Supreme Court of India

SURAT SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS ETCversusUNION OF INDIA

Citation: 1996 INSC 882
Decided: 13 August 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYS B MAJMUDAR

Holding

The appellate court upheld the High Court’s award of Rs. 7,000 per bigha, dismissing the appeals.

Summary

The case concerns the award of compensation for land acquired under a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at Rs. 2,000 per bigha, which was later enhanced by the Additional District Judge to Rs. 2,000‑3,000 per bigha, and finally by the Delhi High Court to a uniform Rs. 7,000 per bigha. The claimants appealed, arguing that the High Court’s enhancement was excessive and that sale transactions of small parcels of land should be considered, with a deduction of one‑third of the value for development charges. The Supreme Court held that the sale instances of small parcels could not be solely relied upon for a large acquisition of about 16,000 bighas, that there was no proof of such sales, and that even after a one‑third deduction the claimants would receive less than the High Court award. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, leaving the High Court’s compensation award intact.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing compensation to Rs. 7,000 per bigha under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether sale transactions of small parcels of land can be used to determine compensation for a large land acquisition.
Whether a deduction of one‑third of the market value for development charges is required in calculating compensation.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4(1)

Subjects

land acquisitioncompensationvaluationdevelopment chargesappellate jurisdictionhigh court awardsale transactions

Judgment

A             SURAT SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS ETC•
                                         . . ' v.• - .                         -,.,


                                       UNION OF INDIA

                                   · AUGUST 13, 1996

B.                                                                         "
                [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) ·

          Land Acquisition Ai:4 J894 :·~ections 4(lf and 53.
                      ···;,_· .. ,·.                      . :1
        Land acquisition-Large extent o~Award of compensation byLand
C Acquisition Officer-Enhancement by Reference Court and High Court-Ap-
  peal by dissatisfied claimants-Held sale instance relating to small pieces of
  land ca1mot be solely relied upon-Assuming that sale transactions were true
  I/3rd of the value towards development charges have to be deducted °while . '
  awarding compensation-in such a case Ian.downer would have got less than
D thai awarded by High Court-Held in such circumstances no iiiteiference' was.
  called for. with the orde~ of High Court.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4028 ~f
     1988 Etc.

E         From the Judgm~nt and Order dated 18.10.84 of the Delhi High
     Court in R.F.A. No. 575 of 1970.                 ·      ·     ·

           K. Priyadarshi, Ranbir Yadav and H.M. Singh for the Appellants.

          Wasirn.A .Qadr~ B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent.
F
           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           This case relates to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the
     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on October 24, 1961. The Land
     Acquisition Officer in his award dated December 16, 1964 granted com-
G    pensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per bigha. on reference, the Additional
     District Judge by his award and decree dated May 20, 1970 enhanced the
     compensation varying between Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 3,000 per bigha in respect
     of ABC Blocks. The High Court in the impugned judgment dated Septem-
     ber 11, 1984 enhanced the compensation to the uniform rate of Rs. 7,000
H    per Bigha. DfssatiSfied therewith, the claimants have filed these appeals.
                                             640
                                 SURATSINGHv. U.0.1.

           Though there is some force in the contention of learned senior A
   counsel for the appellants that there is a difference between the earlier
   cases and this case, since the notification in the earlier cases dated back
   to 1959 and this notification to 1961, the sale instances relating to the small
   pieces of land cannot be solely relied upon when lands of an extent of
   around 16000 and odd bighas is acquired. There is no proof of these'sale- B
   transactions. Moreover, even if they were true, 1/3rd of the value towards
   development charges has to be deducted. This exercise was not done. Even
   if it is done, the appellant will get less than what was awarded by the High
   Court. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the
   judgment and order made by the High Court since the State did not file
·· any appeal.                                                                     C
       The appeals are accordingly dismissed No costs .

 T.NA.                                                    . Appeals dismissed.




                    ''   '   '

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search