NIKKIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                                     NIKKI                                        A
                                        v.
                        UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

                              JANUARY 17, 1995

           [K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]                              B

>         Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1) & 23 (1}-Compensation
    claim-Land acquired in 1978 for brick klin-Lands situated not in developed
    area-Fixation of market value at Rs. 50,000 per acre-Not arbitrary or il-
    legal-Sale instances of small extent-cannot be relied on to detennine com-    C
    pensation of large extent of land.

           A notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was pub-
    lished on June 2, 1978 acquiring 21.64 acres of land in a village near
    Chandigarh for established of a Brick Klin for Chandigarh Housing
    Board. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the the land and awarded     D
    the compensation between Rs. 21,000 to Rs. 48,000 per acre. On reference,
    the civil com1 uniformly enhanced the compensation to Rs. 27 ,000 per acre.
    On appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000 per
    acre. This appeal had been filed by the claimant for further enhancement
    of the compensation to Rs.1 lac per acre.                                     E
          The appellant contended that the High Court Court ought to have
    relied on the awards made by the Court in 1980 wherein Rs. 3,75,000 per
    acre was awarded and Rs. 62,000 per acre was awarded in 1982, wherein
    the acquisition was near Chandigarh by the side of the town which ~as
    equi-distance of the land under acquisition on the other side of the road.    F

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court

          HELD : In the instant case, the lands were situated on the side of
    the road wherein lands were not developed. The very fact; that the acquisi-
    tion in this case was for brick klin indicated that it was not such a         G
    developed area. As early as in 1974 when the court itself determined the
    compensation of Rs. 33,000 per acre, the fixation of the market value at
    Rs. 50,000 per acre could not be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Two sale
    instances of 1971 & 1974 were of small extents and so they did not provide
    reasonable and safe basis nor could be relied on to determine compensa-       H
                                       341
    342                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A tion of large extent of land. [343-D-F]
            CIVIL APi:ELLATE JURISDICTION : CiviJ Appeal No. 998 of
    1990.

       From the Judgment and Order dated 17.1.83 of the Punjab &
B Haryana High Court in R.F.A. No. 821 of 1980.
            L.R. Singh for the Appellant.

            Manoj Swaroop for the Respondent.

C           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         A notification under s.4(1) was published on June 2, 1978 acquiring
  21.64 acres of land in Mauli Jagaram village, near Chandigarh for estab-
  lishment of a Brick Klin for Chandigarh housing Board. The Land Ac-
  quisition Collector in his award under s.11 of the Act dated July 12, 1978
D classified the land and awarded the compensation between Rs. 21,000 to
  Rs. 48,000 per acre. On reference, the Addl. District Judge in his award
  and decree dated January 28, 1980 had uniformly enhanced the compen-
  sation to Rs. 27,000 per acre, without agreeing with the classification of the
  land made by the Collector. On further appeal under s.54, the High Court
E by its judgment and decree dated 17.1.83 in RFA no. 821 enhanced the
  compensation to Rs. 50,000 per acre. Still not being satisfied, the appellant
  has come to this Court by special leave.

        The learned counsel Sri L.R. Singh for the appellant has contended
  that as early as in 1971 and 1974 the market value of the land was ranging
F between Rs. 37,500 to Rs. 62,000 per acre. The High Court ought to have
  relied on the awards made by the Court in RFA No. 2608of1980 wherein
  Rs.3,75,000 per acre was awarded for the acquisition to establish Mani
  Mazra Motor Market and Rs. 62,000 per acre was awarded in LPA No.
  1207 dated September 22, 1982 wherein the acquisition was near Chan-
G digarh by the side of the town which is equi-distance of the land under
  acquisition on the other side of the road. Therefore, the claimants are
  entitled to the compensation at Rs. 1 lac per acre. We find no force in the
  contention. The learned Judge of the High Court has pointed out in his
  _judgment thus :

H             "It cannot be disputed that in the area of Chandigarh the prices
                            NIKKI v. U.0.1.                            343

        have been rising and by the time the acquisition was made in June, A
        1978, the rise would have been such that the value would have been
        50,000 per acre. It is true that in December, 1974 for village Buterla
        the compensation was allowed at the rate of Rs. 33,000 per acre,
        but for the acquisitions made in 1977-78 the Compensation was
        allowed at the rate of Rs. 62,000 in Jaswant Singh's case (supra).
        The villages in which acquisitions were made in Jaswant Singh's
                                                                               B
        case (supra) were more close to the Town of Chandigarh and on
        the same side of Sukhna Choe as is the Town of Chandigarh, and
        therefore had higher value as compared to the land on the other
        side of the Sukhna Choe where the acquisition has been made in·
        this case. Therefore, seeing the case from any angle, I am of the    c
        considered opinion that it would be reasonable to award the
        compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per acre in these appeals
        and I order accordingly."

The learned Judge, having had the knowledge of topography of the Chan-
digarh and the neighbourhood had considered that the lands in other area D
are though situated on the opposite side, are situated in developed area,
while the lands under acquisition were not similarly situated on the other
side of the road wherein lands were not developed. The very fact, that the
acquisition in this case was for brick klin, clearly indicates that it was not
such a developed area as contended. As early as in 1974 when the court E
itself determined the compensation of Rs. 33,000 per acre, the fixation of
the market value at Rs. 50,000 per acre cannot be said to be arbitrary or
illegal. Two sale instances of 1971 and 1974 are of small extents and so they
do not provided reasonable and safe basis nor can be relied on, as rightly
done by the High Court, to determine compensation of large extent of land.
The High Court, therefore, was right in determining compensation at Rs. F
50,000 per acre. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

A.G.                                                    Appeal dismissed.