NAWAL SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC.

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

                              JULY 25, 1995

         [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]
                                                                                 B

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

     Compensatiort-Award of-Price of small extent of land-Not to f01m
the sole basis for awarding higher compensation for large track of C
lan~Awarding market value to moTtgagee and 25% extra compensation to
owner-Held, not justified as no discernible principle has been made out.

      Certain lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the
Collector classified the lands as A.B.C. blocks and awarded Rs. 1600, Rs.
1400, and Rs. 1000 per bighas respectively. On reference, the Additional         D
District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4250 Rs. 3200 and Rs.
2150 per bigha respectively. On appeal the High Court further enhanced
the compensation to Rs. 5250, 4000 and Rs. 3000 respectively based on a
single sale transaction in an adjacent village.
                                                                                 E
    The claimants preferred the present appeals claiming enhanced
compensation @ Rs. 9000 per bigha.

      Dismissing the appeals, this Court

      HELD : 1. It is now a settled principle that the price of a small extent   F
of land cannot form the sole basis for fixation of higher compensation
wben a large track of land is acquired. Since the State did not file any
appeal, there is need to go into the correctness of the finding recorded by
the High Court. Suffice it to state that there is no other evidence on reco;a
to further enhance the compensation. (308-G]
                                                                                 G
      2. There is no discernib!e principle made by the High Court to
further enhance 25% more to the owner while awarding the market value
to the mortgagee. Thus, there is no legal principle warranting further
enhancement of 25% extra compensation as has been awarded by the High
Court. (309-BJ                                                                   H
                                     307
    308                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2S.C.R.

A        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2130 of
    1980 Etc. Etc.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.79 of the Delhi High Court
    in R.F.A .No. 115 of 1979.

B         U.N. Bachawat, K. Madhava Reddy, Ranbir Yadav, P. Gaur, Rishi
    Kesh, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Manoj Prasad, H.M. Singh, Anis Ahmed
    Khan, and J.D. Jain, (Not Present) for the appearing parties.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

C         CA. No. 2130 OF 1980.

           Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published
    on November 13, 1959 acquiring 1876 Bighas 19 Biswas land situated in
    Jwalahari for planned development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Col-
    lector classified the lands as A, B, C Blocks and awarded @ Rs. 1600, Rs.
D   1400 and Rs. 1000 per bigha respectively. On reference under s.18 of the
    Act, the Additional District Judge by his Award and Decree dated Sep-
    tember 8, 1979 further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4250, 3200 and
    2150 per bigha respectively. The High Court, on appeal, further enhanced
    the compensation to Rs. 5250, 4000 and 3000 respectively. Not being
E   satisfied with the enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court, the
    claimants have filed these appeals under s.54 of the Act claiming enhanced
    compensation @ Rs. 9,000 per bigha.

         The High Court found that there are no sale transactions in the
  village Jwalahari other than one sale transaction in village Madipur which
F is said to be adjacent to the village Jwalahari. That sale deed was dated
  April 20, 1959 just before the Notification. An extent of 1472.22 sq. yards
  was sold in Khasra No. 828 for a consideration of Rs. 7726 which worked
  out at Rs. 5250 per bigha. Based thereon, the High Court has enhanced
  the compensation. It is now a settled principle that the price of a small
G extent of land cannot form the sole basis for fixation of higher compensa-
  tion when a large track of land is acquired. Since the State did not file any
  appeal, we need not go into the correctness of the finding recorded by the
  High Court. Suffice it to state that there is no other evidence on record for
  us to further enhance the compensation.

H         It is next contended that the High Court having made a distinction
                         NAWALSINGH v. U.0.1.                           309

  between the owner and the mortgagee and enhanced 25% extra compen-           A
  sation to the owner, committed a grave error of law in not awarding the
  same to the appellants. We find no discernible principl.e made by the High
  Court to further enhance 25% more to the owner while awarding the
 .market value to the mortgagee. Under these circumstances, we do not find
  any legal principle warranting further enhancement of 25% extra compen-
. sation. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances,
                                                                               B
  without costs.

       All applications for substitutions & consolidation and reduction of
 security are allowed.

       CA. Nos. 2525, 2524, 2970, 2823, 1895180, 1577, 3112, 1376181,
                                                                               c
 3151/80, 3758/82, 1784/81, 1375/81 and CA. No. 7048 of 1995 (arising out
 of SLP (C) No. 2161/81).

        Leave granted in S.L.P. No. 2161 of 1981.

        Following the order made just now in C.A. 2130/80, these appeals       D
 shall stand dismissed. No costs.

 G.N.                                                    Appeal dismissed.