Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
JHANDOO (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (6)98
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal arises from the judgment dated July 23,
1984 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court made in
RFA No.281 of 1979.
Notification under Section 4 [1] of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the "Act"] acquiring a
large extent of land was published on March 8, 1957. The
land of the appellant admeasuring one biga and 14 biswas
formed part of that land. Reference Court relying upon
judgment of the High Court in A.N. Bhandari v. Union of
India [LPA No.81 of 1979 decided on May 1, 1990] awarded
compensation @ Rs.10/- per square yard. On appeal, it was
confirmed. The High Court relied upon a single sale deed in
similar case in which market value had been fixed @ Rs.12/-
per square yard. Therefore, the appellant also claimed that
rate. Since he was not awarded the rate claimed by him, he
has filed appeal in this Court challenging the impugned
judgment of the High Court.
Shri Juneja, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the High Court, having found that the market
value of the land in question could fetch was Rs.12/- per
square yard, would have granted compensation at that rate.
Though prima facie we find the contention plausible and
acceptable, in view of the legal position that at least
1/3rd of the market value has to be deduced towards
development charges and that the said consideration was not
adopted in the case on which reliance is placed, the fact
boils down that if the award is to be interfered with, the
appellant would get less than what has been granted to him
by the High Court. However, since the State has not filed
any appeal and in the facts and circumstances of the case,
we are of the view that it is not a case warranting
interference.
The appeal under Section 54 of the Act would not lie to
this Court. A reading of Section 54 would clearly indicate
that the appeal shall lie in any proceedings under the act
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
only to the High Court against the award and decree of the
reference Court and further appeal to this Court would be
under Article 136 of the Constitution read with Section 11,
CPC. by way of special leave and not under Section 54 of the
Act.
Accordingly, this appeal cannot be treated to be an
appeal under Section 54 of the Act but one by special leave
under Article 136. In either case, we do not find any ground
warranting interference. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No
costs.