...

SHER SINGH ETC. ETC.

A V.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

JANUARY 8, 1991

[L.M. SHARMA AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Section 25-Compensation- Enhancement-Not permissible when evidenc; e not brought on record.

The appellants were the claimants:--land owners, whose lands were acquired for establishing a residential cum-commercial complex.

The Land Acquisition Collector belting the land in three parts awarded compensation for block 'A' at the rate of Rs.4.13 per sq.yd.; for block 'B' at the rate ofRs.2,43 per sq.yd. and for block 'C' at Rs.1.65 per sq.yd.

In First Appeal the High Court was persuaded to confme to beltc

'1" ing 'A' & 'B'. The High Court fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.23 D per sq.yd. for belt' A' and for belt 'B' Rs.16 per sq.yd.

The Claimants by special leave filed -present appeals for enhancement contending that the acquired land comprises of a large area, situated alongside the G. T. Road in a strip approximately 3 kms. in length on the other side of which was the railway line; that the belting E 0 had been done in a haphazard way; that the land having l)een acquired for building purposes, its quality as agricultural land should not have weighed; and compensation should have been assessed uniformally .

Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: 1. The rate of Rs.42 per sq.yd. is claimed on the basis that ., a part of land measuring about 125 sq.yd. which found part of the yacquired land, was, before the acquisition, purchased by a purchaser ll~

the rate of Rs.42 per sq.yd. and that was an indication that the land acquired would have fetched Rs.42 per sq.yd. f3E]

2. 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 gooown - _)facing the G. T. Road itself. This reasoning is sound. [3F] -

J, The judgment in which Rs.42 had been awarded in another H

• ' • - ;..

I • • -

I . .. : ...

[ 1991] I S.C.R.

i case has not n; bfogb~; on record a~ a piece of.eyidence to be relied upon by the Claimants, and no permission has been sought to adduce additional evidence. The said judgm, ent annot therefore be used as a precedent even. to persuade this Court to take the view that the rate should be ,~.42 r, sq; yd., for belt. 'A~ if not uniform.ally. All these factors cumulatively lead to the view that appellants have no case for enJianceipent, .and hav~ been adequately .. compensated. for the land

acquired~ [JH; .~ AIJL , .· )' .. . . " ., ,,_,

~ ,.1 t>d qVIL .A.J?P~L!-ATE. JJ]RISDIQTION: .Civil .-Appeal Nos .. 2646-52 Of 1986., ,, ,.._ .. • I 1. i-··

" C. . ' ,. . ""' . . -~·· . . .. . ... . - .. ·

r_ ••• i~ .. , 1, ~'

.~ ,: ~;.J.

! , J,;.,:_:

I~~ ~u-~:._, t' ·: J)"_'•<' I ·,,·~.:t..-...e,· •• 1.i'... 1 :; l .· , rFrorn1, the udgtp._nt:ap.d .Order .. dated theril2.-10A98Lof .the Punjab.and aryana High~om:t i11.R, egulaqFirst Appeal. Nos. 758, 760, 787, 814, 769, 1011and789of1979: ·

!'.r .. :.-:: :}.• .~,~!""'·~ ~;_~-1~ '-·-t""'.::.'i q ~-.,,;~ .) •i_:~_1; -~ '.1 ~-: ·~·1 ~;- 'r:;1:-.· j ·~ _q9vind Muhoty,, R,.P)3hatt,:D.K. Gargil'rem Malhotra,'K.C. ~Y Sharma and R. C. a!-lshi}(:_(or the Appellants. : : ·. : ' . ·, ' , .

_:;. "f1'.{ , '1.1 .• • :l.f;_'I ~.: • f'f :· • 'j :_. ·;. ,. ::. ._" , .TheJudgmentof the C()ut:t was del.ivered byo

1. L~ , ..

\i"' :'~-.·~.:· : ... _. _t;.' i .• :.-:-. *··" _1.kt- ... '.~.'.l .i~"-· ;..·!, >· :;/;~ ~·1 .. :: .• L : <:tt P~CllJ!l~ J., Thi~; buncJ:i of, appeals, and:speciat:leave petitions r, E are at the. instanc;~,<;>f th(!_ disstisfieciiiandiowners whose lands were acquired in bulk by the. Stt.eof.Haryana,, in the t()wn of!Hissar; for estabiishing a residential-cumcommercial complex.

