Supreme Court of India
BHULE RAMversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 222
- Decided
- 28 March 2014
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Market value must be assessed at the time of notification based on the owner’s position, the claimant bears the burden of proof, comparison with other villages is allowed only if the lands are similar, and the belting system may be used for large tracts; consequently the High Court's award of Rs 6,51,000 per acre stands.
Summary
The appellant Bhule Ram challenged the compensation awarded for his land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that the market value should be Rs 10,00,000 per acre. The award was initially Rs 4,65,000 per acre, later enhanced to Rs 5,99,850 by the reference court and to Rs 6,51,000 by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the proper method of valuation under Section 23, emphasizing that market value must be fixed at the time of notification (Section 4) based on the owner’s position, and that the claimant bears the burden of proving inadequacy. It held that comparison with land in other villages is permissible only when the lands are similar, and that for large, non‑contiguous tracts the belting system may be applied. Since the appellant failed to produce evidence to support a higher valuation and the lands were not comparable, the Court upheld the High Court’s award of Rs 6,51,000 per acre and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The appropriate method for assessing market value of land under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Whether the burden of proof to show inadequacy of the assessed market value lies on the landowner
- Whether valuation can be based on comparison with land in neighboring villages
- Whether the belting system may be applied for large, non‑contiguous tracts of land
- Whether the High Court's enhancement to Rs 6,51,000 per acre is legally justified
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 18, s. 23, s. 4, s. 54, s. 6, s. 9
Subjects
Land acquisitionMarket value assessmentSection 23Burden of proofBelting systemCompensationValuation methodologyLarge tract of land
Judgment
[2014) 4 S.C.R. 247
BHULE RAM A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6251 of 2010)
MARCH 28, 2014
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
s. 23 - Acquisition of large tract of land - Compensation c
- Belting method - Held: Market value of land acquired is to
be assessed keeping in mind the limitation prescribed u/s 23,
which mandates that the market value of the land is to be
assessed at the time of notification uls 4 -- Therefore, value
which has to be assessed is the value to the owner who parts 0
with his property and not the value to the new owner who takes
it over -- Fair and reasonable compensation means the price
of a willing buyer which is to be paid to the willing seller -
Where huge tract of land has been acquired, belting system
may be applied
E
ss. 9 and 23 - Acquisition -'of land - Claim for higher
compensation - Held: Burden of proof lies on land owner to
prove inadequacy of market value fixed for land acquired -
In the instant case, appellant has not put on record as to what
was his claim u/s. 9 and the award was made relying upon F
some other award - Before High Court, appellant relied upon
solely another judgment relating to land of same village and
High Court awarded compensation as per demand of
appellant - Reference court had already held appellant's land
as non-comparable with other lands - There is no reason to G
interfere.
The appellant filed the instant appeal claiming
compensation at the rate of Rs. 10, 00,000/- per acre for
247 H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R.
A his land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The award u/s 11 of the Act was made on 6.6.1994
assessing the market value of the land of the appellant
@ Rs.4, 65,000/- per acre. The reference court enhanced
the compensation assessing the market value of the land
B @ Rs.5, 99,850/- per acre with other statutory benefits. On
appeal, the High Court further enhanced the
compensation assessing the market value of the land @
Rs.6, 51,000/- per acre placing reliance on other
judgments.
c Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The law can be summarised to the effect
that the market value of the land is to be assessed
keeping in mind the limitation prescribed in certain
D exceptional circumstances u/s 23 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. Section 23 mandates that the market value of
the land is to be assessed at the time of notification under
Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, value which has to be
assessed is the value to the owner who parts with his
E property and not the value to the new owner who takes
it over. Fair and reasonable compensation means the
price of a willing buyer which is to be paid to the willing
seller. A guess work, though allowed, is permissible only
to a limited extent. The market value of the land is to be
F determined taking into consideration geographical
situation/location of the land alongwith the advantages/
disadvantages i.e. distance from Highway or a road
situated within a developed area etc. In urban area even
a small distance makes a considerable difference in the
price of land. However, the court should not take into
G consideration the use for which the land is sought to be
acquired and its remote potential value in future. In
arriving at the market value, it is the duty of the party to
lead evidence in support of its case, in absence of which
the court is not under a legal obligation to determine the
H
BHULE RAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 249
market value merely as per the prayer of the claimant. A
[para 7 and 15] [254-C, E-G; 257-F-H; 258-A]
Raja Vyricheria Narayana Gajapatraju Bahadur Garu v.
Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, AIR 1939 PC 98;
and Adusumilli Gopalkrishna v. Sp/ Deputy Collector (Land 8
Acquisition), AIR 1980 SC 1870; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor ·
v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (3) SCR 542 =AIR 2005 SC 2214;
Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board v. Land
Acquisition Officer & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 600 = AIR 2011 SC
781; Bilkis & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2011 (4) C
SCR 733 = (2011) 12 SCC 646 and Sabhia Mohammed
Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mui/a v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
& Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2709 - relied on.
Thakur Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 1976 ( 3 )
SCR 585 = AIR 1976 SC 2219; Special Land Acquisition D
Officer v. Karigowda & Ors., 2010 (5) SCR 164 =AIR 2010
SC 2322; and Charan Das & e~c. etc. v. H.P. Housing &
Urban Development Authority & Ors. etc., 2009 (14 ) SCR
163 = (2010) 13 SCC 398); Trisha/a Jain & Anr. v. State of
Uttaranchal & Anr., 2011 (8 ) SCR 520 = AIR 2011 SC 2458 E
- referred to.
1.2 There may be a case where a huge tract of land is
acquired. In such a fact-situation every claimant cannot
claim the same rate of compensation. Therefore, the
F
market value of the land is to be determined taking into
consideration the geographical situation and in such
cases belting system may be applied. [para 15] [258-B-C]
Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation
Limited v. G. Mohan Reddy & Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 412; G
Ashrafi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 3654,
Sher Singh etc. etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., 1991 (1) SCR
1 =AIR 1991 SC 2048) and Executive Engineer (Electrical),
Kamataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant
Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag & Ors., H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R.
A (2010) 15 sec 60 - relied on.
1.3 It is the duty of the claimant to produce the
relevant evidence for determining the market value while
filing his claim u/s 9 of the Act or at least before the
8 reference court. The burden of proof lies on the land
owner and in case he does not lead any evidence in
support of his claim to prove the inadequacy of market
value fixed for the land acquired, the court cannot help
him. [para 6 and 14) [254-A-B; 257-C-D]
C Raman/al Deochand Shah v. State of Maharashtra &
Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3452; Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue
Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. & Ors., 1994 (1) SCR 368
= (1994) 4 SCC 595; and Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-
Cof/ector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha Bhoopal (Smt) & Anr., 1997
D (3) SCR 875 = (1997) 9 sec 628) - relied on.
1.4 The appellant has not put on record as to what
was his claim u/s 9 of the Act before the Land Acquisition
Collector. The award had been made relying upon some
E other awards. Before the High Court, the appellant relied
solely upon the judgment dated 10.4.2008 passed in an
appeal relating to the land of the same village. It is evident
that the High Court awarded the compensation as per the
demand of the appellant himself. Before this Court, the
F appellant has raised the same issues which have already
been rejected by the reference court pointing out the
distance of the appellant's land from the road and non-
suitability of comparing with other lands. There is no
cogent reason to interfere, as the reference court has
clearly held that the appellant's land so acquired is at a
G distance of 6 Kms. from the road, while other lands relied
upon by the appellant before this Court are adjacent to
the road, and are surrounded by hospitals and residential
and commercially developed areas. [Para 16-20) [258-E;
260-D, G-H; 261-A-B]
H
BHULE RAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 251
Case Law Reference: A
AIR 1939 PC 98 relied on para 7
AIR 1980 SC 1870 relied on para 7
1976 (3) SCR 585 referred to para 8
B
2010 (5) SCR 164 referred to para 8
2009 (14) SCR 163 referred to para 8
2011 (8) SCR 520 referred to para 9
2005 (3) SCR 542 relied on para 10 c
2011 (1) SCR 600 relied on para 10
2011 (4) SCR 733 relied on para 10
AIR 2012 SC 2709 relied on para 10 D
c2010) 15 sec 412 relied on para 11
AIR 2013 SC 3654 relied on para 12
1991 (1) SCR 1 relied on para 12
E
c201 o) 15 sec 60 relied on para 13
AIR 2013 SC 3452 relied on para 14
1994 (1) SCR 368 relied on para 14
1997 (3) SCR 875 relied on para 14 F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6251 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2009 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.A. Appeal No. 154 of G
2007.
