Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
BALDEV SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (6)42
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act 1 of 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’) was published on
January 29, 1982 acquiring a total extent of 193 kanals 3
marlas of land situated in village Lamin in Punjab State for
construction of Hydel Channel. The Land Acquisition
Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.16,000/-
per acre and also awarded 5% additional amount thereon with
solatium and interest. On reference the Additional District
Judge in his award and decree dated December 13, 1983
enhanced the compensation to Rs.30,000/- per acre. On
appeal, the High Court reduced the compensation to the
amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector by judgment
and decree dated February 25, 1985. Thus, this appeal by
special leave.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the High Court has committed grievous error
in reducing the compensation from Rs.30,000/-to Rs.16,000/-
per acre. It is contended that Exts.A-12 and 13, the sale
deeds of February 12, 1981 and 30th March, 1981 respectively
executed one year prior to the date of acquisition would
show that the market value of which land commanded was
Rs.40,000/- per acre; even the sale deeds Ex.A-14 dated
March 23, 1981, Ex.A-15 dated July 1, 1981 which
commanded market value was Rs.60,000/-, though of
smaller extent of 5 bighas each; hence, the market value
will not less than Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the additional
District Judge was right in granting compensation at the
rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre. In support thereof, he placed
reliance also on another judgment in respect of land in the
neighboring village wherein the same learned Judge had
confirmed the market value at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per
acre in respect of the cultivable Chahi land. We find no
force in the contention of the learned counsel. It is seen
that none of the persons connected with documents Ex.A-12 to
15 has been examined. It would also be seen that one Kanal
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
was sold in the same village under Exts.A-12 and 13
respectively which worked out to Rs.40,000/- per acre or Rs.
5,000/- per kanal. The High Court has rightly pointed out
that no prudent cultivator would purchase one kanal of land
for the purpose of cultivation. In other words, the purchase
for the purpose of cultivation would be uneconomical and not
valid one. Looked at from another angle, it is common
knowledge that it would take long time for publication of
the notification under section 4(1). In the meanwhile it
would be known to the villagers that. the land would be
under acquisition. Therefore, it would be obvious that these
documents were brought into existence to inflate the market
value. Obvious, therefore, none of the persons connected
with the documents has been examined. There is no proof of
passing of the consideration thereunder or the circumstances
in which the documents came to be executed. Under these
circumstances, all the documents are inadmissible in
evidence and cannot be looked into. If they are excluded,
the only other evidence is the oral evidence. It is not in
dispute that. the land situated in the neighbouring village
and acquired for the same purpose fetched compensation at
the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre in respect of the Chahi
land and Rs.9,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for Baravi land etc.
That. judgment of the High Court has become final. Under
those circumstances, the High Court was well justified in
relying upon that document and in upholding the award of
the. Collector but with modification as indicated;
"The Land Acquisition
Collector has not been able to
point out any distinction between
the value of land in village Uchi
Bassi, this Court has allowed
market price for Chahi land at the
rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre, and
still lesser for inferior quality
of agricultural land. Hence it will
be safe to rely on the judicial
instance coupled with the State
instances Exhibit. RW3/3, to RW3/7.
However, the Land Acquisition
Collector was not right in giving
different value for Chahi and Nahri
land, which are generally treated
of the award of the Court below and
restore the award of the Land
Acquisition Collector and also
restore the value fixed by the Land
Acquisition Collector except for
Nahri land and fix the market value
as follows:
Chahi/Nahri Rs.16,000/- per acre
Barani Rs.10,000/- per acre
Banjar Qadim Rs.8,000/- per acre
Gair mumkin Rs.6,000/- per acre"
In addition, 4% of the aforesaid amount was the Court
allowed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In addition the
Court also granted the benefit under the Amendment Act 68 of
1984. Under the circumstances, we do not think there is any
error of law in judgment. The judgment in another case which
is not a part of the record nor was brought on record and
filing of an application under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C.
cannot be looked into for that reason. Under these
circumstances, the judgement cannot be relied upon.
The appeal is according dismissed but in the
circumstances without costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3