Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Justice Cyriac Joseph
Date of Judgment: 30 March 2010
Facts of the Case: This was an appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein the High Court has awarded the land acquisition compensation @ Rs.39,300/- per bigha. The High Court relied on its earlier judgment without citing the same wherein it had fixed the land acquisition compensation @ Rs.34,150/- per bigha in respect of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 19.08.1976. On that basis, the High Court, considering the difference of 1-1/2 years, enhanced the amount at the rate of 10 per cent per year and thus granted compensation @ Rs.39,300/- per bigha. The concerned lands were from village Dallupura which have been acquired by the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 22.03.1978 which ripened into the Notification under Section 6 dated 27.09.1978. The High Court, however, specifically ordered that the appellants would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter `the Act’).
Judgment: Shri P.H. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel argued that the High Court had erred in fixing the compensation @ Rs.39,300/- per bigha. He further pointed out that the claimants herein had moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, enhancing their claim before the High Court to Rs.350 per sq. yds. He pointed out that in the case reported as Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma & Others [2004 (6) SCC 533] in respect of the villages Kondli, Gharoli and Dallupura, this Court had awarded compensation @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha. In that case, this Court, while relying on Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India [1997 (8) SCC 186] had scaled down the compensation to Rs.76,550/- per bigha from the one awarded by the High Court @ Rs.3.45 lakh per bigha. Shri Parekh, therefore, suggests that even the claimants in this case whose lands have been acquired in Dallupura would be entitled at least to the compensation @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha. The lands at Dallupra, Kondli and Gharoli have been held to be identically circumstanced. In fact, in Bali Ram Sharma’s case (cited supra), the Court was dealing with the lands at Gharoli, Kondli and Dallupura where the High Court had awarded the compensation @ Rs.3.45 lakhs. This Court did not agree with that and scaled it down to Rs.76,550/-. It is, therefore, the learned Senior Counsel claims the compensation at least at that rate. It is to be noted that even in this case, the claimants had claimed the compensation @ Rs.350/- per bigha by way of an amendment. Shri Parekh pointed out that the Notification in Bali Ram Sharma’s case was dated 17.11.1980 which is comparable to the Notification in the present case which was dated 22.03.1978. He further pointed out that there is evidence that the lands at Dallupura, compensation of which is in question in the present appeal, were actually converted into the plots. He, therefore, claimed compensation @ Rs.76,550/-. On the other hand, Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India disputes this and claims that the High Court was right in fixing the compensation @ 39,300/- per bigha. On the question of parity, there could be no dispute that the lands at Kondli, Dallupura and Gharoli are identically circumstanced, as held by this Court in Bali Ram Sharma’s case (cited supra). It would, therefore, be not proper to grant the compensation at much lesser rate of Rs.39,300/- per bigha. The learned Counsel also pointed out a decision of this Court to which one of us, (Cyriac Joseph, J.) was a party reported as Union Of India v. Harpat Singh & Ors. [2009 (8) SCALE 201]. This Court followed the judgments in Karan Singh’s case (cited supra) and Bali Ram Sharma’s case (cited supra) and approved them. These judgments were in respect of Gharoli, Kondli and Dallupura, where the compensation was paid @ Rs.76,550/-. He, therefore, urged to maintain the parity in this case also. However, it was pointed out by Shri Malhotra that the rate of Rs.76,550/- is in respect of the Notification dated 17.11.1980 and the Notification in the present case was published only on 22.03.1978.
Decision: Therefore, the Court scaled down the compensation by deducting 10 per cent of the rate of Rs.76,550/-. The compensation shall be paid @ Rs.69,550 plus the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) read with Section 30 (1) (b) of the Act. With these directions, the appeal was allowed in part.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS