement  of compensation  by way of dismissal of the special leave  petition.   and contends  that demarcation of the land  into class  ’A’ and Class ’B’ and the awarding the compensation at different rates would be arbitrary violating Article 14  of the   constitution.  We find  no force in the contention.      It is  equally settled  law  that  Article  14  has  no application vis-a-vis  determination of the compensation for the obvious  reason that  it is hardly possible that all the lands are equal in all respects; Therefore, all the lands do not command  the same  market value  when they are sold to a willing purchaser by a willing vendor in the open market.      Under these circumstances, the  doctrine of equality in the matter  of payment  of compensation  under Article 14 is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

inapplicable. Accordingly, we hold that for ’B’ Class lands, the compensation  would be  at the  Rate of  Rs.30,000/- per acre. The claimants are entitled to the solatium at the rate of 30%  on the enhanced compensation. They are also entitled to interest  @ 9%  from for one year from the date of taking possession and  thereafter at the date of  taking possession and  thereafter   at  the   rate  of  15%  on  the  enhanced compensation.   In addition, they are entitled to additional amount at  12% per  annum under Section  23(1-A) of the Act. The High  Court   had not  kept this  perspective in view in determining the  compensation and  thereby it  had committed manifest error of law  warranting interference.      The appeals  are accordingly  allowed. The order of the reference Court  is modified  to the  extent indicated above and the  claimants shall  be paid  all the  amount,  if  not already paid within a period of four months from the date of the judgment.  No costs. IN CA NO. 4153 OF 1997 (@ SLP (C) NO. 7287/97)      Leave granted.      Notification  under   section  4(1)   of  the  Act  was published on  June 18, 1984. The collector made his award on 1.2.1986 under  Section 11  of the  Act.  On reference,  the Additional District  Judge by  his award  and  decree  dated March 28,  1989.   enhanced the  compensation.    A  written application   was filed  by some  other persons; their lands were also  covered by  the said  notification,  but they had not sought  reference under section 18. The application came to be  filed on  June 24,1989.   Section  28-a postulates as under:      "Re-determination of  the amount of      compensation on  the basis  of  the      award of the Court- (1) where in an      award under  this  Part,  the Court      allows to  the applicant any amount      awarded  by   the  Collector  under      section 11,  the persons interested      in all  the other  land covered  by      the     same   notification   under      Section  4, sub-section (1) and who      are also  aggrieved by the award of      the Collector  made an  application      to the Collector under section  18,      by  written   application  to   the      collector   within   three   months      require   that    the   amount   of      compensation payable  to  them  may      be re-determined  on the  basis  of      the amount  of compensation awarded      by the court:           Provided that in computing the      period of three months within which      an application   to  the  Collector      shall  be   made  under  this  sub-      section ,   the  day on  which  the      award was   pronounced and the time      requisite for  obtaining a  copy of      the  award shall be excluded."      A reading  thereof  would  clearly  indicate  that  the persons  interested  who  had  not  sought  reference  under Section  18   but  whose   land  is   covered  by  the  same notification  published  under  section  4(1)  and  who  are aggrieved by the acquisition, are entitled to make a written application   to the  Collector within three months from the date  of   the  award   of  the   reference  Court  for  re-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

determination of  the compensation.   Admittedly,  since the application  under section  28-A of the Act had been made on June 24,  1989 within  three months,  he is  entitled to the same compensation  awarded by  the reference  court  in  its award and decree dated April 3, 1989 as affirmed by the High Court on appeal.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. In CA NOS. 4151-52, 4154-56, 4140,4185-91, 4010-32/97 (@ SLP  (C) Nos.  7285-86,  7288-90,  4535,  9144-50/97  and 25319-41/96)      Leave granted.      Notification  under   Section  4(1)   of  the  Act  was published on  June 18,1984.  The Collector made his award on January 21,  1986  under  Section  11.  On  reference  under section 18,  at the  instance of some of the  claimants, the reference Court,  by its  award and  decree dated  April  3, 1989,  enhanced   the  compensation.  On  appeal,    it  was confirmed. The  application  seeking re-determination of the compensation under  section  28-A(1)  came  to  be  made  on 24.4.1989.   Thus, it  is seen  that  by  operation  of  the limitation   prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 28- A, since  the written application was not filed within three months from   the  date of the award of the reference Court. The application   is barred by limitation.  The Compensation granted  by   the  Collector   on  the  basis  of  the  said application is  clearly illegal.  Therefore, the view of the High Court also is incorrect.      The  appeals  are  accordingly  allowed.  But,  in  the circumstances, without costs. In CA No. 3817 of 1997 (@ SLP (C) No. 14176/97)      Leave granted.      In respect  of the  notification published  on June 18, 1984, the Collector made his award on January 31, 1986 under Section 11.   On  reference under section 18 at the instance of some  claimants, the  reference Court,   by its award and decree dated  November 21,  1988, enhanced the compensation. The application  under Section  28-A was filed on October 1, 1991.   The written application can be filed by some who had not sought  the reference under Section 18.  Though they are entitled  to make the application, the application should be filed within three months from the  date of the award of the reference   Court excluding the time taken for obtaining the certified copy  of the  award as              provided under proviso to    Section  28-A.  Since  the  application  under section 28-A  was filed  beyond   three months, on the above facts, the  same is  barred by limitation.  The award of the enhanced compensation  to the  respondents in this appeal is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  order of  the reference Court  as well  as of  the High  court  stand  set aside.  No costs. In CA Nos. 4195-07,3961-4009,3951-60,4141-50,4159-84/97 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 19100-112,21771-819/94, 19153-62, 5222-31/95 and 8823-48/96)      Leave granted.      These appeals  are in  the nature  of cross  appeal and relate to further enhancement of the compensation granted by the High court.      In view  of the  fact that the Union of India’s appeals have been allowed,  these appeals stand dismissed. No costs.