Singh & Ors Vs. Union of India  INSC 328 (25 July 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
1995 SCC Supl. (3) 315 JT 1995 (6) 100 1995 SCALE (4)695
25TH DAY OF JULY, 1995 Present:
Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. S. Paripoornan Mr. U.N.Bachawat
and Mr. K.Madhava Reddy, Sr. Advs. Mr. Ranbir Yadav, Mr. P. Gaur, Mr. Rishi Kesh,
Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Advs., (Mr. Manoj Prasad, Mr. H.M.Singh, Mr. Anis Ahmed
Khan, and Mr. J.D.Jain, Advs. (Not Present) Advs. with them for the appearing
following Order of the Court was delivered:
Singh & Ors. etc. etc. Union of India
etc. etc. And C.A. NOS 2525, 2524, 2970, 2823, 1895/80, 1577, 3112 1376/81
3151/80 3758/82 1784/81 1375/81 AND 7048/95 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.
2161/81) ORDER C.A. No.2130 of 1980 Notification under s.4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act was published on November 13, 1959 acquiring 1876 Bighas 9 Biswas
land situated in Jwalaharior planned development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition
Collector classified the lands as A,B, C block and awarded @ Rs. 1400/- and
Rs.1000/- per bigha respectively. On reference under s.18 of the Act, the
Additional District Judge by his Award and Decree dated September 8, 1979
further enhanced the compensation to Rs.4250/- 3200/- and 2150/- per bigha
respectively. The High Court, on appeal, further enhanced the compensation to
Rs.5250/- 4000/- and 3000/- respectively. Not being satisfied with the enhanced
compensation awarded by the High Court, the claimants have filed these appeals
under s.54 of the Act claiming enhanced compensation @ Rs.9.000/- per bigha.
High Court found that there are no sale transactions in the village Jwalahari
other than one sale transaction in village Madipur which is said to be adjacent
to the village Jwalahari that sale deed was dated April 20, 1959 just before the Notification. An extent of 1472.22 sq.
yards was sold in Khasra No.828 for a consideration of Rs.7726/- which worked
out at Rs.5250/- per bigha. Based thereon, the High Court has enhanced the
compensation. It is now a settled principle that the price of a small extent of
land cannot form the sole basis for fixation of higher compensation when a
large track of land is acquired. Since the State did not file any appeal. we
need not go into the correctness of the finding recorded by the High Court.
it to state that there is no other evidence on record for us to further enhance
next contended that the High Court having made a distinction between the owner
and the mortgagee and enhanced 25% extra compensation to the owner, committed a
grave error of law in not awarding the same to the appellants. We find no
discernible principle made by the High Court to further enhance 25% more to the
owner while awarding the market value to the mortgagee. Under these
circumstances, we do not find any legal principle warranting further
enhancement of 25% extra compensation. The appeals are accordingly dismissed
but, in the circumstances, without costs.
application for substitutions consolidation and reduction of security are
Nos. 2525, 2524, 2970, 2823, 1895/80, 1577, 3112, 1376/81 3151/80 3758/82
1784/81 1375/81 and C.A.
granted in S.L.P. No. 2161 of 1981.
the order made just now in C.A. 2130/80 these appeals shall stand dismissed. NO