Singh & Anr Vs. State of Punjab 
INSC 160 (1 March 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
1995 AIR 2283 1995 SCC (3) 333 JT 1995 (3) 87 1995 SCALE (2)235
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994, was published
on Feb. 15, 1979, acquiring 4.5 acres of land for
establishing a Milk Chilling-cum- Demonstration Centre at Village Sardulgarh in
Bhatinda District of Punjab State. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award
dated March 23, 1979, awarded a sum of Rs.13,816/- per
acre as compensation. On reference, the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, by
decree dated April 30
1981, enhanced the
compensation to Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. On appeal under Section 54 by the
State, the High Court in R.F.A. No. 1065 of 1981 and batch, by its order dated September 15, 1982, reduced the compensation to Rs.30,000/-
per acre. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the appellants
filed these appeals by special leave.
Prem Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has strenuously
contended that the sale-deed (Ex.Al to A5) and Mutation Proceedings (Ex.A7 to
A16) would show that the market value ranged between Rs3,12,000/- to Rs.
1,08,000/-. He submitted that the High Court was not justified in relying upon
the solitary mutation proceedings noted in the judgment to determine the
compensation at Rs.30,000/per acre, We find no -force in this contention.
seen that under the unamended Act, by operation of Section 9, the claimant or
the owner is enjoined to make claim giving particulars of the claim. Section 25
of the Act, as originally stood, provided that in a case where a claim is made
the amount awarded by the court shall not ex- ceed the amount claimed or less
than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. This is by operation
of sub- section (1) of Section 25. But in case where the claim was not made,
sub-section (2) operated and held the field. Sub- section (2) Section 25 read thus
the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient
reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by
the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector."
Thus, it can be seen that in a case where the applicant had omitted to make the
claim, then the court had not jurisdiction 88 to award the compensation in
excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. In these cases, no claim had
been admittedly made by the appellants.
provision was not noted by the High Court. The High Court, by referring to the
mutation proceedings in which the market value was shown to be ranging between
Rs.9,400/- to Rs. 14,000/- per acre had enhanced the compensation to
Rs.30,000/- per acre. That appeal was allowed to become final; and so nothing
can be done with the market value as fixed by the High Court. But these appeals
are dismissed in view of the statutory prohibition contained in sub-section (2)
Section 25 of the Act. We make no order as to costs.