Holding

Compensation must be assessed on the basis of market value evidence specific to the village, and the High Court's award of Rs 3000 per bigha is upheld.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard appeals by landowners from village Rangpuri (village 'R') challenging the Delhi High Court's award of Rs 3000 per bigha as compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellants argued that, because adjoining villages Masoodpur and Mahipalpur had been awarded Rs 14,340 per bigha, they should receive the same rate for uniformity. The Court examined the evidence of sale transactions specific to Rangpuri and held that compensation must be based on the market value of the land in the particular village, not on rates fixed for other villages unless the situations are proved identical. It found that the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence, rejected the claim of uniformity, and rightly fixed the compensation at Rs 3000 per bigha. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether landowners of village Rangpuri are entitled to the same compensation rate as landowners of adjoining villages acquired simultaneously.
Whether the market value of land for compensation must be determined from sale evidence specific to the village concerned.
Whether the Delhi High Court's award of Rs 3000 per bigha is perverse, illegal, or contrary to the Land Acquisition Act.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationMarket valueUniformity of compensationLand Acquisition ActReference courtsSale evidence

Judgment

KANWAR SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA

OCTOBER 30, 1998

[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ. AND V.N. KHARE, J.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Acquisition of large tract of /and-Compensation-Determination of-
Land owners claiming compensation at the rate granted for lands of aqjoining C
villages-Claim held not tenable-Generally there would be different situation
and potentiality of lands situated in different villages unless these factors are
proved to be the same-Further, when sale instances relating to the same
village are available there is no need to rely on judgments regarding acquired
land of different village.
D
A large tract of land of village 'R' was acquired by notification dated
23.1.1965 issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Simultaneously lands ofadjoining villages 'M' and 'MP' were also acquired
by another notification of even date. The Land Acquisition Collector divided
a part of the land ofvillage 'R' into three belts and by award No. 1958/67
dated 16.3.1967 fixed their market price at the rates of Rs. 800. Rs. 600 and E
Rs. 400 per bigha for respective belts. The remaining land was divided into
two belts and by the Award No. 146/80-81dated30.3.1981 their price was
fixed at the rate of Rs. 1,800 and Rs. 1,500 per bigha for the respective belts.
The claimants, not being satisfied, preferred references. Two reference
courts enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7000 and Rs. 5000 for respective F
belts, whereas the third reference court rejected the reference. The
claimants filed appeals before the High Court. The Union oflndia also filed
cross-objections against some cf the orders of reference courts.

Meanwhile the references pertaining to the awards regarding lands
of villages 'M' and 'MP' were disposed of by the respective reference courts. G
One court enhanced the market value of the land to Rs. 18000 per bigha
whereas the other court determined the compensation at Rs. 24,340 per
bigha. Union of India filed appeals against both the orders. High Court
dismissed summarily the appeal against the former order; and fixed the
market value at Rs. 14,340 per bigha in the latter case.
505 H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A In the appeals filed by the landowners of village 'R' it was contended
before the High Court that since the High Court had fixed the market value
at Rs. 14,340 per bigha for the lands of adjoining village acquired
simultaneously, they should also be awarded compensation fixing the price
of their lands at Rs. 14,340 per bigha. The High Court allowed the appeals
B of the Union of India partly and held that the claimants were entitled to
compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 3000 per bigha. Aggrieved, the
claimants of village 'R' filed the present appeals.

