{"id":211490,"date":"1993-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993"},"modified":"2017-12-16T07:38:11","modified_gmt":"2017-12-16T02:08:11","slug":"rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993","title":{"rendered":"Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 1557, \t\t 1993 SCR (2) 969<\/div>\n
Author: V N.<\/div>\n
Bench: Venkatachala N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAO NARAIN SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT06\/04\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 AIR 1557\t\t  1993 SCR  (2) 969\n 1993 SCC  (3)\t60\t  JT 1993 (2)\t610\n 1993 SCALE  (2)400\n\n\nACT:\nLand Acquisition:\nRequisitioning\tand Acquisition of Immovable  Property\tAct,\n1952.\t  Ss.\t 7,    8--Acquisition\t of    requisitioned\nproperty--compensation--Determination\t of--Valuation\t  of\nland--Comparable  Sales Method'--Held, when parties  produce\nevidence of sales of lands in the vicinity of acquired land;\n'comparable  sales  method'  is\t a  'healthy  criterion\t for\ndetermining the market value.\nRajasthan Land Acquisition Act 1953--S.23(2) Solatium--To be\npaid for land acquired under Requisitioning and\t Acquisition\nAct, 1952 cannot be a benefit of solatium not available\t for\na land acquired under State Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   respondent-Union\t of  India   requisitioned   certain\nproperties of the land owner-appellant comprising a building\nand  1,38,117.20 sq. yards of land appurtenant\tthereto\t and\nacquired  the same in May, 1967 under the provisions of\t the\nDefence\t of India Act 1962.  After the Defence of India\t Act\nceased\tto  have  its force, the  Collector  exercising\t the\npowers under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable\nProperty  Act  1952 (the Act), offered to the  appellant  on\n10.9.1968 a sum of Rs.5,32,594 as total compensation for the\nacquired  building  and land.  The  appellant  rejected\t the\noffer  as  inadequate.\t Consequently,\tan  arbitrator\t was\nappointed  under  S.8(1)  (b) of  the  Act.   The  appellant\nclaimed Rs.2,50,000 for the building and Rs.10 per sq.\tyard\nfor the acquired land as compensation.\nThe  Arbitrator,  by his award, fixed the  market  value  at\nRs.2,50,000 of the building and Rs.7.50 per sq. yard of\t the\nland  and  Rs.2,000  as\t damages  for  loss  of\t access\t  to\nappellant's unacquired land.  Solatium at the rate of 15 per\ncent  on the market value of the land, and interest  at\t the\nrate of 6% per annum was also awarded.\tTwo appeals  one  by\nthe  land-owner\t seeking enhancement and the  other  by\t the\nUnion\tof  India  seeking  reduction  in  the\t amount\t  of\ncompensation-were filed before the High Court.\n970\nThe  High Court dismissed the appeal of the land  owner\t and\npartly\tallowed that of the Union of India.  It reduced\t the\ncompensation  to Rs.1,41,100 for the building and  Rs.4\t per\nsq. yard for the land.\tSolatium at a uniform rate of 10 per\ncent  on the market value of the building and the  land\t and\ninterest at 4% per annum was provided.\tAggrieved, the land\nowner riled the appeal by special leave.\nThe  appellant\tcontended that the High Court erred  in\t not\nawarding the compensation liable to be paid under s.8(3)  of\nthe Requisitioning and Acquisition Act inasmuch as the price\nof the property determined by the High Court fell far  short\nof what the property would have fetched if it had been\tsold\nin the open market on the date of its acquisition; that\t the\nHigh  Court  did  not take  into  consideration\t the  prices\nfetched under sale deeds of similar lands in the vicinity of\nthe  acquired land, and trend in price rise of\tlands;\tthat\nsolatium  should  have\tbeen  awarded  at  15  per  cent  as\npermissible  under the Central Land Acquisition Act and\t not\nat  the\t rate  of  10  per  cent  under\t the  Rajathan\tLand\nAcquisition Act.\nAllowing the appeal in part, this Court,\nHELD: 1.1. Method of valuation to be resorted to by a  court\nin determining acquired land's just equivalent price has  to\nnecessarily  depend  on the nature of  evidence\t adduced  by\nparties in that regard.\t When, in a given case, the  parties\nproduce\t evidence of sales relating to the land or lands  in\nthe vicinity of the acquired land and require the  concerned\ncourt  to  determine  the  compensation\t payable  for\tsuch\nacquired land, the court can resort to 'the Comparable Sales\nMethod'\t of Valuation of land which is a  healthy  criterion\nfor  determining the market value of an acquired  land.\t [p.\n975 C-E]\nAtmaram\t v. Collector of Nagpur, AIR 1929 P.C. 92,  referred\nand  Union of India v. Kamlabhai Harjiwandas Parekh &  Ors.,<\/a>\n[1968] 1 SCR 463, relied on.\n 1.2.  The High Court was right in examining the sale  deeds\nproduced as evidence of comparable sales and in relying upon\nthe sale deeds marked as Ext.P-18 relating to sale of 26,733\nsq.  yards for Rs-3 per sq. yard which was a portion of\t the\nacquired  land,\t and Ext.P-10 relating to sale of  5124\t sq.\nyards  at the rate of Rs.3.50 per sq. yard situated  to\t the\nclose vicinity\tof the acquired land, and taking the  prices\nfetched for them as criteria for\n971\ndetermining the market value of the acquired land.\n [pp. 976 B-C; 977 E-H; 978 A-E]\nBangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu v. R.D.O. Vizianagaram,<\/a>  [1980]\n1 SCC 75, relied on.\nThe High Court rightly held the sale deeds, marked as Ext.P-\n4  and\tEx.  P-19 or land situated in populous area  of\t the\ncity and sale deeds Exts.P-6 and P-7 of small bits of  lands\nas  not comparable to the large extent of the acquired\tland\nsituated at a place farther away from the city. [pp. 976  D-\nG; 977 A-D]\nCollector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta,<\/a> [1972] 4 SCC\n236  and Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P., [1977]  1\t SCC\n684, relied on.\n1.3. The evidence in the case indicated trend in  price-rise\nof lands in the area of acquried land between the year\t1961\nwhen  the appellant sold the land adjacent to  the  acquired\nland  and  the\tyear  1967 when the  land  in  question\t was\nacquired.  Since the High Court determined the market  value\nof  the acquired land without taking into account the  trend\nof price-rise of lands in the vicinity of the acquired land,\nit would be very just and proper to add to the price of Rs.4\nper sq. yard, as determined by the High Court, another\tRe.1\nper sq. yard on account of the factor of price-rise of lands\nin  the area of the acquired land.  Hence, the market  value\nof  the\t acquired land is determined at Rs.5  per  sq.\tyard\nwhich  would  satisfy the principle or awarding\t to  it,  an\nequivalent price. [pp. 979 B-H; 980-A]\n1.4. The High Court was justified in fixing the market value\nof the acquired building at Rs.1,41,100 on the basis of\t the\nestimate  prepared  and approved by Rajasthan  Public  Works\nDepartment  and\t produced  on  behalf  of  the\t land-owner.\nHowever,  the High Court should have added to that amount  a\nsum  of Rs.5,720, the price of items in the  building  which\nwas  left out in the estimate.\tHence, the  just  equivalent\nprice  of  the acquired building would be  Rs.1,41,100\tplus\nRs.5,720. [pp. 981 D-G]\n2. The High Court rightly fixed the solatium at the rate  of\n10  per cent on the amount of compensation payable  for\t the\nland  and the building under s.23(2) of the  Rajasthan\tLand\nAcquisition  Act,  as the solatium to be paid for  the\tland\nacquired  under\t the  Requisitioning and  Acquisition\tAct,\n1952  cannot  be a benefit of solatium not available  for  a\nland acquired under the State Act. [pp. 981 G-H; 982 A-B]\n972\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.1799 of 1980.
\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 9.5.1980 of the  Rajasthan
\nHigh Court in D.B. Civil First Appeal Nos. 54 & 56 of 1971.
\nU.R. Lalit, A.K. Sen and Ms. V.D. Khanna for the Appellant.
\nM.L. Verma (NP), Niranjana Singh, Ms. A. Subhashini (NP) and
\nC.V.S. Rao for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nVENKATACHALA,  J.  This\t civil appeal by  special  leave  is
\npreferred against the common judgment and. separate  decrees
\ndated 9.5.1980 of the Rajasthan High Court, dismissing Civil
\nFirst  Appeal  No.  54 of 1971 in which\t the  appellant\t had
\nsought\tenhanced compensation for his acquired property\t and
\npartly\tallowing  Civil First Appeal No.56 of  1971  of\t the
\nUnion  of  India  in which it had sought  reduction  in\t the
\nmarket value of the same acquired property.
\nThe  appellant,\t since deceased (represented  by  his  Legal
\nRepresentatives), was the owner in possession of a  property
\nknown as ‘Kasuda House’ at Ajmer, comprised of a thirty year
\nold building with a large extent of land of about 70 Bighas,
\n14  Biswas, appurtenant thereto.  On’24th April,  1963,\t the
\nUnion  of India, in exercise of its powers under Section  29
\nof the Defence of India Act, 1962 (D.I. Act),  requisitioned
\nthe  said  building  and land  for  stationing\tthe  Central
\nReserve\t Police\t Force (C.R.P.F.) and took  its\t possession.
\nThen, on 5th May, 1967 the Collector of Ajmer, having served
\na notice on the appellant under Section 36 of the D.I.\tAct,
\nacquired the said building and land.  As the D.I. Act ceased
\nto  have  its force with effect from 10th  July,  1968,\t the
\nCollector  of  Ajmer took recourse to Section  8(1)  of\t the
\nRequisitioning\tand Acquisition of Immovable  Property\tAct,
\n1952  the Requisitioning and Acquisition Act and offered  to
\nthe appellant on 10th September, 1968 a sum of Rs.  5,32,594
\nas  total compensation for the acquired building  and  land.
\nThe  appellant,\t ejected  that\toffer  of  compensation\t  as
\ninadequate.   This situation led to the appointment of\tShri
\nUpdesh\tNarain Mathur, the Joint Legal Remembrancer for\t the
\nState  of Rajasthan, as Arbitrator under Section 8(1)(b)  of
\nthe Requisitioning and Acquisition Act, for determining\t the
\njust amount of compensation payable
\n973<\/span>
\nto  the appellant for his acquired buidling and land.  On  a
\nnotice\tissued by the Arbitrator to the\t appellant  inviting
\nhis  claim  for compensation, the appellant filed  a  claim-
\nstatement  claiming  Rs.2,50,000  as  compensation  for\t the
\nacquired building and Rs.10 per sq. yard as compensation for
\nthe  acquired  land.  The Arbitrator, purporting to  act  on
\nevidence  produced by parties in an enquiry held by him\t for
\ndetermining the compensation payable to the appellant,\tmade
\nan  award  on 15th April, 1971.\t By that award,\t the  market
\nvalue  of  the acquired building was  fixed  at\t Rs.2,50,000
\nwhile the market value of land was fixed at Rs.7.50 per\t sq.
\nyard.\tThen,  the  damages  for  loss\tof  access  to\t the
\nappellant’s unacquried land was fixed at Rs.2,000.  Further,
\nthe  solatium  payable\ton the total  market  value  of\t the
\nacquired land was fixed at 15 per cent while the interest on
\nthe  total compensation payable was fixed at 6 per cent\t per
\nannum  from  the date of the award to the date\tof  payment.
\nThe  appellant,\t who felt that the  amount  of\tcompensation
\nawarded\t by  the  Arbitrator was  inadequate,  preferred  an
\nappeal\t in  the  High\tCourt  seeking\tgrant  of   enhanced
\ncompensation.\tThe, Union of India which, on the  contrary,
\nfelt  that  the\t amount\t of  compensation  awarded  by\t the
\nArbitrator  was excessive, preferred an appeal in  the\tHigh
\nCourt seeking reduction in the amount of compensation.\t The
\nHigh Court which clubbed both the appeals and heard them, by
\nits  common judgment partly allowed the appeal of the  Union
\nof India and dismissed the appeal of the appellant.  By that
\njudgment  the market value of the building was reduced\tfrom
\nRs.2,50,000  to\t Rs.1,41,100 while the market value  of\t the
\nland  was  reduced from 7.50 per sq. yard to  Rs.4  per\t sq.
\nyard.\tSolatium was given at a uniform rate of 10 per\tcent
\non  the\t market value of both the building and the  land  as
\nagainst the rate of solatium of 15 per cent, which had\tbeen
\ngiven  on  the\tmarket\tvalue of  the  land  by\t the  award.
\nInterest  at  4\t per  cent  per\t annum\ton  the\t amount\t  of
\ncompensation  was granted directing payment of that rate  of
\ninterest  on the total amount of compensation from the\tdate
\nof  acquisition till 2nd November, 1968, the date  on  which
\nRs.4,59,150.84\tpaise was paid to the appellant and  on\t the
\nbalance amount of compensation from 3rd November, 1968\tupto
\nthe  date  of  its payment to the  appellant.\tThat  common
\njudgment of the High Court and the decrees made thereon, are
\nappealed against by the appellant in these appeals, where by
\ngrant of enhanced compensation is sought.  Due to the  death
\nof  the\t appellant during the pendency of this\tappeal,\t his
\nLegal  Representatives\tare  permitted\tto  prosecute\tthis
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
Shri A.K. Sen, the learned senior counsel for the appellant,
\ncon-\n<\/p>\n
974<\/span><\/p>\n
ended  before  us  that the market  value  of  the  acquired
\nbuilding  as well as the market value of the acquired  land,
\ndetermined  by\tthe High Court fell ar short  of  the  price
\nwhich each of them would have fetched in the open market  if
\nhad  been sold on the date of their acquisition in the\tsame
\ncondition in which they were at the time of requisition\t and
\nhence  were not the respective prices liable to be paid\t for
\nthem   under   Section\t8(3)  of  the\tRequisitioning\t and
\nAcquisition Act.  Elaborating the contention, he argued that
\nthe  High  Court  in determining the  market  value  of\t the
\nacquired  land\tat  Rs.4 per sq. yard  had  not\t taken\tinto
\nconsideration  the  relevant  factors,\tsuch  as,  (i)\t the
\nbuilding potentiality of the acquired land, (ii) the  prices
\nfetched under sale deeds of similar lands in the vicinity of
\nthe  acquired land and (iii) trend in price-rise  of  lands,
\nwhich would have warranted granting of a higher market value
\nfor it.\t He further contended that the High Court ought\t not
\nhave reduced the market value of the acquired building to an
\namount\tfailing\t short\tof the amount fixed for\t it  by\t the
\nArbitrator  on\tthe  basis  of the  estimate  of  its  value
\nprepared by Shri G.L. Sharma, a private Engineer and his own
\nspot inspection report.\t As regards the solatium awarded  by
