MAHANT SHREO NATH CHELA BABA PURAN NATHversusSTATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR

A         MAHANT SHREO NATH CHELA BABA PURAN NATH
                                          v.
              STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH COLLECTOR

                                  MARCH 1, 1995

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

           Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Compensation-Determination of-Par-
    ties agreeing that acquired lands should be treated at par with lands acquired
    in an earlier case-Consequent determination of compensation relying upon
C   compensation awarded in earlier case-Held valid.

        27 acres of appellant's land was acquired for which the Land Ac-
                                                                                     y
  quisition Officer awarded compensation @Rs. 5 per maria. On reference,
  the District Judge made two blocks and awarded compensation @Rs.120
  per maria for 'A' block and for the 'B' block @Rs. 100 per maria. On .
D appeal, a single judge of the High Court awarded compensation @Rs. 140
  per maria for all types of land. On further appeal a Division Bench of the
  High Court, relying upon the judgment in Mange Ram v. State of Haryana,
  R.F.A. No. 798of1975 decided in Febn1ary 1981 by P&H High Court, made
  two blocks - 'A' block upto the proximity of fifty feet as one block and
E thereafter block, 'B' and 'C' and fixed valuation for 'A' block @R.s 8 per
  sq. yard. As regards 'B' and 'C' block the appellant agreed that the lands
  in question should be treated at par with 'B' and 'C' block of lands in
  Mange Ram's case and consequently the High Court awarded compensa-
  tion @Rs. 6.75 per sq. yard as determined in Mange Ram's case.

F          The appellants filed appeafa in this Court seeking compensation
    @Rs. 8 per sq. yard contending that (i) since the lands were situated on
    the front to the main Delhi-Rohtak Road much nearer to the front portion
    to the road than the lands in Mange Ram's case, all lands should be
    treated as 'A' block and compensation should have been awarded@Rs. 8
    per sq. yard; (ii) in view of the judgment in Mange Ram's case this was a
    fit case for reconsideration of the evidence.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court

          HELD: 1. The High Court was right in fixing the market value at Rs.
H   6.75 per sq. yard. It is a clear case of counsel agreeing not only to the
                                        426
      I
                          PURAN NATII v. STATEOFHARYANA                         427

          proximity of the land in Mange Ram's case to the lands in these appeals A
          but also in relation to their division '8' and 'C' block as determined in
          Mange Ram's case. The Division Bench therefore, did not rightly go into
          the evidence to determine the compensation afresh. Thus, it being within
          the realm of power and jurisdiction of the High Court and it having fixed
          the market value at Rs. 6.75 per sq. yard for the land in blocks '8' and 'C', B
          there is no error of law. Consequently, there is no need to remand the
          matter for fresh consideration of the evidence as claimed for.
,r-                                                                  (428-G, 429-B-D]
               Mange Ram v. State of Haryana, R.F.A. No. 798 of 1975 decided in
          February 1981 by P&H High Court, referred to.
                                                                                      c
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4495-
          95A. of 1991.

               From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.84 of the Punjab and
          Haryana High Court in L.P A. Nos. 573 and 575 of 1980.
                                                                                      D
I               Satish Chandra, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi, K.B. Rohtagi and Baldev
          Atriya for the Appellants.

                I.S. Goyal for Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Respondent.