It was contended for the appellants that there should be uniformity
in the matter of grant of compensation and the High Court committed a
C grave error in depriving the appellants of the compensation which they were
entitled to under the law and, therefore, they should be granted
compensation at Rs. 14,340 per bigha as was granted to :he landowners of
the adjoining village. It was also contended that the Union of India having
not preferred any appeal or cross-objection against the award of one of the
reference courts in respect of L.A. case No. 3116/&2 pertaining to a part of
D the land of their village, as a result of which there existed two sets of rates
of compensation, and in such circumstances the appellants should be granted
the same compensation as was. granted to the claimants of L.A. case No.
3116/82.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
E HELD: 1.1. The claim of appellants that they deserved to be awarded
the same rate of compensation as was awarded to the claimants of the
adjoining villages, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is not
tenable. Generally there would be different situation and potentiality of the
land in two different villages unless it is proved that the situation and
F potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same. The High Court
in the present case has found that the situation and potentiality of land in
appellants' village are different than those of the adjoining village. This
finding of the High Court is based on correct appreciation of evidence on
record and does not call for interference. The judgment of the High Court
is neither perverse nl'r illegal. (511-A-C; 513-F)
G
1.2. Besides, the sale instances relating to the appellants' village were
available for determining the market value of the land acquired in that
village and as such there was no need to rely on the judgments which related
to acquired land of different villages. Moreover, the appeal filed by the Union
of India relating to the grant of compensation in respect of land in th1e
H adjoining village was dismissed summarily, as the only challenge in th1e
KANWAR SINGHv. U.0.1. [V.N. KHARE,n 507
appeal was in respect of grant of interest to the claimants which matter was A
already settled by the Supreme Court. In fact the High Court had adversely
commented upon the working of the Land Acquisition Department of Delhi
Administration in not challenging the market value of the land acquired in
that village as assessed by the Additional District Judge, in Regular First
Appeals although the court fee to that effect was paid. [511-C-F)
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7690 of
1994 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9 .4.92 of the Delhi High Court in
R.F.A. No. 45 of 1974.

A.B. Rohtagi, Jitender Seth, R.P. Jain and MS. Meenakshi Arora for C
the Appellants.
Wasim A. Quadri, Ms. Niranjana Singh and Rajeev Sharma for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
V.N. KHARE, J. Leave granted.

This group of Civil Appeals is directed against the judgment of a Division
Bench of Delhi High Court and the questions involved therein relate to the
quantum of compensation with regard to acquisition of appellants' land situated
in village Rangpuri @ Malikpur Kohi, Delhi. Since common questions of E
fact and law are involved in this group of appeals, we propose to decide them
by a common judgment noticing the fact of the case appearing on the record
of Civil Appeal No. 7690 of 1994.