Priya Hingorani, Hingorani & Associates, Shobha, lndar
Singh, Jyoti Rana, Prasanna Mohan, Satpal Singh for the
Appellant.
H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 4 SC R
A Puneet Taneja, Shweta Shalini, Dr Kailash Chand,
Rachna Srivastava, Utkarsh Sharma, Pratiksha Chaturved1 for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed
against the judgment and order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Land Acquisition Appeal
No. 154 of 2007 by which the High Court has assessed the
market value of the land @Rs.6,51,000/- per acre modifying the
C award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') under which the land had
been assessed @Rs.5,99,850/- per acre. The appellant
claimed that his land ought to have been assessed
@Rs.10,00,000/- per acre.
D
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
that:
A. Land comprised in Khasra Nos. 752(4-16), 753(4-16),
765(4-16), in all 24 bighas, in which the appellant had 1/3rd
E share and Khasra Nos. 757 (6-15), 758(4-17) and 761(4-16),
in all 16 bighas 8 biswas (full share), situated in revenue village
Aali, Delhi, stood notified under Section 4 of the Act for the
purpose of construction of Ash Pond at Badarpur Thermal
Power Station on 16.10.1992 alongwith a huge tract of land
F belonging to other persons in different villages.
B. In respect of the said land, a declaration under Section
6 of the Act was made on 23.3.1993. The award under Section
11 of the Act was made on 6.6.1994 assessing the market
G value of the land of the appellant @Rs.4,65,000/- per acre.
C. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a reference under
Section 18 of the Act and the Reference Court made the award
dated 10.1.2007 assessing the market value of the land
@Rs.5,99,850/- per acre with other statutory benefits.
H
BHULE RAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 253
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
D. Appellant preferred appeal under Section 54 of the Act A
before the High Court claiming further enhancement contending
that his land ought to have been assessed @Rs.10,00,000/-
per acre. The High Court disposed of the appeal vide impugned
judgment and order dated 8.12.2009 assessing the market
value of the land @Rs.6,51,000/- per acre placing reliance on B
other judgments in appeal before the High Court.
Hence, this appeal.
3. Ms. Shobha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned counsel appearing C
in other connected appeals have raised serious issues that the
land ought to have been assessed at the rate on which the land
covered by the same notification under Section 4 of the Act in
the neighouring village have been assessed. Therefore, the
appeal deserves to be allowed. D
4. Appeal is opposed by Mr. Puneet Taneja and Ms.
Rachna Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submitting that the market value of the land of the
appellant cannot be assessed on the basis of compensation E
paid in the adjacent village for the reason that the land is not
similar in any circumstance, either in quality or geographical
situation/location, and thus, there is nothing on record on the
basis of which it can be held that the appellant is entitled for
the same compensation which had been given to other
F
claimants in different villages. Thus, the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
5. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
G
6. The scheme of the Act is that every man's interest is to
be valued rebus sic stantibus, just as it occurs at the time of
the notification under Section 4(1 ). Thus, the assessing
authority must take into consideration various factors for
determining the market value, but exclude the advantages due
H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 4 S.C.R.