,. lU I '-,;. '. i~ i . .. :· t.~ ')'. " f -· ·• The land totalled approximately 331 acres. The land Acquisition

Cllctor, app()ip.ted to deterlilne the:c<;>mpensation belted the land in

F tree.parts awarcing f()r block .'A' compensation at the rate of RsA. n -rj'

pf.'.sq .. yd~; f<;>f .block .'.8-'.at. the Tate-of.Rs. 2.43 p.er!sq. yd. and for l blos.k q at Rs:.L._65.per sq.yd ... Theidissatisfied claimants .tookthe matter in reference t() , the. Addi. District: Judge, Hissar. who main, tained the bettirig, but raised the compensation for block 'A' to Rs.10 pe_r .sq. y~:L, b!ei;; k 'W t{) Rs.6 per, sq.yd. and block. 'q' to RsA.50 per G sq .. yd,. \r ... 1\~ ;.-,;~- . • ::/''\"':;~~-:i::;·~;~·~.~--:H f.·,--e -f

1 J. ~-·~;:r~·- ___ tt~~,~ '.'!

~;· •• _;+; '' " r,, 1' /).-~\-!'.·~~~ ·,. ;_~_;;, ,1~.ff !:.,:1t:Li:;~1, l,.r.~~A~.- \q.:.f'~ .-_g •.. :; ,:, ... t('"j ll', f -·~ ' Wh~-n the mattr .• was-Jakc;:n; up in 1F.irst~Appal before. the. High .. \...

Court, it was persuaded to wipe out 'C' and confine it to belting 'A' &

, 1. 'B;,.:;, T, he .. nt_ire.,; eyi9e,µ<; e :WC\~ onsfder~(l,1by; the rJ1igh'. Court. maticulously to come to the conclusion that belt 'A' shouldJetch compen- H sation at the rate of Rs.23 per sq.yd; and belt 'B' Rs.16 per sq.yd. Still

...

~HER SINGH X STATE; OF HARYANA [PUNCHHI, J.) 3

not satisfied the claimants/appellants by speciaUeave have approached this .ourt forfu!ter, nhance~nf; .· ' r .•

• 1 .° 1: '-• • l f. .

I t_. 1, '

.J 1 ~. : The goal of the.appellants is that the belting as such.should go and the land should uniformaUy be assessed to compensation at the pi te of Rs .42 per sq. yd. The fqundation for. the argument in the first instance is that the acquired land comprises of a large area, situated alongside the. G.T. Road leading from Delhi to Hissar town in a strip . .l_, approximaJely. 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 regarg the nature of the land, it was asserted that the land having been acquired forJmilding purposes, its quality as ~.ultUral 1and should not have weighed with the courts _ _bclmvifilcf 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 .1

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 none has been presd efore 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. yd. is claimed on the basis that a part of land measuring about 125 sq. yd. which formed part, of the acquired land, was, before the acquisition, purchased by a purchaser at the rate of Rs.42 per sq.yd. and that was an indication that the land acquired i would have fetched Rs.42 per sq. yd. The High Court had rejcted the

~· contention of the appellants taking the twin view that firstly the land

1 involved was small in measUTe and secondly it was fully constructed naving a house and a godown facing the G.T. Road itself. We find this reasoning sound. Having not been able to persuade us, e.ach of learned counsel for the appellants differently putforth thanhe sole. instance which the High Court had -rejected had later been relied by it in another case pertaining to other land tinder acquisition under the same _ -'{ notiicati?~ and having wardedlhe rate of Rs.42 per sq .d. We.regret our mab1bty to entertam the argument because there 1s nothmg on record to support the same. The judgment 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

' A

been sought to adduce additional evidence. The said judgment cannot ( be used as a precedent even to persuade us to take the view that the ,.>---.. rate should be Rs.42 per sq. yd. for belt 'A' if not uniformaly. 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 thu~ required in the instant case.

Accordingly for the view above taken, we dismiss the appeals as also the special leave petitions. I.A. for condonation of delay in SLP unnumbered titled Kanhya Lal v. 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.

V.P.R Appeals dismissed.