JHANDOO (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

                    JHANDOO (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.                                      A
                                            v.
                                  UNION OF INDIA

                                  AUGUST 7, 1996

                 (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                                  B

            Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

          Ss.4(1), 23(1)-Acquisition of large extent of land in 1957-Compen-
    sation awarded by referenc~ court at the rate of Rs. JO per sq. yd.-Appellant's      C
    clain1 for enhance111ent of contpensation on the basis of a sbnilar case in
    which ma1ket value was detennined by High Court at Rs. 12 per sq. yd. based
    Oil a sale deed, rejected by High Cowt-Held, keeping ill view the legal
    positioll regarding deduction of development charges, alld the State havillg
    not filed ally appeal, it is llOt a fit case for inteiferellce.
                                                                                         D
          S.54-Appeal against the order of referellce court ill ally proceedillgs
    Ullder the Act shall lie to High Cowt alld llOt to Supreme Court--Preseltt
    appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitutioll callllOt be treated
    to be an appeal u/s. 54.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                  Civil appeal No. 281 of        E
    1985.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.84 of the Delhi High Court
    in R.F.A. No. 281 of 1979.

            Prem Prasad Juneja for the Appellants.                                       F
            V.C. Mahajan and C.V. Subba Rao for the respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :



-         This Appeal arises from the judgment dated July 23, 1984 of the
    Division Bench of the Delhi High Court made in RFA No. 281of1979.

          Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
                                                                                         G



    (for short, the 'Act') acquiring a large extent of land was published on
    March 8, 1957. The land of the appellant admeasuring one bigha and 14
    biswas formed part of that land. Reference Court relying upon judgment H
                                        377
    378                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   of the High Court in A.N. Bha11dwi v. U11io11 of bidia, LPA No. 81 of 1979
    decided on May 1, 1990 awarded compensation @ Rs. 10 per square yard.
    On appeal, it was confirmed. The High Court relied upon a single sale
    deed in similar case in which market value had been fixed @ Rs. 12 per
    square yard. Therefore, the appellant also cl~imed that rate. Since he was
    not awarded the rate claimed by him, he has filed appeal in this Court
B   challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court.

          Shri Juneja, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
    High Court, having found that the market value of the land in question
    could fetch was Rs. 12 per square yard, would have granted compensation
C   at that rate. Though prima facie we find the contention plausible and
    acceptable, in view of the legal position that at least 1/3rd of the market
    value has to be deduced towards development charges and that the said
    consideration was not adopted in the case on which reliance is placed, the
    fact boils down that if the award is to be interfered with, the appellant
    would get less than what has been granted to him by the High Court.
D   However, since the. State has not filed any appeal and in the facts and
    circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is not a case warranting
    interference:

          The appeal under Section 54 of the Act would not lie to this Court.
    A reading of Section 54 would clearly indicate that the appeal shall lie in
E   any proceedings under the act only to the High Court against the award
    and decree of the reference Court and further appeal to this Court would
    be under Article 136 of the Constitution read with ·section 11, CPC. by Way
    of special leave and not under Section 54 of the Act, except when the High
    Court has given certificate thereunder.
F
          Accordingly, this appeal cannot be treated to be an appeal under
    Section 54 of the Act but one by special leave under Article 136. In either
    case, we do not find any ground warranting interference. Hence the appeal
    is dismissed. No costs.

G R.P.                                                         Appeal dismissed .
                                                                                     ...