\nthe  High  Court at 10 per cent on the market value  of\t the
\nacquired  land\tand building, his contention was  that\tsuch
\nsolatium should have been awarded at the rate of 15 per cent
\nas  was permissible under the Central Land  Acquisition\t Act
\nand not at the rate of 10 per cent as was permissible  under
\nthe Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act.  The learned counsel for
\nthe  Union  of\tIndia,\twho  refuted  the  said\t contentions
\nadvanced  on behalf of the appellant, sought to sustain\t the
\njudgment of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The  principal controversy which needs our decision  in\t the
\nlight  of the above rival contentions since relates  to\t the
\ncorrectness of the amount of compensation determined by\t the
\nHigh  Court  as\t that  payable\tfor  the  acquired  land  of
\n1.38,117.20  sq. yards, we shall proceed to deal with it  at
\nthe first instance.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section  (3)  of  Section 8 of  the\t Requisitioning\t and
\nAcquisition Act, being the provision according to which\t the
\ncompensation  payable  for  the\t acquired  land\t has  to  be
\ndetermined, it is excerpted
\n\t      “8(3).   The  compensation  payable  for\t the
\n\t      acquisition  of any property under  section  7
\n\t      shall  be\t the price which  the  requisitioned
\n\t      property would have fetched in the open
\n975<\/span>
\n\t      market,  if  it  had  remained  in  the\tsame
\n\t      condition\t  as   it  was\tat   the   time\t  of
\n\t      requisitioning  and been sold on the  date  of
\n\t      acquisition.”\n<\/p>\n
As it is ruled by this Court in Union of India v.  Kamlabhai
\nHarjiwandas  Parekh  & others<\/a>, [1968] 1 SCR  463,  that\t the
\nprovision   of\tSection\t 8(3)  of  the\tRequisitioning\t and
\nAcquisition Act lays down a principle aimed at giving to the
\nowner  of the acquired land an amount of compensation  which
\napproximates  to  such land’s just equivalent value  on\t the
\ndate  of its acquisition, our endeavor here would be to\t see
\nwhether that principle is rightly applied by the High  Court
\nin  determining the amount of compensation payable  for\t the
\nacquired land.\n<\/p>\n
Method\tof  valuation  to  be resorted\tto  by\ta  court  in
\ndetermining  acquired land’s just equivalent price, has\t to,
\nnecessarily  depend  on the nature of  evidence\t adduced  by
\nparties in that regard.\t When, in a given case, the  parties
\nproduce\t evidence of sales relating to the acquired land  or
\nlands  in the vicinity of the acquired land and require\t the
\nconcerned  court to determine the compensation\tpayable\t for
\nsuch acquired land, such court naturally resorts to what  is
\nknown as ‘the Comparable Sales Method’ of valuation of land.
\nIndeed,\t ‘Comparable  Sales  Method’  of  valuation  of\t  an
\nacquired land is invariably resorted to by every court\tever
\nsince  the Privy Council in Atmaram v. Collector of  Nagpur,
\nAIR 1929 P.C.92, regarded that method as one which furnishes
\n‘a healthy criterion’ for determining the market value of an
\nacquired  land.\t  As  regards the acquired  land,  with\t the
\nmarket\tvalue of which we are concerned, parties  themselves
\nhad   produced\tevidence  of  sales  of\t lands\tbefore\t the
\nArbitrator  in order to enable him to determine\t its  market
\nvalue  based on prices fetched for lands under those  sales.
\nThe same sale deeds are considered by the High Court to find
\nas to which of them could form the basis for determining the
\nmarket value of the acquired land.  It is why we have now to
\nsee, whether the sale deeds relied upon by the High Court to
\ndetermine  the market value of the acquired land did  really
\nfurnish\t a  proper  basis  to  make  such  determination  by
\nresorting  to ‘the Comparable Sales Method’ of valuation  of
\nland.\n<\/p>\n
Building  potentiality of the acquired land, claimed  to  be
\npossessed  by the acquired land, can assume no\tsignificance
\nin  the\t instant case as ‘the Comparable  Sales\t Method’  of
\nvaluation  of land is resorted to by the High  Court.\tSuch
\nmethod is resorted to, as the acquired land was found to be
\n976<\/span>
\ncomparable in its essential features with land(s) respecting
\nwhich  evidence\t of  certain  sale  deed(s),  was  produced.
\nHence,\tthe  contention\t of  the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant  raised to establish, that the acquired  land\t had
\nbuilding  potentiality at the time of its acquisition,\tneed
\nnot engage our consideration.\n<\/p>\n
The  High Court, as is seen from it% judgment, has  examined
\nthe sale deeds produced as evidence of comparable sales with
\na  view\t to find out as to which of them could be  taken  to
\nrelate\tto a land or lands comparable to the acquired  land.
\nSuch  examination  was necessary to find  whether  the\tland
\ncovered\t under a genuine sale deed was basically similar  to
\nthe  acquired land.  If so found, it would not be  difficult
\nfor  the Court to hold that the price fetched for such\tland
\ncould  be  regarded  as\t the price  of\tthe  acquired  land,
\nalthough  some\tamount may have to be either added  to\tsale
\nprice or deducted out of the sale price in balancing certain
\nfactors\t not  common  to  the  land(s)\tsold  and  the\tland
\nacquired.\n<\/p>\n
A site plan of an area in Ajmer, available in the record, by
\nconsent\t of  parties,  is utilised by  the  High  Court\t for
\nlocating  the actual situation of the lands covered  by\t the
\nsale  deeds vis-a-vis the actual situation of  the  acquired
\nland.  A sale deed dated 11.10.1960 produced in evidence  as
\nEx.P-4\tis  found to relate to sale of 48.400 sq.  yards  of
\nland  at the rate of Rs.650 per sq. yard by Mayo College  to
\nLife Insurance Corporation of India while another sale\tdeed
\ndated 17.11.960 produced in evidence as Ex.P-19 is found  to
\nrelate\tto sale of 13,572 sq. yards of land at the  rate  of
\nRs.7 per sq. yard by the very Mayo College to Model  Housing
\n   Cooperating Society Ltd.  These sale deeds, according  to
\nthe  High  Court,  since  related to  lands  situated  in  a
\npopulous area of Ajmer City, the lands sold under them\twere
\nnot comparable to the acquired land which was situated at  a
\nplace farther away from the city.  Although it was contended
\non  behalf  of the appellant that the lands sold  under\t the
\nsaid  two  sale deeds ought to have been held by  the  High.
\nCourt  as  those  comparable  to  the  acquired\t land,\tthat
\ncontention cannot merit our acceptance since the location of
\nthe lands covered by the sale deeds is altogether  different
\nfrom the location of the acquired land, as becomes  apparent
\nfrom  the site plan with reference to which the\t High  Court
\nhas  concluded\tthat the lands covered by  the\tsale  deeds’
\nlands and the acquired land were not comparable.
\nSale deed dated 14.1.1964 produced as Ex.P-5 whereunder Mayo
\n977<\/span>
\nCollege\t had  sold 1,000 sq. yards of land at  the  rate  of
\nRs.10  per  sq. yard in favour of Mrs. V.M.  Kaula;  another
\nsale  deed  dated 25.9.1964 produced as Ex.P-6\trelating  to
\nsale of a small strip of land at Rs.10 per sq. yard  between
\nthe  same  parties; and a third sale deed  dated  13.11.1964
\nproduced as Ex.P-7 whereunder the very Mayo College had also
\nsold  to Navin Chandra Sharma 782 sq. yards of land at\tRs.7
\nper  sq.  yard,\t are  regarded by  the\tHigh  Court  as\t not
\ncomparable  sales for determining the value of the  acquired
\nland,  in that each of them were small bits as\tcompared  to
\nthe  acquired land.  The High Court, as suggested on  behalf
\nof the appellant, cannot be found fault with for its refusal
\nto act upon the said three sale deeds as comparable sales to
\ndetermine  the\tmarket\tvalue of the  large  extent  of\t the
\nacquired  land,\t when  it is well settled  that\t the  prices
\nfetched’  under sale deeds of small bits of lands ought\t not
\nto, ordinarily, be made the basis for determination of large
\nextents\t of acquired land, (See: Collector’ of Lakhimpur  v.
\nBhuban Chandra Dutta,<\/a> [1974] SCC 236 and Prithvi Raj  Taneja
\nv. State of M.P., [1977] 1 SCC 684.  Besides, in the instant
\ncase  when’  sale deeds of lands of even larger\t extents  of
\nlands  situated\t in the very area where the  bits  of  lands
\ncovered by the three rejected sale deeds were’ situated were
\nnot considered by the High Court as comparable sales for the
\nreason\tof their situation in a populous area of  the  city,
\nthat reason should equally hold good for the High Court\t not
\nacting\tupon the three sale deeds relating to bits of  lands
\nas  comparable\tsales  for fixing the market  value  of\t the
\nacquired land.\n<\/p>\n
However, there are other two important sale deeds which\t the
\nHigh, Court has regarded as sales of lands comparable to the
\nacquired land and, has taken the prices fetched for them  as
\nthe  criteria  for  determining the,  market  value  of\t the
\nacquired  land.\t  A sale deed of the year 1961\tproduced  as
\nEx.P-  18 related to sale of 26,733 sq. yards of land  which
\nwas a portion of the acquired land.  That land had been sold
\nby  the\t very  appellant to  Nayjiwan  Co-operative  Housing
\nSociety Ltd. at the rate of Rs.3 per sq. yard.\tAnother sale
\ndeed dated 14.3.1958 produced as Ex.P-10 related to, sale of
\n5,  124 sq. yards of land situated in the close vicinity  of
\nthe  acquired land.  That land had been sold at the rate  of
\nRs.3.50\t per  sq.  yard by  Joharilal  to  Saraswati  Balika
\nVidhyalaya.   As regards sale deed Ex.P-18 under  which\t the
\nappellant  had sold a large extent of land to  Navjiwan\t Co-
\noperative  Society  at the rate of Rs.3 per  sq.  yard,\t the
\ncontention  of learned counsel for the appellant  before  us
\nwas,  as was before the High Court, that the real  value  of
\nthe  land  as on the date of sale was Rs.6 per sq.  yard  as
\nstated by
\n978<\/span>
\nP.W.6,\tSadu Singh, and hence that rate should\thave  formed
\nthe  basis for determining the market value of the  acquired
\nland.\tThe High Court rejected this contention on its\tview
\nthat  the statement of P.W.6, the President of the  Society,
\nthat the price of the land was Rs.6 per sq. yard at the time
\nof its purchase in the year 1958 was difficult of acceptance
\nwhen the Society had accepted its price at the rate of\tRs.4
\nper sq. yard in relation to the year 1965, when it had\tbeen
\nacquired.   Besides,  what  cannot  be\toverlooked  is\tthat
\nneither\t the vendor of the land nor P.W.1,  Narayana  Singh,
\nwho  has given evidence on behalf of the vendor,-had  stated
\nat  any time that the real price of the land in Ex.P-18\t was
\nRs.6  per  sq. yard as on the date of its  sale.   The\tHigh
\nCourt,\ttherefore,  cannot be found fault with\tfor  relying
\nupon the sale deed relating to a land Which formed part\t and
\nparcel of the acquired land earlier, as furnishing the\treal
\ncriterion  for determining the price of acquired land  (See:
\nBangaru\t Narasingha Rao Naidu v. R.D.Vizianagram,  [1980]  1
\nSCC  75.  Hence, the contention urged that the\tprice  under
\nsale  deed Ex.P-18 should be regarded as Rs.6 per  sq.\tyard
\nand  that  price should form the-basis for  determining\t the
\nmarket value-of the acquired land, ought to fail.
