Case: Padma Uppal Etc Vs. State of Punjab and Others

in this view by a decision of this Court in Mirza Nausherw an Khan &Anr. v. The Collector (Land Acquisition) Hyderabad([19751 1 S.C.C. 238.) where Krishna Iyer, J who spoke for the Bench said:--"It is true that the Court has adopted a higher value for a strip 50 feet wide adjoining the road, based on the principle of belting. There is no doubt that when we deal with value of an extensive plot of land in a city the strip that adjoins an important road will have a higher value than what is in the rear, for obvious reasons of potential user or commercial exploitation."4. We cannot also accede to the contention of counsel for the appellants in appeals Nos. 2402 and 2403 of 1972 that they should have at least been granted compensation for the potential buildings area at Rs. 4/12/- the rate fixed by the Collector, Amritsar for 28.75 acres in Amritsar (Urban) and 32.04 acres in village Tungbala, Amritsar sought to be acquired by the State in February, 1947 as the proceedings for acquisition of the said area were dropped and the proximity in point of time to the notification under section 4 (1 ) of the Act which is a material factor is lacking.5. The contention advanced on behalf of the appellants in the aforesaid two appeals that the compensation awarded to them could not be fixed below the price paid by them for some of the plots in question in 1943, 1946 and 1947 has also no force. It cannot be ignored that .Amritsar having come near the border as a result of the partition of the sub-continent, the prices of land situate therein fell considerably soon after the partition and kept on maintaining a low level for more than a decade .6. The contention of counsel for the appellants in the aforesaid two appeals that they should have at least been awarded compensation for the potential building area at the rate prevalent in Gopalnagar in 195859 cannot also be acceded to. A glance at the chart of the acquisitions which appears at page 85 of the Paper Book shows that the sales were of very small plots of land. In seven transactions out of eight to which our attention has been invited, the land acquired was below 200 sq. yds. and in the eighth transaction, it was 250 sq. yds. It is also well settled that in determining compensation the value fetched for small plots of land cannot be applied to the lands covering a very large extent and that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta(A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2015). All the three contentions advanced on behalf of the claimants of compensation, therefore, fail.Let us now deal with the second set of the aforesaid eight appeals preferred by the State of Punjab. While doing so, it would be well to recall that it is well established that in an appeal from an award granting compensation, this Court should not interfere unless there is a wrong application of any well settled principle or unless there is something to show not merely that on the balance of evidence it is possible to reach a different conclusion but that the judgment cannot be supported by reason of a wrong application of a principle or because some important point affecting valuation has been overlooked or misapplied. Moreover, there is a prudent condition to which the appellate power, generally speaking, is subject. A court of appeal interferes not when the judgment under attack is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong. (See The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan Setty([1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 404.) Dattatrayaya Shankarbhat Ambalgi &Ors. v. The Collector of Sholapur &Anr.([1971] 3 S.C.C. 43) and The Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of Madras([1975] 2 S.C.C. 730.).7. The first contention advanced on behalf of the State that the erstwhile owners of the land in question could not be given compensation higher than that assessed for the acquisition made by the State for the construction of Hygiene and Vaccine Institute is devoid of force.8. Whereas the notification under section 4(1) of the Act with regard to that acquisition was published on May 17, 1956, the notification under the said provision or the Act in respect of the instant acquisition was published on March 18, 1959 when the market value of the land in the locality had risen very high. The ratio of compensation assessed for the former acquisition cannot, therefore, serve as a safe guide for determination of compensation for the acquisition in question. Similarly, the consideration paid by Smt. Balwant Kaur to Shri Girdbari Lal in March, 19 57 for the purchase of land cannot also serve as a safe guide as this transaction also took place in March, 1957 i.e., nearly two years before the publication of the aforesaid notification in respect of the present acquisition. The High Court was, in our opinion, perfectly justified on the basis of the material before it in fixing compensation at Rs. 4.50 per sq. yd. for the potential building area and Rs. 3.00 for the agricultural area in respect of the plots of land involved in appeals Nos. 2402 and 2403 of 1972. The High Court, however, was wrong in overlooking an important point affecting compensation payable to the erstwhile owners of the potential building area involved in appeals Nos. 2694, 2695 and 2697 to 2700 of 1972. The said claimants having claimed compensation only at the rate of Rs. 4.00 per sq. yd. in the first appeals filed by them in the High Court, they could not have been awarded compensation exceeding that rate. Thus the said appeals filed by the State cannot but be allowed to the extent to which the compensation awarded to the claimants in respect of the potential building area acquired exceeds Rs. 4.00 per sq. yd.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Whereas the notification under section 4(1) of the Act with regard to that acquisition was published on May 17, 1956, the notification under the said provision or the Act in respect of the instant acquisition was published on March 18, 1959 when the market value of the land in the locality had risen very high. The ratio of compensation assessed for the former acquisition cannot, therefore, serve as a safe guide for determination of compensation for the acquisition in question. Similarly, the consideration paid by Smt. Balwant Kaur to Shri Girdbari Lal in March, 19 57 for the purchase of land cannot also serve as a safe guide as this transaction also took place in March, 1957 i.e., nearly two years before the publication of the aforesaid notification in respect of the present acquisition. The High Court was, in our opinion, perfectly justified on the basis of the material before it in fixing compensation at Rs. 4.50 per sq. yd. for the potential building area and Rs. 3.00 for the agricultural area in respect of the plots of land involved in appeals Nos. 2402 and 2403 of 1972. The High Court, however, was wrong in overlooking an important point affecting compensation payable to the erstwhile owners of the potential building area involved in appeals Nos. 2694, 2695 and 2697 to 2700 of 1972. The said claimants having claimed compensation only at the rate of Rs. 4.00 per sq. yd. in the first appeals filed by them in the High Court, they could not have been awarded compensation exceeding that rate. Thus the said appeals filed by the State cannot but be allowed to the extent to which the compensation awarded to the claimants in respect of the potential building area acquired exceeds Rs. 4.00 per sq. yd.