                The following Order of the Court was delivered:                       E

                These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the
          Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Letters Patent
 /,       Appeal No. 573/80 dated May.1, 1984. The lands in a total extent of 27
          acres were acquired by a Notification published under s.4(1) on December p
          22, 1972 and January 31, 1973 for public purpose. The Land Acquisition
          Officer by is award dated November 28, 1973 determined the compensation
          @Rs. 5 per maria. On reference under s.18, the Additional District Judge
          made two blocks and awarded compensation @Rs. 120 per maria for 'A'
          block and for the 'B' block @Rs. 100 per maria. On appeal, the single
          Judge of the High Court awarded compensation @Rs. 140 per maria by G
--._      the judgment dated May 22, 1980 for all types of land. On appeal, the
          bench of the High Court following the ratio in Mange Ram v. State of
          Haryana, in R.F.A. No. 798/75 dated February 1981 made two blocks. 'A'
          block upto the proximity of 50 ft. as one block and block 'B' and 'C'
          thereafter and fixed valuation for 'A' block @Rs. 8 per sq. yd. and for the H
                                                                                    \
    428                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A 'B' block and 'C' block @Rs. 6.75 per sq. yd .. Following that ratio, the
     appeals treated the lands as 'B' and 'C' block and awarded compensation
     @Rs. 6.75 per sq. yd. with usual 15% solatium & interest at the rate of six
     per cent from the date of taking possession till the payment.· Seeking
     further enhancement at least @Rs. 8 as awarded in Mange Ram's case,
B    these appeals came to be filed.

         Shri Satish Chandra, learned senior counsel for the appellants, con-
   tended that the High Court, without discussing the evidence, has reached
   the conclusion that the lands in question are on par with 'B' and 'C' block
   as determined in Mange Ram's case and awarded compensation @Rs. 6.75
·C per sq. yd .. The lands in question, in fact, are situated at Rohtak-Delhi
   road abutting the main Rohtak-Delhi road much more nearer to the front
   portion to the road than in Mange Ram's case. Therefore, all' the lands are
   to be treated as 'A' block and compensation should have been paid @Rs.
   8 per sq. yd., though the appellants have been claiming @Rs. 10 per sq.
 D yd. Even otherwise this is a fit case for remand for reconsideration of the
   evidence in the light of the ratio in Mange Ram's case. Shri l.S. Goyal,
   learned counsel for the respondent-State, contended that the appellants
   had agreed before the Division Bench that the lands in question are to be
   treated at part with 'B' and 'C' block of land in Mange Ram's case and
   having agreed for the same it is not open to the appellants to raise afresh
 E contention in this court to contend that the lands were situated on the front
   to Rohtak-Delhi Road and that, therefore, they are entitled to higher
   compensation.

         Having given our anxious consideration to their respective conten-
F tions, we are of the view that the High Court had done right in fixing the
  market value at Rs. 6.75 per sq. yd. The High Court has noted thus.. "The
  learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the acquisition to which
  judgment in Mange Ram's case relates not only bears proximity to the
  present acquisition in point of time but also in location as the two parcels
  of land in that case and in the instant cases are located in the close vicinity
G of each other. According to the learned counsel only a canal known as
  Chhotu Ram Canal intervenes the two acquired areas. The existence of this
  canal, in our view, cannot possibly be a ground to differentiate the market
  value of the two parcels of land, i.e. the presently acquired land and the
  land falling in 'B' and 'C' blocks which was ordered to be treated as one
H block in Mange Ram's case. For that land the appellants were allowed
    I
                         PURAN NATII v. STATE OFHARYANA                         429

        compensation @rs. 6.75 per sq. yard".                                          A
               In that view of the matter, it is a dear-case of counsel agreeing not
        only to the proximity of the land in Mange Ram's case and the lands in
        these appeals but also in relation to their location of the two respective
        parcels of the land i.e. 'B' and 'C' block as determined in Mange Ram's
        case. The Division Bench rightly did not go in to the evidence by this         B
        conclusion to determine the compensation afresh. Instead, it relied upon
        the determination of the compensation in Mange Ram's case. It is a point
        to note that the same learned judges have dealt with both the cases.
        Obviously, the learned Judges had the knowledge of the proximity as well
        as situation of the lands when the appeals had been considered. Though a       C
        map has been placed before us, we are unable to locate the lands in Mange
        Ram's case, and whether the lands in 'A' block are in the close proximity
        to the acquired land.

               Under those circumstances, it being within the realm of power and
        jurisdiction of the Hig:n Court and it having fixed the market value at Rs. D
        6.75 per sq. yd. for the lands in these appeals, there is no error of law. We
{       do not think if we should to remand the matter for fresh consideration of
        the evidence as claimed for. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No
        costs.

        T.N.A.                                                  Appeals dismissed.     E



/