JAI PARKASH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA

A                    JAi PARKASH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
                                   v.
                             UNION OF INDIA

                                 MARCH 19, 1997

B                [A.M. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUHAS C. SEN, J.)

         Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23-Market valu~Detennination
    of-Compensation in respect of lands situated in neighbouring vil-
    lag~Relevance of

c         Constitution of India-Arlicle 136-lnteiference unde1:

          The lands of the Appellants located in village Keshopur were ac-
    quired under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act vide two notifica-
    tions issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitions issued under Section
D   14 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector divided
    the Acquired lands into various blocks and awarded different compensa-
    tion for different blocks. On reference under Section 18 of the Land
    Acquisition Act, the compensations awarded by the Land Acquisition
    Collector were raised by the Additional District Judge.

E         Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the Appellants filed
    appeal before the High Court contending, inter alia, that for similarly
    placed lands located in another village named Chokhandi a higher com-
    pensation was allowed. The High Court, taking into account the price of
    the lands in neighbouring villages, the size of land, its potential value etc.,
    held that distinction should not be made between various blocks of lands
F
    and fixed an enhanced uniform market value of the acquired land.

        The present appeals were filed before this court for enhancement of
    compensation.
                                                                                       :
G         Dismissing the appeals, this Court

           HELD : 1. The order under appeal passed by the High Court does
    not call for interference. Merely because higher compensation was given
    for lands situated in a neighbouring village does not entitled the appellants
    to get the same comp~nsation. The High Court has taken into considera-
H   tion all the relevant facts like the size of the plot, location, potential value
                                           88
                                                                                       ..
                         JAIPARKASH v. U.0.1.(SEN,J.]                        89

     of the land and also a few relevant sale deeds. No error of law has been      A
     shown to have been committed by the High Court. [92-B-C]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2043 of
     1997 Etc. Etc.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.95 of the Delhi High Court        B
     in R.F.A. No. 369 of 1970.

           B.K. Mehta, N.S. Vasisht Pradeep Misra, D.K. Garg, Dr. Maya Rao,
     M.S. Mann, S.B. Upadhyay, Pankaj Kalra, Indeevar Goodwill and Ms.
     Indira Sawhney for the appearing parties.
                                                                                   c
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           SEN J. Leave granted.

          This group of appeals relates to assessment of compensation of land
     acquired in the village Keshopur by the Union of India by two notifications   D
     dated 13.11.1959 and the other dated 24.10.1961 under Section 4 of the
     Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

           So far as the land acquired under notification dated 13.11.1959 was
     concerned, the Land Acquisition Collector divided the acquired land into      E
     two Blocks - A and B - and fixed compensation for Block A land at Rs.
     600 per bigha and for Block B land at Rs. 100 per bigha. On reference
     under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge raised the
     amount of compensation to Rs. 3, 500 per bigha for Block A and Rs. 3,000
     per bigha for Block B.                          ··
                                                                                   F
             The High Court took into consideration various factors including
     compensation for similar lands acquired by the Government where com-
     pensation was fixed at a much higher rate. The High Court noticed that
•.   the instances cited by the appellants were of the land situated in Chokhan-
     di, whereas the dispute of the present case related to lands in a different
     village Keshopur. The High Court also took into notice from the facts G
     produced before it that in the neighbourhood of this village prices of the
     lands were showing an upward trend. The lands were being bought and
     sold by people for purposes of building houses. Small plots were being sold.
     Sale of small plots indicated that the land in village Keshopur had poten-
     tiality as a building site. The High Court, therefore, was of the view that H
    90                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1997] 3 S.C.R.

A no distinction should be drawn between the land.falling under Block A and
    Block B. The High Court, therefore, fixed market value of the land ac-
    quired pursuant to the notification dated 13.11.1959 at Rs. 7,000 per bigha.

          For the land acquired pursuant to the notification dated 24.10.1961,
    the Land Acquisition Collector had divided the land into three Blocks -
B   Block A, Block B and Block C - and fixed the compensation at the rate of
    Rs. 1,000, Rs. 600 and Rs. 400 per bigha respectively. On reference the
    Additional District Judge fixed the market value on the same basis as he
    had done for the land acquired under the previous notification dated
    13.11.1959.
c         The High Court, however, raised the compensation to Rs. 8,000 per
    bigha and gave the following directions :

            "In addition to the market value the appellants will be entitled to
            an additional amount at the rate of 15% per annum on the market
D           value ih terms of section 23(1-A) as amended by the Land Ac-
            quisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 from the date of notification
            under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) till the date
            of the making of the award or taking possession, whichever is
            earlier. The appellants will be further entitled to solatium at the
            rate of 30% on the market value under the amended law.
E
               Further the appellants will be entitled to interest at the rate of
            9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking
            possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till pay-
            ment on the excess amount, that is, the amount which was in-
F           creased by the Addi. District Judge and now by this court because
            that is the excess in terms of section 28 of the Act as amended.
            Whatever has already been paid either towards the market value
            or solatium or interest will be deducted.

