Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
JOGINDER SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 480-48 OF 1997
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.15798, 15800, 15876, 15896,
16049, 16050, 16051-52 and 15831 of 1967)
O R D E R
Delay condoned , Substitution allowed. Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides,
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 acquiring a long strip of land admeasuring 2916
acres, for digging Panjokhara minor was published on June
24,1982. The Collector in hes award dated September 13, 1982
determined the market value at Rs.26000/- for Abbi lands,
Rs.20,000/- for barani lands and Rs.10,000/- in respect of
gairmumkin land. On reference under section 18, the
Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.
93,000/- per acre for abbi land, Rs.84,000/- per acre
for banami land and Rs.,50,000/- per acre for gairmumkin
land. On appeal by the claimant, the learned single single
Judge awarded uniform rate of value and determined the
cmpensation at uniform rate of Rs. 93,000/- per acre in
respect of all the lands. Letters Ptent Appeal filed by the
State ws dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by this order in LPA,
the appellants have fled this appeal by special leave.
The only question is: whether the learned Judge was
right in awarding uniform date of compensation? Though the
State had filed an appeal in the High Court questioning the
market value determined by the District Judge at aforestated
rates , it has placed no material before us to adjudge
whether the market value given by the District Judge was
correct in law. As regards potentiality of the land for
urban purposes, as found by the High Court, the District
Judge in his award dealt with in extenso in paragraph 14 of
the judgment as under:
"As regards the oral evidence
produced by the petitioners to show
that the acquired land had great
potential value for commercial and
residential purposes I am of the
opinion that the said oral evidence
produced by the petitioners is not
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
sufficient to hold that the
acquired land had any potential
value to be used for commercial or
residential purposes. The acquired
land is out side the municipal
limits and is towards the west of
Ambala town. Merely because the
Government godowns or the railway
station are a same distance from
the acquired land would be no
ground to hold that the acquired
land would be no ground to hold
that the acquired land had any
potential value unless there is
cogent evidence to show that there
was over all development towards
that side, similar is the position
with regards to Lyalpur Basti in as
much as the said Basti is at some
distance from the acquired land as
stated by PW3 Prem Nath the said
Basti is within municipal limits.
Similarly, the existence of
Agricultural research institute
towards the acquired land would
also not show that the acquired
land has any potential value. RW I
Yogdhian Patwari, admitted the
distance of Ram Dass Nagar at some
distance from the acquired land and
in my opinion the existence of the
said Ram Dass Nagar would not show
that the acquired land had any
potential value. There is no cogent
evidence on the record to show that
there was any general development
of Ambala city towards to acquired
land not there is any evidence on
the record to show that the
acquired land was connected by any
important road. The Ambala Patiala
road known as Kapuri road which
goes from Ambala to Patiala via a
short out through the villages,
only bifurcates the acquired land
at a particular point where as the
acquired land is along strip of
land which had been acquired for
construction of Panjokhra Minor.
Even otherwise, there is no
evidence on the record to show that
there was any development on the
said Kapuri Road. The existence of
the Kapuri Road and the location of
the acquired land is clear from the
ask Shajra Ex. R.I. produced on the
record on behalf of the State.
Accordingly I hold that the
acquired land had no potential
value of any kind and was pure and
simple agricultural land.
In that view of the matter, it was held that the lands
are agricultural lands and, therefore. the lands bore no
potentiality as on the date of the notification for being
used for building purposes. However, the opinion of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
learned single Judge was thus:
"I have carefully gone through the
site plan produced on the record
and am of the view that the entire
area is in the close vicinity of
the Ambala City and its Municipal
boundary. Although at the present
moment crops are being sown but on
the given facts, it can be hardly
disputed that the land covered by
the acquisition had potential for
urbanpurposes."
The finding, therefore, is a mere opinion of the
learned single Judge without any discussion of the factual
matrix, as was done by the District Judge. When the canal is
passing through several lands, what is material to be taken
note of is. what would be the price the land was capable to
fetch as on the date of Section 4(1) notification in an open
market between willing vender and willing vender. The High
Court took into account future developments.
Accordingly, we set aside the order and confirm that of
District Judge as regards determination of the compensation
by the District Judge at the rates mentioned hereinbefore.
In paragraph 15, The learned Judge has relied upon similar
award, Ex.P3 dated September 4, 1984 with regard to the
lands in village Singhwala about which he stated that the
distance between the lands in the present village and the
Singhwala is hardly 5 to 6 kilas. Under these circumstances
and in the absence of any evidence placed before us. WE are
left with no option but to affirm the award of the District
Judge.
The order of the High Court stands set aside. The award
of the District Judge stands confirmed. The learned single
Judge has also awarded interest on solatium. In view of the
decision of this Court, the claimants are not entitled to
interest or solatium and to that extent also it stands set
aside.
The appeals are accordingly allowed but in the
circumstances without costs.