A to the carrying out of the purpose of acquisition and remote
potentialities. It is the duty of the claimant that he must produce
the relevant evidence for determining the market value while
filing his claim under Section 9 of the Act atleast before the trial
court or before the reference court for the reason that the
B appellate court may not permit the party to adduce additional
evidence in appeal.
7. The market value of the land is to be assessed as per
Section 23 of the Act. Valuation of immoveable property is not
an exact science, nor it can be determined like algebraic
C problem, as it abounds in uncertainties and no strait-jacket
formula can be laid down for arriving at exact market value of
the land. There is always a room for conjecture, and thus the
court must act reluctantly to venture too far in this direction. The
factors such as the nature and position of the land to be
D acquired, adaptability and advantages, the purpose for which
the land can be used in the most lucrative way, injurious affect
resulting in damages to other properties, its potential value, the
locality, situation and size and shape of the land, the rise or
depression in the value of the land in the locality consequent
E to the acquisition etc., are relevant factors to be considered.
Section 23 mandates that the market value of the land is to be
assessed at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
Therefore, value which has to be assessed is the value to the
owner who parts with his property and not the value to the new
F owner who takes it over. Fair and reasonable compensation
means the price of a willing buyer which is to be paid to the
willing seller. Though the Act does not provide for "just terms"
or "just compensation", but the market value is to be assessed
taking into consideration the use to which it is being put on
G acquisition and whether the land has unusual or unique features
or potentialities. (Vide: Raja Vyricheria Narayana Gajapatraju
Bahadur Garu v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram,
AIR 1939 PC 98; and Adusumilli Gopalkrishna v. Sp/ Deputy
Collector (Land Acquisition), AIR 1980 SC 1870).
H
BHULE RAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 255
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
8. The concept of guess work is not unknown to various A
fields of law as it applies in the cases relating to insurance,
taxation, compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as
well as under the Labour Laws. The court has a discretion
applying the guess work to the facts of the given case but it is
not unfettered and has to be reasonable having connection to B
the facts on record adduced by the parties by way of evidence.
The court further held as under:
"'Guess' as understood in its common parlance is an
estimate without any specific information while
"calculations" are always made with reference to specific C
data. "Guesstimate" is an estimate based on a mixture
of guesswork and calculations and it is a process in itself.
At the same time "guess" cannot be treated synonymous
to "conjecture''. "Guess" by itself may be a statement or
result based on unknown factors while "conjecture" is D
made with a vefY slight amount of knowledge, which is
just sufficient to incline the scale of probability.
"Guesstimate" is with higher certainty than mere "guess"
or a "conjecture" per se."
E
(See also: Thakur Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR
1976 SC 2219; Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda
& Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2322; and Charan Das & etc. etc. v. H.P.
Housing & Urban Development Authority & Ors. etc., (2010)
13 sec 398). F
9. In Trisha/a Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr.,
AIR 2011 SC 2458, this Court held that in case the parties do
not lead any evidence on record it is difficult for the court to
award compensation merely on the basis of imagination/
conjectures, etc. The Act provides for compensation for G
acquisition of land and deprivation of the property which is
reasonable and just. The court must avoid relying on a sham
transaction which lacks bona fide and which had been executed
for the purpose of raising the land price just before the
acquisition to get more compensation for the reason that H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R.
A fraudulent move or design should not be considered as a proof
in such cases though such a conclusion can be inferred from
the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. The market value of the land should be determined
taking into consideration the existing geographical situation of
8
the land, existing use of the land, already available advantages,
like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or
notionally or intentionally renowned tourist destination or
developed area, and market value of other land situated in the
same locality or adjacent or very near to acquired land and also
C the size of such a land. (Vide: Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v.