                As there is a difference of more than three years between the
G           notification under s.4 (13.11.1959) and the declaration under s.6
            (17.8.64) of the Act in R.F.A. 369/70 (Jai Prakash v. Union of India)
            the appellants in R.F.A. 369/70 will also be entitled to interest at
            the rate of 6% per annum on the market value of the land under
            s. 4(3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act,
H           1967) provided there is no overlapping in the payment of interest
                                                                                    ...
                     JAIPARKASH v. U.O.I.[SEN,J.]                        91

         under s.28 of the Act and s.4(3) of the Amendment Act of 1967. A
         They will also be entitled to proportionate costs.

             In R.F.A. 527/70 the appellants will be entitled to costs. How-
         ever they will not be entitled to the amount of court fee on Rs.
         1,10,160 which they have paid on solatium."
                                                                               B
      The Union of India has not preferred any appeal against the direc-
tion to pay interest and solatium under the amended provisions.

       The contention of the appellants is that valuable land of the appel-
lants have been taken away by the Government at a throwaway price fixed        C
in a arbitrary manner. The appellants derive their livelihood from the land.
The land having been taken away, they have been rendered jobless. The
High Court failed to realise the loss caused by acquisition proceedings.

       It has been further argued on behalf of the appellants that lands
situated in adjoining areas have also been acquired by the Union of India D
for which the Trial Court assessed the market value at the rate_ of Rs. 9,000
per bigha which was raised by the High Court to Rs. 15,000 per bigha
(R.F.A. No. 159/1972 - Slui Attar Singh & Ors. v. Union of India and RFA.
No. 103 of 1972; Chet Ram v. Union of India. There is no justification for
the High Court for valuing the appellants' and situated in the adjoining E
village of Keshopur at Rs. 8,000 per bigha. The land at Keshopur has the
same economic potentialities as the land situated in Chaukhandi.

       The valuation of the land at Chaukhandi has been done on the basis
of the area of the land in question and its potential value. It has been
pointed out in the judgments that the land had two well developed colonies     F
where buildings had come up. Therefore, having regard to the proximity
of the surrounding colonies as well as the potential value of the land in
question, the High Court valued the lands at Chaukhandi at Rs. 15,000 per
bigha. There is nothing to indicate that land which has been acquired at
Keshopur has the same.market potential as the land at Chaukhandi. Several      G
sale deeds were taken into consideration by the High Court. Merely
because in some neighboring villages, valuation has been made at a higher
rate, it cannot be said that the appellants must also be given same rate of
compensation.

      On behalf of the respondents, our attention has been drawn to a case     H
     92                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 3 S. C.R.

A -Sukhlal (dead) through Lrs. v. Union of India & Ors., (S.L.P. No. 4149/1988
     where in a similar case the High Court had enhanced the compensation to
     Rs. 8,000 per bigha: 'This Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition
     against the enhancement of the compensation on the ground that similar
     enhancements fixing Rs. 8,000 per bigha as compensation had already been
B    approved by this Court in a number of other cases.

           We are of the view that the order under appeal passed by the High
     Court does not call for interference. Merely because higher compensation
     was given for lands situated in a· neighbouring village does not entitle the
     appellants to get the same compensation. The High Court has taken into
C    consideration all the relevant facts like the size of the plot, location,
     potential value of the land and also a few relevant sale deeds. No error of
     law has been shown to have been committed by the High Court.

          We are, therefore, of the view that there is no merit in this appeal.
     The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
D
     CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 2044-2052, 2056, 2058, 2091, 2055, 2057, 2059,
     2060-2065, 2068-2079, 2080-2084, 2085-2089, 2066, 2067 AND 2090 OF 1997.

           (Arising out of Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 7902, 7919, 7920,
     7921, 7922, 7922, 7923, 7984 7985, 7979, 74, 7986 & 13192 of 1986, 808,
E:   2421,4489,3748,4247,4241,4216,4234,4270,4347,4325, 2821,4825,5440,
     13986-92, 5536-55360, 6762, 2644, 10238, 9659 & 13177 of 1988, 7419 of
     1989 and 55 of 1990 & 13573/86).

          In view.of our judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2043 of 1997 {Arising
     out of S.L.P. No. 81 of 1986), these appeals are also dismissed with no
F    order as to costs.

     B.K.M.                                                  Appeals dismissed. .