Civil Appeal Nos. 7209 and 7210 of 2004. Case: 1. Bhagat Singh and Ors., 2. Mehar Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India (UOI) and Anr.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal Nos. 7209 and 7210 of 2004 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Somvir Singh Deswal and M.P. Shorawala, Advs. And For Respondents: S.P. Singh, Sr. Adv., Krishna Kumar, Rekha Pandey, Asha G. Nair, Gargi Khanna, Sanjeev Kumar Bhardwaj and Anil Katiyar, Advs. |
| Judges | S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ. |
| Issue | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 4(1), 18 and 23(1) |
| Citation | AIR 2010 SC 90 (1) , 2010 (2) AWC 1499 (SC) , JT 2009 (12) SC 421 , 2009 (11) SCALE 251 , (2009) 9 SCC 427 |
| Judgement Date | August 04, 2009 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
S.B, Sinha, J.
1. Appellants were owners of the lands situate in village Ghewra. The said lands were acquired for a public purpose, namely construction of L.P.G. Bottling Plant. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') was issued on 18th March, 1985 in terms whereof, compensation @ Rs. 14,000/-; Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- per bigha was offered categorizing the acquired lands in three categories viz. `A', `B' and `C'.
2. Applications for reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act having been made, the Reference Court determined the fair market value at Rs. 23,970/-; Rs. 21,970/- and Rs. 19,970/- per bigha respectively having regard to categorization by the Land Acquisition Collector.
3. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment the appellants filed Appeals before the High Court claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. However, a Division Bench of the High Court, having regard to its earlier decision rendered in Ranjit Singh v. Union of India reported in 48(1992) DLT 138, where the lands were acquired for the same purpose and under the same Notification, determined the market value at Rs. 26,.775/-; Rs. 24,775/- and Rs. 22,775/- per bigha for categories `A', `B' and `C' respectively.
4. The contention raised before us is that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it three sale deeds which were marked as Exts. A-5 to A-7 had not been taken into consideration. The details of the said sale deeds are as under:
(i) Vide Ex.A-5, 2 Bigha 1 Biswas land in village Ghewra was sold for Rs. 45,000/- i.e. around Rs. 22,000/- per Bigha as on 15.10.81"
(ii) Vide Ex.A-6, 2 Bigha 13 Bisws land was sold in village Tikri Kalan for Rs. 42,000/- i.e. Rs. 25,500/- approx. per bigha.
(iii) Vide Ex.A-7, 12 Biswas land in village Tikri was sold on 23.10.81 for Rs. 25,000/- i.e. @ Rs. 41,650/- per bigha approx.
The appellants furthermore relied on a purported Lok Adalat Award wherein the market value of the similarly situated land was fixed at Rs. 22,000/- per bigha.
Our attention has also been drawn to a document purported to be showing the Market Price of Delhi Agricultural Lands.
5. The High Court, as noticed above, has proceeded to determine the market value of the land keeping in view its earlier decision in Ranjit Singh (supra).
6. A Special Leave Petition being No. 3211 of 1993 was filed by Ranjit Singh against the said order which stood dismissed in limine on 19th April, 1993.
7. In absence of any material brought on record, it is difficult to disagree with the High Court's opinion particularly when our attention has not been drawn to any evidence that the lands in the case of Ranjit Singh was inferior in character vis-`-vis the lands acquired in the present case or that some other additional materials have been brought on record in the present case so as enable this Court to take a different view.
8. So far as the three deeds of sale relied upon by the appellants are concerned, we may notice that Exts.A-6 and A-7 were in respect of land situated in two different villages. Ext.A-5 pertains to the village in question wherein the land was stated to have been sold at Rs. 22,000/- per bigha.
9. The principal question which arises for our consideration is what principle should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.A. No. 892 of 2007. Case: Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Vs 1. Kandasamy, 2. Chandra, 3. Thangarasu, 4. Manickam. High Court of Madras (India)
...its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put. Considering the question of market value, in (2009) 9 SCC 427 [Bhagat Singh v. Union of India], the Supreme Court held as "8. Determination of the market value of the land may also depend upon the facts......
-
S.A. No. 892 of 2007. Case: Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Vs 1. Kandasamy, 2. Chandra, 3. Thangarasu, 4. Manickam. High Court of Madras (India)
...its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put. Considering the question of market value, in (2009) 9 SCC 427 [Bhagat Singh v. Union of India], the Supreme Court held as "8. Determination of the market value of the land may also depend upon the facts......