State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 2214; Executive Engineer,
Karnataka Housing Board v. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.,
AIR 2011 SC 781; Bilkis & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
(2011) 12 SCC 646 and Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul
D Hamid Mui/a v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., AIR
2012 SC 2709).
11. Where huge tract of land had been acquired and the
same is not continuous, the court has always emphasised on
E applying the principle of belting system for the reason that where
different lands with different survey numbers belonging to
different owners and having different locations, cannot be
considered to be a compact block. Land having frontage on
the highway would definitely have better value than lands farther
F away from highway. (Vide: Andhra Pradesh Industrial
Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. G. Mohan Reddy & Ors.,
c2010) 15 sec 412).
12. In Ashrafi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2013
SC 3654, this Court emphasised on belting system and
G observed that while determining the market value of the land,
the court must be satisfied that the land under exemplar is a
similar land.
(See also: Sher Singh etc. etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR
H 1991 SC 2048).
BHULE RAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 257
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
13. In Executive Engineer (Electrical), Kamataka Power A
Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner &
Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 60,
this Court held that in towns and urban areas, distance of half
kilometer to one kilometer makes considerable difference in
price of the land. Therefore, the court has to determine the B
market value on the basis of the material produced before it
keeping in mind that some of the lands were more
advantageously situated.
14. In Raman/al Deoclland Shah v. State of Maharashtra
& Anr., AIR 2013 SC 3452, this Court held that the burden of C
proof lies on the land owner and in case he does not lead any
evidence in support of his claim to prove the inadequance of
market value fixed of the land acquired, the court cannot help
him.
D
(See also: Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer,
Adilabad, A.P. & Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 595; and Land
Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector, Gadwal v. Sreelatha
Bhoopa/ (Smt) & Anr., (1997) 9 SCC 628).
E
15. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to
the effect that the market value of the land is to be assessed
keeping in mind the limitation prescribed in certain exceptional
circumstances under Section 23 of the Act. A guess work,
though allowed, is permissible only to a limited extent. The
F
market value of the land is to be determined taking into
consideration the existing use of the land, geographical
situation/location of the land alongwith the advantages/
disadvantages i.e. distance from the National or State Highway
or a road situated within a developed area etc. In urban area
even a small distance makes a considerable difference in the G
price of land. However, the court should not take into
consideration the use for which the land is sought to be acquired
and its remote potential value in future. In arriving at the market
value, it is the duty of the party to lead evidence in support of
its case, in absence of which the court is not under a legal H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2014] 4 S.C.R.
A obligation to determine the market value merely as per the
prayer of the claimant.
There may be a case where a huge tract of land is
acquired which runs though continuous, but to the whole revenue
estate of a village or to various revenue villages or even in two
8
or more states. Someone's land may be adjacent to the main
road, others' land may be far away, there may be persons
having land abounding the main road but the frontage may be
varied. Therefore, the market value of the land is to be
C determined taking into consideration the geographical situation
and in such cases belting system may be applied. In such a
fact-situation every claimant cannot claim the same rate of
compensation.
16. The instant appeal is required to be examined in light
D of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.
The appellant has not put on record as what was his claim
under Section 9 of the Act before the Land Acquisition
Collector. The award had been made relying upon some other
E awards. In his application for reference under Section 18 of the
Act, the appellant has inter-alia taken the following grounds:
"(iii) That the land acquisition is very closed and
surrounded by the developed and posh colonies
and industrial area such as Tughlakabad, Railway
F Station, Sarita Vihar, Badarpur Town and other
colonies .....
(iv) That the Revenue Estate of Aali is surrounded by
adjacent villages such as Badarpur, Madanpur
G Tekhand and Tughlakabad.
(iii) That the land of village Aali is better situated and
has more potential value village Jaitpur as the land
of village Aali is near to Delhi and main Mathura
Road.
H
BHULE RAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 259
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
(iv) That the Land Acquisition Collector should have A
assessed the market value of the land in question
on the basis of the judgment of the courts of
surrounding villages as Tughlakabad, Tekhand,
Badarpur, Madanpur Khadar. Several awards of the
Collector or courts are based on the sale B
transactions of each other being same area and
same potential value."
