Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
PAIMDER SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (5) 310 1995 SCALE (4)726
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
S.L.P. Nos. 2397, 2620 & 2622 OF 1990
O R D E R
The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) acquiring a
large extent of land for development of Delhi city was
published on 6th April, 1964. The Land Acquisition Officer
awarded compensation @ Rs.5,000/- and Rs. 4,500/- per bigha
by his award No.87 of 1980-81. On reference, the Civil
Court, viz., the Additional District Judge, enhanced it by
his award and decree dated 30th August, 1983 to Rs.7,260/-
and Rs.7,000/- per bigha respectively. On appeal, the High
Court by the impugned judgment dated 22nd August, 1989 made
in R.F.A. No.52/89 and batch uniformly enhanced the market
value to Rs.12,000/- per bigha. Feeling aggrieved, this
petition has been filed for further enhancement to
Rs.25,000/ per bigha.
The learned counsel for the petitioners states that
these lands relate to village Madanpur Khadar. He contends
that for the adjacent lands in village Badarpur and
Molarband, the Reference Court and the High Court enhanced
the compensation to Rs.43,000/- per bigha etc. Therefore,
the High Court was not justified in confining the market
value to Rs.12,000/- per bigha.
We have gone through the judgments in those cases.
Reliance was placed on the circular, issued obviously under
Section 48 of the Stamp Act, by the Central Government
fixing the market value for the purpose of registration at
Rs.60/- per sq. yard. This Court has considered the entire
gamut of the operation of the relevant provisions of Stamp
Act and S.23 (1) of the Act and held that the fixation by
the Government of the amount under Stampt Act for fiscal
purpose bears no relevance to determine the market value
under Section 23 (1) of the Act. The claimant aliunde need
to establish the prevailing market value as on the date of
the notification under Section 4 (1) by adduction of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
evidence to prove the acquired land and the land covered by
sale transactions bear similar or same potentialities or
advantageous features. The courts below have relied only on
the circular issued by the Government for fiscal purpose,
viz., for stamp duty. The contra view taken by the High
Court in that behalf is clearly illegal and the same cannot
form basis for further enhancement. De hors the above
judgment, there is no other evidence to enhance further
compensation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the
judgment of the High Court in relation to the motification
dated 5th July, 1973 in which the compensation was awarded @
Rs.68,000/- per bigha for village Tughlakabad. That is also
founded upon the circular issued by the Government on 26th
March, 1966 referred to earlier and relates to a
notification issued after about 10 years of the notifiction
at hand. So this judgment also renders little assistance.
Accordingly, the special leave petitions are dismissed.