Chand & Ors. Vs. Union of India  INSC 237 (30 March 2010)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2856 OF
2010 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 6178 OF 2005) Prem Chand & Ors. ...
Appellants Versus Union of India ... Respondent
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein
the High Court has awarded the land acquisition compensation @ Rs.39,300/- per
bigha. The High Court relied on its earlier judgment without citing the same
wherein it had fixed the land acquisition compensation @ Rs.34,150/- per bigha
in respect of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
dated 19.08.1976. On that basis, the High Court, considering the difference of
1-1/2 years, enhanced the amount at the rate 2 of 10 per cent per year and thus
granted compensation @ Rs.39,300/- per bigha.
The concerned lands are from village Dallupura which have been
acquired by the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated
22.03.1978 which ripened into the Notification under Section 6 dated
27.09.1978. The High Court, however, specifically ordered that the appellants
would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land
Acquisition Act (hereafter `the Act').
Shri P.H. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel pointed out firstly that
the claimants in this case could not have been deprived of the benefit under
Section 23 (1-A) of the Act since the award was passed on 25.02.1983 and it was
pending on 24.09.1984. He invited our attention to the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala & Ors. [1994
(5) SCC 593] wherein this Court had culled out the ratio in paragraph 110 as
For all these reasons the questions raised in these petitions are answered as
Section 23(1-A) providing for additional compensation is attracted in every
case where reference was pending under Section 18 before the Court [Section
additional compensation is payable in appeals pending on or after 24-9-1984
either in High Court or this Court.
Additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) is also payable in all those
cases where the proceedings were pending and the award had not been made by the
Collector on or before 30-4-1982 [Section 30(1)(a)].
Similarly every landowner is entitled to additional compensation where the land
acquiring proceedings started after 30-4- 1982 whether the award by the Collector
was made before 24-9-1984 or not [Section 30(1)(b)].
Accordingly as per the sub-para (3) of paragraph 110, it is clear
that the claimants would be entitled to the compensation under Section 23 (1-
A) read with Section 30 (1) (b) since the award had not been made on or before
30.04.1982. The claimants would, therefore, be entitled to that benefit though
the benefit seems to have been rejected by the High Court without giving any
reasons. That direction of the High court is, therefore, set aside and it is
held that the claimants would be entitled to the benefit under Section 23 (1-A)
of the Act.
However, Shri P.H. Parekh argued that the High Court had erred in
fixing the compensation @ Rs.39,300/- per bigha. He further pointed out that the
claimants herein had moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 4 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, enhancing their claim before the
High Court to Rs.350 per sq. yds. He pointed out that in the case reported as
Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma & Others [2004 (6) SCC 533]
in respect of the villages Kondli, Gharoli and Dallupura, this Court had
awarded compensation @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha.
case, this Court, relying on Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India [1997 (8)
SCC 186] had scaled down the compensation to Rs.76,550/- per bigha from the one
awarded by the High Court @ Rs.3.45 lakh per bigha.
Parekh, therefore, suggests that even the claimants in this case whose lands
have been acquired in Dallupura would be entitled at least to the compensation
@ Rs.76,550/- per bigha. The lands at Dallupra, Kondli and Gharoli have been
held to be identically circumstanced. In fact, in Bali Ram Sharma's case (cited
supra), the Court was dealing with the lands at Gharoli, Kondli and Dallupura
where the High Court had awarded the compensation @ Rs.3.45 lakhs. This Court
did not agree with that and scaled it down to Rs.76,550/-. It is, therefore,
the learned Senior Counsel claims the compensation at least at that rate. It is
to be noted that even in this case, the claimants had claimed the compensation
@ Rs.350/- per bigha by way of an amendment. Shri Parekh pointed out that the
Notification in Bali Ram Sharma's case (cited supra) was dated 17.11.1980 which
is comparable to the Notification in the present case which is dated
22.03.1978. He further pointed out that there is evidence 5 that the lands at
Dallupura, compensation of which is in question in the present appeal, were
actually converted into the plots. He, therefore, claims compensation @
On the other hand, Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing
for the Union of India disputes this and claims that the High Court was right
in fixing the compensation @ 39,300/- per bigha.
On the question of parity, there can be no dispute that the lands
at Kondli, Dallupura and Gharoli are identically circumstanced, as held by this
Court in Bali Ram Sharma's case (cited supra). It would, therefore, be not
proper to grant the compensation at much lesser rate of Rs.39,300/- per bigha.
The learned Counsel also pointed out a decision of this Court to which one of
us, (Cyriac Joseph, J.) was a party reported as Union Of India v. Harpat Singh
& Ors. [2009 (8) SCALE 201]. This Court followed the judgments in Karan Singh's
case (cited supra) and Bali Ram Sharma's case (cited supra) and approved them.
These judgments were in respect of Gharoli, Kondli and Dallupura, where the
compensation was paid @ Rs.76,550/-. He, therefore, urged to maintain the
parity in this case also.
However, it is pointed out by Shri Malhotra that the rate of
Rs.76,550/- is in respect of the Notification dated 17.11.1980 and the 6
Notification in the present case was published only on 22.03.1978 and,
therefore, some allowance would have to be given for that. Shri Malhotra is
undoubtedly right. We, therefore, scale down the compensation by deducting 10
per cent of the rate of Rs.76,550/-. Ordinarily, we would have scaled down by
20 per cent but considering the fact that the lands in this case have been
found to be already developed into plots, we would choose to scale down the
compensation by 10 per cent to the round figure of Rs.69,550/- The compensation
shall be paid @ Rs.69,550 plus the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) read with
Section 30 (1) (b) of the Act.
With these directions, the appeal is allowed in part.
........................................J. (V.S. Sirpurkar)
...........................................J. (Cyriac Joseph)
March 30, 2010.