17. The Reference Court while determining the market
value of the land recorded the following findings:
c
"Since the instances of sale in land in village Aali
relied by respondents and referred by. LAC in the Award
are available the sale prices of the land in village Jasola,
Tughlakabad and Badarpur is not required to be looked
into. Further it has not been proved on record in case the D
potentiality and quality of land in village Jasola and
Tughlakabad is the same as that of village Aali and as
such the sale deeds pertaining to aforesaid villages cannot
be relied upon to assess the market value in village Aali.
It has further come on record in other cases pertaining to E
same award the village Madanpur Khadar is located
between village Jasola and Aali and distance between two
villages is about 3 Kms. Further Mathura Road is stated
to be about 6 Kms. from the acquired land. Even village
Tughlakabad and Badarpur are more beneficially located F
than village Aali. For the foregoing reasons, the rate of
land in village Jasola, Badarpur and Tughlakabad cannot
be compared to assess the rate of land in village Aali and
Ex.P7, 8, 9 and 10 are not relevant.
It may also be observed that the acquired land on G
the date of notification under Section 4 was being utilized
for agricultural purposes and no electrical and municipal
connection for water was available. Even the purpose of
acquisition in adjacent land, falling in village Jaitpur was
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.CR.
A for construction of ash pond and as such there could not
have been any substantial appreciation of prices, as no
building activities could have taken place. In view of above,
the land in village Aali cannot be compared with villages
Jasola and Tughlakabad."
B
(Emphasis added)
The Court further held that the three sale deeds referred
to by the Land Acquisition Collector in his award could not
provide a proper guideline for determining the market value of
C the land acquired as they relate to land so sought to be acquired
where value is less than land free from encumbrance.
18. Before the High Court, learned counsel for the
appellant relied solely upon the judgment dated 10.4.2008
0 passed in appeal preferred by Bishamber Dayal & Ors. from
the same village as is evident from the impugned judgment. The
relevant part thereof reads as under:
"Counsel for the appellant submits that the present case
is covered by a judgment dated 1.0.4.2008 passed in an
E appeal registered as LAA 399/2007 entitled Bishamber
Dayal & Ors. v. UOI & Anr., wherein the compensation
payable to the land owners in respect of the same village
under the same award was enhanced from Rs.5,99,850/-
per acre to Rs.6,51,000/- per acre with proportionate
F statutory benefits including interest on the amount of
additional compensation and solatium on the lines of the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v.
Union of India reported as 93 (2001) DLT 569."
G 19. Thus, it is evident that the High Court in the instant case
awarded the compensation as per the demand of the appellant
himself. There is nothing on record to show that any other
argument had been advanced at his behest.
20. Before us, what is being argued are the same issues
H which have already been reje~ted by the Reforence court
BHULE RAM v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 261
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
pointing out the distance of the appellant's land from the A
Mathura Road and non-suitability of comparing with other lands.
We do not see any cogent reason to interfere as the Reference
Court has clearly held that the appellant's land so acquired had
been at a distance of 6 Kms. from the Mathura Road, while
other lands relied upon by the appellant before us are adjacent B
to Mathura Road, and thus the lands are surrounded by
hospitals and residential and commercially developed areas.
21. Land of the appellant is situated in revenue estate Aali
and appellant claims compensation at the rate which has been
awarded in revenue estate Jaitpur. No site plan has been c
produced showing the distance between the land in Jaitpur and
the appellant's land, nor any other evidence is shown to
compare the lands and to determine as to whether the award
in respect of the land in Jaitpur could be used as an exemplar
as only on a comparison would it be possible to arrive at a D
conclusion that both the lands are similarly situated in all
respects.
22. In view of the above, we do not think that the judgments
in RFA No.416of1986 dated 6.10.1986, Ram Chander& Ors. E
v. Union of India in respect of the land situated in Jasola; and
in Hari Chand v. Union of India, 91 {2001) DLT 602 in respect
of the land situated in Tughlakabad have any relevance in the
present appeal.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this .F
appeal. It lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
R.P. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search