A large tract of land in village Rangpuri near Palam Airport was notified
for acquisition vide notification dated 23.1.1965 issued under Section 4 of F
the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for
planned development of Delhi. Simultaneously, notifications dated 23. LI 965
were also issued for acquisition of land in villages Masoodpur and Mahipalpur.
Some plots of land of village Rangpuri were acquired vide Award No. 1958/
67 dated 16.3 .1967. The Land Acquisition Collector while assessing the market G
value of the acquired land covered by the aforesaid Award, divided the said
land into three blocks and fixed Rs. 800, Rs. 600 and Rs. 400 per bigha for
Block-I, Block-II and Block-III respectively. The remaining land of village
~
Rangpuri not covered by earlier award were acquired by Award No. 146/80-
81 dated 30.3.1981. The Land Acquisition Collector while giving the said
Award divided the land in to two blocks and fixed Rs. 1800 and Rs. 1500 H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A per bigha for Block-A and Block-B, respectively as market value as on
23 .1.1965. Since the claimants were not satisfied with the compensation offeri:d
by the Land Acquisition Collector, they preferred references to the District
Judge, Delhi. Shri Jagdish Chandra, learned Additional District Judge, while
dealing with one set of plots of land covered under Award No. 1958, vide
B judgment dated 23 .3 .1971 assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 7000
per bigha for Block-A and Rs. 5000 per bigha for Block-B. Another set of
reference cases also pertaining to remaining land covered by Award 1958
were dealt with by Shri O.N. Vohra, learned Additional District Judge. After
hearing the matter, the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated
5.11.1973 rejected the reference cases altogether and upheld the compensation
C offered by the Land Acquisition Collector. The third set of reference cases
pertaining to land covered by Award No. 146 were decided by Shri T.S.
Oberoi, learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 29.4.1986.
The learned Additional District Judge, while deciding these cases relied upon
the jlJdgment of Shri Jagdish Chandra, Additional District Judge and fixed
the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 7000 and 5000 per bigha,
D respectively.
In the case ofland falling in village Masoodpur, Shri S.R. Goel, learned
Additional District Judge fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.
18,000 per bigha as on 23.1,1965. For the remaining land, falling in village
Masoodpur, Shri Padam Singh, learned Additional District Judge fixed the
E market value of the land acquired at Rs. 14,340 per bigha with Rs. 10,000
as value of minerals and awarded Rs. 24,340 per bigha as compensation, vide
judgment dated 12.4.1990. The Union of India filed an Appeal in the High
Court against the judgment of Shri Padam Singh, Additional District Judge
which was registered as Regular First Appeal (in short RF A) No. 567/90. The
p High Court summarily dismissed the said appeal without assigning any reason
and the matter ended there, as Union of India did not prefer any appeal
challenging the said judgment passed by a Division Bench of the High Court.
So far as the compensation awarded to the claimants for acquisition of their
lands in village Mahipalpur was concerned, the High Court relied upon a
decision of the High Court rendered in R.F.A. No. 567/90, as there was no
G sale instance available for fixing the market value of land in village
Mahipalpur. Consequently, the High Court by judgment and order dated July
17, 1991 allowed R.F.A. No. 122178 and fixed the market value of the land
in village Mahipalpur at Rs. 14,340 per bigha as on 23.1.1965.
To connect the chain of events, the claimants who are appellants before
H us, being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by three different
KANWAR SINGH v. U.0.1. [V.N. KHARE, J.] 509
Additional District Judges filed three sets of appeals before the High Court. A
Some of the appellants before us filed Regular First Appeals against the order
of Shri Jagdish Chand.11, Additional District Judge in Land Acquisition Case
No. 415/67 decided on 29.3.71 relating to Award No. 1958 whereby the
learned Additional District Judge fixed tLi market value at Rs. 7000 per
bigha for block I land and Rs. 5000 per bigha for block 2 land. The appellants/ B
claimants who were given compensation at the rate of Rs. 5000 per bigha in
their appeals claimed that they ought to have been given compensation @ Rs.
7000 per bigha. The Union of India also filed appeals against the aforesaid
judgment of Shri Jagdish Chandra, Additional District Judge. In the said
appeals the claimants filed cross objections. While these appeals were pending,
the High Court decided Regular First Appeal No. 122/78 Hoshiar Singh etc. C
