ivil Appeal Nos
2646 52 of 1986
From the Judgement and order dated the 12101981 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular First Appeal Nos 758 760 787 814 769 1011 and 789 of 1979
Govind Mukhoty RP Bhatt DK Garg Prem Malhotra KC Sharma and RC Kaushik for the Appellants
SP Goel and Mahabir Singh for the Respondents
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by PUNCHHI J
This bunch of appeals and special leave petitions are at the instance of the dissatisfied land owners whose lands were acquired in bulk by the State of Haryana in the town of Hissar for establishing a residential cum commercial complex
The land totalled approximately 331 acres
The Acquisition Collector appointed to determine the compensation belted the land in three parts awarding for block A  compensation at the rate of Rs 413 per sq
 for block B  at the rate of Rs 243 per sq
and for block C  at Rs 165 per sq yd
The dissatisfied claimants took the matter in reference to the Addl
District Judge Hissar who maintained the belting but raised the compensation for block A  to Rs 10 per sq
 block B  to Rs 6 per sq
and block C  to Rs 450 per sq
When the matter was taken up in First Appeal before the High Court it was persuaded to wipe out C  and confine it to belting A   B 
The entire evidence was considered by the High Court meticulously to come to the conclusion that belt A  should fetch compensation at the rate of Rs 23 per sq
and belt B  Rs 16 per sq
Still 3 not satisfied the claimantsappellants by special leave have approached this Court for further enhancement
The goal of the appellants is that the belting as such should go and the land should uniformally be assessed to compensation at the rate of Rs 42 per sq
The foundation for the argument in the first instance is that the acquired land comprises of a large area situated alongside the GT Road leading from Delhi to Hissar town in a strip approximately 3 kms
in length on the other side of which was the railway line
It was also commented that the belting had been done in a haphazard way
Keeping in regard the nature of the land it was asserted that the land having been acquired for building purposes its quality as agricultural land should not have weighed with the courts below and compensation should have assessed uniformally space wise
These arguments does not appeal to us
Though the acquisition of ground space is the object in view yet the tiller s affect to keep his land more productive cannot be lost sight of in awarding compensation
In fact the belting has kept in regard the quality of the land
This is the reason for its appearing to be a haphazard line on the plan
On the second limb of the argument that it should have fetched uniform rate of compensation we find no supportive material on record and done has been pressed before us on which we could change the decision merely on the comment that belting is normally not resorted to
We are not persuaded in the instant case to discard the belting system and lean towards uniformity
The rate of Rs 42 per sq
is claimed on the basis that a part of land measuring about 125 sq
which formed part of the acquired land was before the acquisition purchased by a purchaser at the rate of Rs 42 per sq
and that was an indication that the land acquired would have fetched Rs 42 per sq
The High Court had rejected the contention of the appellants taking the twin view that firstly the land involved was small in measure and secondly it was fully constructed having a house and a godown facing the G T Road itself
We find this reasoning sound
Having not been able to persuade us each of learned counsel for the appellants differently putforth that the sole instance which the High Court had rejected had later been relied by it in another case pertaining to other land under acquisition under the same notification and having awarded the rate of Rs 42 per sq
We regret our inability to entertain the argument because there is nothing on record to support the same
The judgement in which such view has statedly been taken has not been brought on record as a piece of evidence to be relied upon by the claimants and no permission has 4 been sought to adduce additional evidence
The said judgement cannot be used as a precedent even to persuade us to take the view that the rate should be Rs 42 per sq
for belt A  if not uniformally
All these factors cumulatively lead us to the view that appellants have no case for enhancement and have been adequately compensated for the land acquired
No interference is thus required in the instant case
Accordingly for the view above taken we dismiss the appeals as also the special leave petitions
IA for condonation of delay in SLP unnumbered titled Kanhya Lal vs State of Haryana is dismissed as withdrawn at the askance of the learned counsel for the appellant
There shall be no order as to costs in all these cases
VPR Appeals dismissed


Summary:
Petitioner was a member of the state Judicial Service and was elevated as a Judge of the High Court on 171975 and was later transferred to another High Court where he retire on 2171984
A dispute relating to pension was disposed of by this Court on 941985 fixing it at Rs21500 per annum
Meanwhile the High Court Judges Conditions of Services Act1954 was amended by Central Acts 3886 and 2088 and he applied under the said Amending Acts asking for benefits there under and this Court refixed the petitioner s pension at Rs41600 per annum wef 111986 and at Rs 46100 per annum wef 1111986
In an interlocutory petition the petitioner challenged the ceiling on additional pension appearing in clause h of paragraph 2 of Part III of the First Schedule to the 
Allowing the petition this Court HELD 1
There was no justification to introduce a further ceiling of Rs8000 per annum irrespective of the years of completed service rendered and allow a discrimination operate
Once the proviso has a limit which meets the purpose there is no basis for the further limit of Rs 8000
101A 2
The ceiling of Rs 8000 is not necessary to be imposed and if that is applied a situation giving rise to the application of Article 14 of the Constitution does arise
101E 3
Fixing the pension at Rs 48000 per annum held that the ceiling in paragraph 2b of Part III of the First Schedule is unsustainable under Article 14 of the Constitution and would not be operative
101F