\nThe  contention\t that the rate of Rs.3.50 per  sq.  yard  at
\nwhich  Joharilal sold the land under Ex.P-10  to  Saraswathi
\nBalika\tVidayalaya had to be regarded as a concession  price
\nsince  he was the Vice-President of the\t vendee\t Vidayalaya,
\nwas not accepted by the High Court because of its view\tthat
\noral testimony given by Joharilal as P.W.2, several  decades
\nafter the actual sale had taken place, was difficult to\t act
\nupon, particularly, when there was nothing in the sale\tdeed
\nwhich could give such indication.  This contention has\tbeen
\nrightly\t not accepted by the High Court.  We are  unable  to
\nfind any good reason to take a contrary view in the matter.
\nThe  learned counsel for the appellant then  contended\tthat
\nthe  High Court should not have brushed aside the  claim  of
\nthe appellant that the market value of the acquired land  as
\non  the date of its acquisition could be fixed at  least  at
\nthe  rate  of  Rs.6 per sq. yard as had\t been  done  by\t the
\nArbitrator taking into consideration the trend of price-rise
\nof lands.  The High Court has taken the view that there\t was
\nno  reliable evidence available on record to show  that\t the
\nland  price  in\t the area between the  year  1961  when\t the
\ndeceased-appellant had sold the land adjoining the  acquired
\nland at Rs.3 per sq. yard and the year 1967, when the  land,
\nthe compensation or which had to be determined, was actually
\nacquired, had gone up
\n979<\/span>
\nappreciably.  The view so taken by the High Court, according
\nto  the\t learned  counsel for  the  appellant,\tignored\t the
\nreliable  evidence on record relating to the sale prices  of
\nbuilding plots formed on a land far beyond the acquired land
\nby  the Urban Improvement Trust of Ajmer fixed in  the\tyear
\n1963,  that is, Rs.15 per sq. yard for commercial plots\t and
\nRs.7 per sq. yard for residential plots and the said  prices
\nwere  approved by the State Government.\t This  evidence,  it
\nwas  asserted  by  the learned counsel\tfor  the  appellant,
\nclearly\t demonstrated the price-rise of land in the area  of
\nthe  very acquired land after the year 1961.  In  our  view,
\nthe  contentions  of  learned counsel as  regards  trend  of
\nprice-rise of land in the area of the acquired land are well
\nfounded.   No  doubt, the plots of Urban  Improvement  Trust
\nmade ready for sale at high prices pertained to a  developed
\nlay-out.   Yet,\t they clearly indicated the prices  of\tland
\nsituated beyond the acquired land, as prevailed in the\tyear
\n1963.  Besides, in the instant case it is admitted that\t for
\nthe  land  which  was purchased under  Ex.P-18\tby  Navjiwan
\nHousing\t Society in the year 1961 at Rs.3 per sq.  yard\t the
\nArbitrator  had\t awarded a rate of Rs. 4 per sq.  yard\twith
\nreference  to  its acquisition in the year  1965,  and\tthat
\naward  was  not challenged by the State, as  fixing  a\thigh
\nprice.\t From this, it becomes obvious that even  the  State
\nwas  well aware of the trend of price-rise of lands  in\t the
\narea  of the acquired land between the year 1961  and  1965.
\nThus,  trend  in  price-rise of lands in  the  area  of\t the
\nacquired  land between the year 1961, the year in which\t the
\nappellant  sold the land adjacent to the acquired  land\t and
\nthe  year 1967, the year in which the land in  question\t was
\nacquired, was therefore, very much seen.  Indeed, the rising
\ntrend  in  prices  of  immovable  properties  is  a   common
\nphenomenon  all\t over  the  country  after  the\t year  1950,
\nalthough  such rising trend has varied in degree from  place
\nof place and year to year The lands around Ajmere City, were
\nno  exception to such trend in price-rise.  However, as\t the
\nmarket value of the acquired land is determined by the\tHigh
\nCourt at Rs.4 per sq. yard in the year 1967, without  taking
\ninto  account  the  trend  of prise-rise  of  lands  in\t the
\nvicinity of the acquired land, we consider that it would  be
\nvery  just and proper to add to that price of Rs. 4 per\t sq.
\nyard, another Re.1 per, sq. yard on account of the factor of
\nprice-rise of lands in the area of the acquired land between
\nthe year 1961 and the year 1967.  If Re.1 per sq. yard is so
\nadded  to  Rs.\t4  per sq. yard, the  market  value  of\t the
\nacquired  land in 1967, the year of its\t acquisition,  would
\nwork out to Rs.5 per sq: yard, Hence, as against the  market
\nvalue  of the acquired land determined by the High Court  at
\nRs.4 per sq yard,
\n980<\/span>
\nwe  determine the same at Rs.5 per sq. yard,,  inasmuch\t as,
\nsuch  determination  of market value of\t the  acquired\tland
\nwould satisfy the principle of awarding to it an  equivalent
\nprice,
\nThe next question which requires our examination keeping  in
\nview  the  arguments of learned counsel for  the  contesting
\nparties,  is as to whether the High Court had gone wrong  in
\nnot  accepting the price of the acquired  building   ‘Masuda
\nHouse’ determined by the Arbitrator in a sum of Rs. 2,50,000
\nas  on\tthe date of its acquisition as\tthe  correct  market
\nprice.\n<\/p>\n
The Arbitrator for fixing the price of the acquired building
\nhad  acted  on\tan estimate of one G.L.\t Sharma,  a  retired
\nExecutive  Engineer  of\t Government of\tRajasthan,  who\t had
\nclaimed\t that he had prepared the estimate of  the  acquired
\nbuilding on an inspection of the building in the presence of
\nShri  B.D. Gupta, Assistant Surveyor, C.P.W.D.\trepresenting
\nthe C.R.P.F. Ajmer for which the building had been acquired.
\nSo  also the Arbitrator had acted on the  inspection  report
\nwhich he had claimed as prepared on local inspection of\t the
\nbuilding.   The High Court found that the retired  Executive
\nEngineer, who, it was said, had prepared the estimate of the
\nbuilding  for fixing its price on the date  of\tacquisition,
\nhad  not given evidence about it as a witness and  that\t had
\nled  to\t denial to the contesting party, an  opportunity  of
\ncross-examining\t him  as  to acceptability  of\tthe  Report.
\nTherefore, according to the High Court, such estimate  could
\nnot  have  had any evidentiary value and the  price  of\t the
\nbuilding  fixed\t by  the Arbitrator on\tthe  basis  of\tsuch
\nestimate  had to be discarded.\tFurther, the High Court\t has
\nfound  fault  with the Arbitrator to have  relied  upon\t his
\nInspection  Report  to\ttest the estimate  of  the  building
\nprepared by the retired Executive Engineer, although it\t had
\nnot been admittedly signed by the Arbitrator at the time  of
\nmaking\this  award.   In the view of the  High\tCourt,\tsuch
\nreport could not have been made use of by the Arbitrator for
\nthe  purpose of accepting the estimate of the building\tmade
\nby  the retired Executive Engineer, inasmuch as the  parties
\nagainst\t whom such inspection report had been used,  had  no
\nopportunity  of\t knowing about the very\t existence  of\tsuch
\nreport.\t  As  is seen from the evidence on  record  and\t the
\nproceedings before the High Court the reasons as to why\t the
\nHigh Court did not attach any value to the estimate made  by
\nthe  retired Executive Engineer and the\t Inspection  Report,
\ncannot\tbe  said  to be ill-founded.  Besides,\tit  was\t not
\ndisputed  before us that the retired Executive\tEngineer  Li
\nhad  been  employed by the appellant-Rao Narain\t Singh,\t the
\nowner of the
\n981<\/span>
\nacquired building, as his private Engineer, inasmuch as that
\nExecutive  Engineer had admittedly visited the building\t and
\nprepared   the\testimate  of  costs  and  specification\t  of
\nstructures  in the building on behalf of Rao  Narain  Singh.