v. Union of India awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 14340 per bigha
in respect of land acquired in village Mahipalpur. In view of the said decision
of the High Court, the claimants claimed compensation @ Rs. 14340 per
bigha for all categories of lands instead of Rs. 7000 per bigha, as awarded
by the Reference Court.
D
Regular First Appeals were also filed against the judgment ofShri O.N.
Vohra. Additional District Judge in Land Acquisition Case No. 455/67 arising
out of Award No. 1958 whereby Shri Vohra, learned Additional District
Judge rejected the references holding that the claimants were not entitled to
the enhancement of compensation. Shri Vohra, learned Additional District
Judge was of the view that the sale deed in relation to Khasra No. 1587/l was E
sham and bogus and, as such, the same was not worthy of reliance. Regular
First Appeals Nos. 333/87 and 431/86 were also filed against the judgment
of Shri T.S. Oberoi, Additional District Judge rendered in Land Acquisition
Case No. 29/83 decided on 24.l l.86. All these appeals and cross objections
were consolidated and heard together by the High Court. The High Court by F
the impugned judgment partly allowed the appeals of Union of India and
appellants holding that the claimants/appellants were entitled to compensation
@ Rs. 3000 per bigha in respect of the entire lands as the High Court did not
approve of the division ofland in three blocks considering its potential value.
The claimants were also given solatium in accordance with the law prevalent
at the relevant time. Aggrieved, the appellants have come to this Court by G
filing Special Leave Petitions.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that for the acquired land in
the adjoining villages, viz., Masoodpur and Mahipalpur, the claimants were
awarded compensation @ Rs. 14,340 per bigha and as such the appellants
in the present cases were also entitled to the same amount of compensation. H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A In this connection learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Delhi High
Court in RFA No. 122/78 Hoshiar Singh etc. v. Union of India decided on
17.7.91 and judgment in RFA No. 567/90 Union ofIndia v. Inderpal Malhotra,
decided on 25.10.90 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 14340 per
bigha for acquisition of land in villages Mahipalpur and Masoodpur,
B respectively. On the strength of these judgments, learned counsel urged that
there should be an uniformity in the matter of grant of compensation and the
High Court committed a grave error in depriving the appellants of the
compensation which they were entitled under the law. Learned counsel also
argued that since no appeal or cross objection was filed by Union of India
against the judgment in Land Acquisition Case No. 316/82 decided by Shri
C T.S. Oberoi, Additional District Judge, there exists two sets of rates of
compensation, and under such circumstances in order to bring uniformity in
the rate of compensation, the appellants may be awarded the same rate of
compensation which the claimants in Land Acquisition Case No. 3116/82
have been awarded.
D
So far as the first argument that the appellants ought to have been given
the same rate of compensation which was given to the claimants of the
adjoining village is concerned, the amount of compensation for the land
acquired depends on the market value of land on the date of immediately
before the notification under Section 4 of the Act or when same land is
E acquired and offer of compensation is made through an Award, whether such
an offer of compensation represent the market value of the land on the date
of notification under Section 4 of the Act, has to be determine on the basis
of evidence produced before the Court. The claimants have to prove and
demonstrated that the compensation offered by the Collector is not adequate
F and the same does not reflect the true market value of the land on the date
of notification under Section 4 of the Act. This could only be done by the
claimants by adducing evidence to the effect that on the relevant date, the
market value of the land in question was such at which the vendor and the
vendee (buyer and seller) were willing to sell or purchase the land. The
G consideration in terms of price received for land under bona fide transactions
on the date or preceding the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the
Act generally shows the market value of the acquired land and the market.
value of the acquired land to be assessed in terms of those transactions. Sale
instances showing the price fetched for similar land with similar advantages
under bonajide transaction of sale at or near about the issue of notification
H under Section 4 of the Act is well recognized to be the appropriate evid1~nce
KANWAR SINGH v. U.O.I. (V.N. KHARE, J.] 511

