Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
JAI PRAKASH AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/03/1997
BENCH:
CJI, SUHAS C. SEN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 2044 to 2052, 2056, 2058, 2091,
2055, 2057, 2059, 2060 to 2065, 2068 to 2079, 2080-84, 2085
to 2089, 2066, 2067 AND 2090 OF 1997.
(Arising out of Special Leave petitions (c) Nos.7902, 7919,
7920, 7921, 7922, 7923, 7984, 7985, 7979, 74, 7986 & 13192
of 1986, 808, 2421, 4489, 3748, 4247, 4241, 4216,4234, 4270,
4337, 4325, 2821, 4825, 5440, 13086-92, 5536-5536D, 6762,
2644, 10238, 9659 & 13177 of 1988, 7419 of 1989 and 55 of
1990, & 13757/86)
J U D G M E N T
SEN, J.
Leave granted.
This group of appeals relates to assessment of
compensation for land acquired in the village Keshopur by
the Union of India by two notifications dated 13.11.1959 and
the other dated 24.10.1961. under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
So far as the land acquired under notification dated
13.11.1959 was concerned, the Land Acquisition Collector
divided the acquired land into two Blocks -A and B - and
fixed compensation for Block A land at Rs.600/- per bigha
and for Block B land at Rs.300/- per bigha. On reference
under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge
raised the amount of compensation to Rs.3,500/- per bigha
for Block A and Rs.3,000/- per bigha for Block B.
The High Court took into consideration various factors
including compensation for similar lands acquired by the
Government where compensation was fixed at a much higher
rate. The High Court noticed that the instances cited by the
appellants were of the land situated in Chokhandi, whereas
the dispute of the present case related to lands in a
different village keshopur. The High Court also took into
notice from the facts produced before it that in the
neighbourhood of this village prices of the lands were
showing an upward trend. The lands were being bought and
sold by people for purposes of building houses. Small plots
were being sold. Sale of small plots indicated that the land
in village keshopur had potentiality as a building site. The
High Court, therefore, was of the view that no distinction
should be drawn between the land falling under Block A and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
Block B. The High Court, therefore, fixed market value of
the land acquired pursuant to the notification dated
13.11.1959 at Rs.7000/- per bigha.
For the land acquired pursuant to the notification
dated 24.101961, the Land Acquisition Collector had divided
the land into three Blocks - Block A, Block B and Block C -
and fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/-,
Rs.600/- and Rs.400/- per bigha respectively. On reference
the Additional District Judge fixed the market value on the
same basis as he had done for the land acquired under the
previous notification dated 13.11.1959.
The High Court, however, raised the compensation to Rs.
8,000/- per bigha and gave the following directions:-
"In addition to the market value
the appellants will be entitled to
an additional amount at the rate of
15% per annum on the market value
in terms of section 23 (1-A) as
amended by the Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Act, 1984 from the date
of notification under section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act (the Act)
till the date of the making of the
award or taking possession,
whichever is earlier. The
appellants will be further entitled
to solatium at the rate of 30% on
the market value under the amended
law.
Further the appellants will be
entitled to interest at the rate of
9% per annum for a period of one
year from the date of taking
possession and thereafter at the
rate of 15% per annum till payment
on the excess amount, that is, the
amount which was increased by the
Addl. District Judge and now by
this court because that is the
excess in terms of section 28 of
the Act as amended. Whatever has
already been paid either towards
the market value or solatium or
interest will be deducted.
As there is a difference of
more than three years between the
notification under s.4 (13.11.1959)
and the declaration under s.6
(17.8.64) of the Act in R.F.A.
369/70 (Jai Prakash v. Union of
India) the appellants in R.F.A.
369/70 will also be entitled to
interest at rate of 6% per annum on
the market value of the land under
s.4(3) of the Land Acquisition
(Amendment and Validation) Act,
1967 provided there is no
overlapping in the payment of
interest under s.28 of the Act and
s.4(3) of the Amendment Act of
1967. They will also be entitled to
proportionate costs.
In R.F.A. 527/70 the
appellants will be entitled to
costs. However they will not be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
entitled to the amount of court fee
on Rs.1,10,160/- which they have
paid on solatium."
The Union of India has not preferred any appeal against
the direction to pay interest and solatium under the amended
provisions.
The contention of the appellants is that valuable lands
of the appellants have been taken away by the Government at
a throwaway price fixed in an arbitrary manner. The
appellants derive their livelihood from the land. The land
having been taken away, they have been rendered Jobless. The
High Court failed to realise the lass caused by acquisition
proceedings.
It has been further argued on behalf of the appellants
that lands situated in adjoining areas have also been
acquired by the Union of India for which the Trial Court
assessed the market value at the rate of Rs.9000/- per bigha
which was raised by the High Court to Rs.15000/- per bigha
(R.F.A. No. 159/1972 - Shri Attar Singh & Ors. v. Union of
India). There is no Justification for the High Court for
valuing the appellants’ land situated in the adjoining
village of Keshopur at Rs.8000/- per bigha. The land at
keshopur has the same economic potentialities as the land
situated in Chaukhandi.
The valuation of the land at chaukhandi has been done
on the basis of the area of the land in question and its
potential value. It has been pointed out in the Judgments
that the land had two well developed colonies where
buildings had come up. Therefore, having regard to the
proximity of the surrounding colonies as well as the
potential value of the land in question, the High Court
valued the lands at chaukhandi at Rs.15000/- per bigha.
There is nothing to indicate that land which has been
acquired at keshopur has the same market potential as the
land at Chaukhandi. Several sale deeds were taken into
consideration by the High Court. Merely because in some
neighbouring villages, valuation has been made at a higher
rate, it cannot be said that the appellants must also be
given same rate of compensation.
On behalf of the respondents, our attention has been
drawn to a case - Sukhlal (dead) through Lrs. v. Union of
India & Ors. (S.L.P. No. 4149/1988) where in a similar case
the High Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.8000/-
per bigha. This Court dismissed the special Leave petition
against the enhancement of the compensation on the ground
that similar enhancements fixing Rs.8000/- per bigha as
compensation had already been approved by this Court in a
number of other cases.
We are of the view that the order under appeal passed
by the High Court does not call for interference. Merely
because higher compensation was given for lands situated in
a neighbouring village does not entitle the appellants to
get the same compensation. The High Court has taken into
consideration all the same compensation. The High Court has
taken into consideration all the relevant facts like the
size of the plot, location, potential value of the land and
also a few relevant sale. deeds. No error of law has been
shown to have been committed by the High Court.
We are, therefore, of the view that there is no merit
in this appeal. The appeal. The appeal is dismissed. There
will be no order as to costs.
CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 2044-2052, 2056, 2058, 2091, 2055, 2057,
2059, 2060-2065, 2068 - 2079, 2080-2084, 2085-2089, 2066,
2076 AND 2090 of 1997.
(Arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 7902, 7919,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
7920, 7921, 7922, 7922, 7923, 7984, 7985, 7979, 74, 7986 &
13192 of 1986, 808, 2421, 4489, 3748, 4247, 4241, 4216, 4234
4270, 4347, 4325, 2821, 4825, 5440, 13086-92, 5536-5536D,
6762, 2644, 10238, 9656 & 13177 of 1988, 7419 of 1989 and 55
of 1990) & 13573/86).
In view of our judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2043 of
1997 (Arising out of S.L.P. No. 81 of 1986), these appeals
are also dismissed with no order as to costs.