\nAgain, it was not disputed that the Arbitrator came to\tsign
\nthe  Inspection\t Report said to have been  prepared  by\t him
\nafter the award had been made and when he had become functus
\nofficio’ as an Arbitrator.  In the said view of the matters,
\nit  is difficult for us to think that the High Court was  in
\nany  way unjustified in refusing to accept the valuation  of
\nthe  building as Rs.2,50,000 based on the estimate  made  by
\nShri  G.L.  Sharma retired Executive Engineer and  the\tspot
\nInspection  Report claimed to have been made use of  by\t the
\nArbitrator.   However, as is seen from the judgment  of\t the
\nHigh  Court, it has fixed the market price of  the  acquired
\nbuilding  at  Rs.1,41,100  having  regard  to  the  estimate
\nprepared  by  the  Executive Engineer,\tscrutinised  by\t the
\nSuperintending\tEngineer  of  the  Rajasthan  Public   Works
\nDepartment  and\t approved  by  the  Chief  Engineer  of\t the
\nRajasthan   Public   Works  Department.\t   Such\t  estimates,
\nadmittedly  had been produced on behalf of the owner of\t the
\nbuilding   Rao\tNarain Singh of ‘Masuda House’, by  his\t own
\nwitness\t P.W.5,\t Ramdayal Gupta and spoken to  by  him.\t  We
\ncannot,\t therefore,  say  that the High Court  in  the\tsaid
\ncircumstances,\twas  not  justified  in\t relying  upon\t the
\nestimates  made by the Public Works Department of the  State
\nof  Rajasthan  in  fixing  the\tprice  of  the\tbuilding  at
\nRs.1,41,100.  Yet,  we consider that the High  Court  should
\nhave  added to that price of the building a sum of  Rs.5,720
\nwhen it had found that\tamount of Rs.5,720 was the price  of
\nitems in the building which were left out in the estimate of
\nthe Engineers of the Public Works Department of the State of
\nRajasthan.   As stated by the High Court itself,  the  items
\nfor  which cost had not been fixed by the Engineers  of\t the
\nPublic\tWorks Department in their estimate, were ‘road\tside
\nretaining walls’, ‘wire fencing’ and ‘main gate wall’.\t The
\ncost  of those left out items was found to be Rs.5,720.\t We,
\ntherefore,  consider  it  just and reasonable  to  add\tthat
\namount\tof Rs.5,720 to the price of the\t acquired  building.
\nHence,\tin’  our  view, the just  equivalent  price  of\t the
\nacquired  building would be Rs.1,41,100 plus  Rs.5,720\ti.e.
\nRs.1,46,820 and not merely Rs.1,41,100, its price determined
\nby the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The  last  question  that arises for  our  consideration  is
\nwhether\t the  High  Court had acted rightly  in\t fixing\t the
\nsolatium payable on the amount of compensation for land\t and
\nbuilding at 10 per cent instead of at 15 per cent.  The High
\nCourt in fixing the solatium at the rate of 10 per cent on
\n982<\/span>
\nthe amount of compensation payable for the land and building
\nhas  held that the land and building acquired being  in\t the
\nState  of  Rajasthan  the  solatium  payable  was  the\trate
\nadmissible  therefore under Section 23(2) of  the  Rajasthan
\nLand  Acquisition  Act\t the  State Act\t and  not  the\trate
\nadmissible under the corresponding provision in the  Central
\nLand  Acquisition Act.\tWe find no good reason\tto  disagree
\nwith the High Court in the said matter as the solatium to be
\npaid  for  the land acquired under  the\t Requisitioning\t and
\nAcquisition  Act  cannot  be  a\t benefit  of  solatium\t not
\navailable  for\ta land acquired under the  State  Act,\ti.e.
\nunder  the  Rajasthan  Land  Acquisition  Act.\t Thus,\t the
\nappellant cannot succeed on this question.
\nIn  the result, we allow this appeal partly and\t modify\t the
\njudgment  and decrees of the High Court under  appeal.\t The
\nmarket\tprice of acquired land of 70 Bighas, 14\t Biswas\t and
\n1412 sq. yard is enhanced to Rs.5 per sq. yard from Rs.4 per
\nsq. yard awarded by the High Court.  The market price of the
\nMasuda\tHouse  is enhanced to Rs.1,46,820  from\t Rs.1,41,100
\nawarded\t by  the High Court.  The solatium at  10  per\tcent
\nshall  be payable on the said total amount of the  price  of
\nthe  land  and price of the building, as determined  by\t us.
\nThe damages of Rs.2,000 awarded by the High Court as loss of
\naccess\tto  and\t utility  of  the  unacquired  land  of\t the
\nappellant  stands undisturbed.\tThe interest of 4  per\tcent
\nper  annum  shall be payable on the total of  all  the\tsaid
\namounts\t in  the manner indicated by the High Court  in\t its
\njudgment and decrees under appeal.  Since the appellant died
\nduring\tthe  pendency of this civil appeal,  the  amount  of
\ncompensation  which has become payable under this  judgment,
\nless the amount of compensation ,already paid or  deposited,
\nshall be paid to the legal representatives of the  deceased-
\nappellant,  who are prosecuting this appeal.  Costs  payable
\nin this appeal shall be paid by the respondent to the  legal
\nrepresentatives of the deceased7appellant, in proportion  to
\ntheir success.\n<\/p>\n
R.P.\t\t\t    Appeal partly allowed.\n983<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 1557, 1993 SCR (2) 969 Author: V N. Bench: Venkatachala N. (J) PETITIONER: RAO NARAIN SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT06\/04\/1993 BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) BENCH: VENKATACHALA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211490","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-16T02:08:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T02:08:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993\"},\"wordCount\":4912,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993\",\"name\":\"Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T02:08:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-16T02:08:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993","datePublished":"1993-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T02:08:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993"},"wordCount":4912,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993","name":"Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T02:08:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rao-narain-singh-dead-by-l-rs-vs-union-of-india-on-6-april-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rao Narain Singh (Dead) By L.Rs vs Union Of India on 6 April, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211490","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=211490"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211490\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}