for determining the market value of the acquired land. A
The contention of appellants' counsel that appellants deserved to be
awarded the same rate of compensation as it was awarded to the claimants
of village Masoodpur and Mahipalpur, in the present facts and circumstances
of the case, is not tenable. Ifwe go by the compensation awarded to claimants
of adjoining village it would not lead to the correct assessment of market B
value of the land acquired in the village Rangpuri. For example village 'A'
adjoins village 'B', village B adjoins village 'C', village 'C' adjoins village
'D', so on and so forth and in that process the entire Delhi would be covered.
Generally there would be different situation and potentiality of the land situated
in two different villages unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality C
of the land in two different villages are the same. The High Court in the
present case has found that the situation and potentiality of land in village
Malikpur Khoi are different than that of village Masoodpur. This finding of
the High Court is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and
does not call for interference. Another reason why the High Court declined
to rely upon the judgments referred to above was that the sale instances D
relating to village Malikpur Khoi were available for determining the market
value of the land acquired in village Malikpur Khoi and as such there was
' - ' no need to rely upon the judgments which related to acquired land of different
villages. Yet another reason why the two judgments referred to by learned
counsel for appellant cannot be relied upon for assessing the market value of .
acquired land in village Malikpur Khoi was that RFA No. 567190 filed by the E
Union of India. relating to the grant of compensation in respect of land in
village Masoodpur was dismissed summarily, as the only challenge in the
appeal was in respect of grant of interest to the claimants which matter was
already settled by the Supreme Court. In fact, the High Court had adversely
commented upon the working of the Land Acquisition Department of Delhi p
Administration in not challenging the market value of the land acquired in
village Masoodpur as assessed by the Additional District Judge, in Regular
First Appeals although the court fee to that effect was paid. In this connection,
it is relevant to reproduce the finding of the Higb Court, which runs as
follows:-
G
"Before leaving the judgment, we are constrained to make a few
observations regarding the working of the land Acquisition Department
in Delhi Administration and contest of these appeals by the counsel
for Union of India. Although an appeal filed by the Union of India
against the judgment of the ADJ in LAC 186/91 is pending in this
court, this fact was not brought to our notice by the counsel for H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Union of India. This decision of the ADJ in LAC 186/81 has been
substantially relied upon by another ADJ in LAC 15/81. When the
appeal against the said decision of the ADJ in LAC 15/81 came
before us RFA 567/90 the only question pressed by the counsel for
Union of India was in regard to the payment of interest after the
amendment in the Land Acquisition Act in 1984. But when we founc
B tliat the dismissal of the said appeal by the Division Bench was relieo
upon in RFA 122178 Hoshiar Singh v. Union of India, we sent for
the file. What is discovered on the file is shocking. The Union of
Indiahad purchased stamp worth Rs. 1,19,300. Obviously, the intention
was to file an appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded
c b) the ADJ. However, the grounds of appeal mostly relate to the
payment of interest in terms of the Amending Act of 1984. The
appeal memo was drafted by Mr. Guiab Chandra, Advocate, who also
appeared before us in RFA 567/90. Since the questions regard'ing
payment of interest after the Amending Act of 1984 are now fully
settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court had since that was the
D only question argued before us by the counsel for the Union of India,
the appeal was dismissed by us. We had not noticed at that stage that
a stamp of Rs. 1,19,300 was affixed by the Union of India. This only
discovered now. The purchase of stamp worth Rs. 1,19,300 would
show that the claim would be over a crore of rupees. The claimants
E have been benefitted because Union of India did not argue the matter
on compensation. Apart from the lack of interest and inefficiency in
the Land Acquisition matters on behalf of the Land Acquisition
Department, these facts raise grave suspicion about the credibility of
the working of the said Department. We, therefore, direct that a copy
of this judgment be sent to the Lt. Governor for appropriate action."
F
The judgment of the High Court in RFA No. 567/90 was relied upon in RFA
No. 122178 Hoshiar Singh etc. v. Union of India as there was no sale instance
in respect of the land in village Mahipalpur was available for assessing the
market value of acquired land in the village Mahipalpur. It may be seen that
in both the cases the High Court had no occasion to examine the market
G value of acquired land in village Masoodpur and Mahipalpur and under such
circumstances it is not safe to rely upon two judgments of the High Court for
arriving at the market value of the land in village Rangpuri.
The High Court has considered the following sale instances in detail
which were from the same village viz., Rangpuri A to A and came to the
H conclusion that sale transaction with regard to Khashra No. 1587/1 is not
KANWAR SINGH v. U.0.1. [V.N. KHARE, J.] 513
genuine sale transaction and as 'such it cannot be relied upon for assessing the A
market value of the land acquired. The High Court also found that the sale
instances of the year .1964 at serial No. 4 and 6 which were nearer to the
point of time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, are best pieces of
evidence for assessing the market value of the land acquired.

SI. Ext. Des- Date of Not- Field No. Rate B
No. No. cription of fl cation Area and per
document situation bigha
sale/regn. Rs.
I. A-1 Deed of sale 14.03.61 14 (2 bighas) 25,000
Malikpur Khoi c
2. A-2 -do- 07.07.62 72 min (6bis) 4,000
-do-
-~

3. A-5 -do- 28.04.64 1587/1(1 bigha) 5000
-do- D
4. A-2 -do- 26.10.62 1677(4 bighas) 344
-do-

5. R-1 Copy of 09.04.63 769,770 etc.
Mutation (91 bighas & 1 bis.) 300
E
-do-

6. R-2 Deed of sale 19.08.64 1637, 1650,1651,1652,1653/l
& 1653/2(24 bighas) 500
-do-

After having considered the sale instances the High Court assessed the F
market value of the land acquired @ Rs. 3000 per bigha. The judgment of
the High Court is neither perverse nor illegal and does not call for any
interference, since it is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record
and proper application of law to the established facts. The appeals are,
accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there shall be no G
order as to cost.

R.P. Appeals dismissed.