CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 998 of 1990 PETITIONER: NIKKI RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/01/1995 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY & SUJATA V, MANOHAR JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
1995 (1) SCR 341
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
A notification under s.4(l) was published on June 2,1978 acquiring 21,64
acres of land in Mauli Jagaram village, near Chandigarh for establishment
of a Brick Klin for Chandigarh housing Board. The Land Acquisition
Collector in his award under s.11 of the Act dated July 12, 1978 classified
the land and awarded the compensation between Rs. 21,000 to Rs. 48,000 per
acre. On reference, the Addl. District Judge in his award and decree dated
January 28, 1980 had uniformly enhanced the compensation to Rs. 27,000 per
acre, without agreeing with the classification of the land made by the
Collector. On further appeal under s.54, the High Court by its judgment and
decree dated 17.1.83 in RFA no. 821 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000
per acre. Still not being satisfied, the appellant has come to this Court
by special leave.
The learned counsel Sri L.R. Singh for the appellant has contended that as
early as in 1971 and 1974 the market value of the land was ranging between
Rs. 37,500 to Rs. 62,000 per acre. The High Court ought to have relied on
the awards made by the Court in RFA No. 2608 of 1980 wherein Rs. 3,75,000
per acre was awarded for the acquisition to establish Mani Mazra Motor
Market and Rs. 62,000 per acre was awarded in LPA No. 1207 dated September
22, 1982 wherein the acquisition was near Chandigarh by the side of the
town which is equi-distance of the land under acquisition on the other side
of the road. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the compensation at
Rs. 1 lac per acre. We find no force in the contention. The learned Judge
of the High Court has pointed out in his judgment thus :
“It cannot be disputed that in the area of Chandigarh the prices have been
rising and by the time the acquisition was made in June, 1978, the rise
would have been such that (he value would have been 50,000 per acre. It is
true that in December, 1974 for village Buterla the compensation was
allowed at the rate of Rs. 33,000 per acre, but for the acquisitions made
in 1977-78 the Compensation was allowed at the rate of Rs. 62,000 in
Jaswant Singh’s case (supra). The villages in which acquisitions were made
in Jaswant Singh’s case (supra) were more close to the Town of Chandigarh
and on the same side of Sukhna Choe as is the Town of Chandigarh, and
therefore had higher value as compared to the land on the other side of the
Sukhna Choe where the acquisition has been made in this case. Therefore,
seeing the case from any angle, I am of the considered opinion that it
would be reasonable to award the compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per
acre in these appeals and I order accordingly.”
The learned Judge, having had the knowledge of topography of the Chandigarh
and the neighborhood had considered that the lands in other area are though
situated on the opposite side, are situated in developed area, while the
lands under acquisition were not similarly situated on the other side of
the road wherein lands were not developed. The very fact, that the
acquisition in this case was for brick klin, dearly indicates that it was
not such a developed area as contended. As early as in 1974 when the court
itself determined the compensation of Rs, 33,000 per acre, the fixation of
the market value at Rs, 50,000 per acre cannot be said to be arbitrary or
illegal. Two sale instances of 1971 and 1974 are of small extents and so
they do not provided reasonable and safe basis nor can be relied on, as
rightly done by the High Court, to determine compensation of large extent
of land. The High Court, therefore, was right in determining compensation
at Rs. 50,000 per acre. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.