PREM CHAND & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

                      (2010] 3 S.C.R. 1128


A                    PREM CHAND & ORS.
                                v.
                         UNION OF INDIA
                 (Civil Appeal No. 2856 of 2010)
                        MARCH 30, 2010
B
        [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

       Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 23(1A) r/w. s.
  30(1)(b) - Land acquired - Cf::iim for compensation - High
c Court relying on its previous judgment, awarded
  compensation @ Rs. 39,3001- per bigha and denied benefit
  u/s. 2B(1A) -In another case in respect of identical land, High
   Court had awarded compensation @ Rs. 3. 45 lacks per '
  bigha, which was scaled down to Rs. 76, 5501- per bigha by
0 Supreme Court - Held: Claimants are entitled to the
  compensation uls. 23(1A) rlw. s. 30(1)(b), since the award had
  not been made on or before 30. 04. 1982 - In view of the
  judgment in the case of identical land, compensation @
  Rs.39,3001- not justified - However, the compensation is
E scaled down by deducting 10% of the rate of Rs. 76, 5501-
  considering the fact that the lands have been already
  developed into plots.

        The High Court in the impugned or~er, relying on its
  previous judgment, awarded compensation @ Rs. 39,3001
F - per bigha for the land acquired under Land Acquisition
  Act, 1894. However, it specifically denied the claimants'
  entitlement to the benefit u/s. 23(1A).
       In appeal to this Court, claimants contended that
G High Court was wrong in denying benefit u/s. 23(1A); and
  that High Court had wrongly fixed the compensation at
  Rs. 39,300/- per bigha, as in Bali Ram Sharma's case
  wherein the land acquired was also from the same village
  as in the pr,esent case, High Court had awarded
                               1128
H
      PREM CHAND & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA              1129


compensation @ 3.45 lacks, which was scaled down to            A
Rs. 76,550/- per bigha by Supreme Court in appeal and
that the claimants were at least entitled to the
compensation @ 76,550/- per bigha.
    Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                               s·
     HELD: 1. The claimants would be entitled to the
compensation u/s. 23(1A) r/w. Section 30(1)(b) of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, since the award had not been
made on or before 30.04.1982. The claimants would,
therefore, be entitled to that benefit, though the benefit     C
seems to have been rejected by the High Court without
giving any reasons. [Para 5] [1132-8-C]
    K.S. Paripooman v. State of Kera/a and Ors. 1994 (5)
sec 593, followed.
                                                               D
     2. On the question of parity, the lands at the villages
in 'Bali Ram Shanna's case are identically circumstanced.
It would, therefore, not be proper to grant the
compensation at much lesser rate of Rs.39,300/- per
bigha. However, it is correct that the rate of Rs.76,550/-     E
is in respect of the Notification dated 17.11.1980 and the
Notification in the present case was published only on
22.03.1978 and, therefore, some allowance would have to
be given for that. Therefore, the compensation is scaled
down by deducting 10 per cent of the rate of Rs.76,550/-       F
considering the fact that the lands in this case have been
found to be already developed into plots. The
compensation shall be paid @ Rs.69,550/- plus the benefit
u/s. 23(1-A) r/w. Section 30(1)(b) of the Act. [Para 8, 9]
[1133-D-G-H; 1134-A-B]
                                                               G
     *Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma and
Ors. 2004 (6) SCC 533; Union of India v. Harpat Singh and
Ors. 2009 (8) SCALE 201, relied on.
    Karan Singh and Ors. v. Union of India 1997 (8) SCC
                                                               H
186, referred to.
    1130    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2010] 3 S.C.R.

A                        Case Law Reference:
        1994 (5) sec 593             followed.            Para 4
        2004 (6) sec 533             relied on.           Para 6
        1997 (8) sec 186             referred to.         Para 6
8
        2009 (8) SCALE 201           relied on.           Para 8

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2856 of 2010.
c       From the Judgment & Order dated 11.12.2003 of the High
    Court of Delhi at New Delhi in R.F.A. No. 149 of 1997.

       P.H. Parekh, Mohit Choudhary, Puja Sharma, P.K.
    Mohapatra, Ramesh Gopinathan for the Appellant.
D
          P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Shailender Sharma, Sadhana Sandhu
    (for Anil Katiyar) for the Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered
E       V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted .

      . 2. This is 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
F 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
G amount at the rate of 10 per cent per year and thus granted
  compensation @ Rs.39,300/- per bigha.

      3. The concerned lands are from village Dallupura which
  have been acquired by the Notification under Section 4 of the
H Land Acquisition Act dated 22.03.1978 which ripened into the
     PREM CHAND & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA                  1131
             [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
Notification under Section 6 dated 27 .09.1978. The High Court,   A
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').

      4. Shri P.H. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel pointed out
                                                                  8
firstly that the claimants in this case could not have been
deprived of the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act since
the award was passed on 25.02.1983 and it was pending on
24.09.1984. He invited our attention to the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in K. S. Paripooman v. State of Kera/a
& Ors. [1994 (5) SCC 593] wherein this Court had culled out       C
the ratio in paragraph 110 as follows:

     "110. For all these reasons the questions raised in these
           petitions are answered as below:
                                                                  D
      (1)   Section 23(1-A) providing ror additional
            compensation is attracted in every case where
            reference was pending under Section 18 before the
            Court [Section 23(1-A)].

      (2)   No additional compensation is payable in appeals
                                                                  E
            pending on or after 24-9-1984 either in High Court
            or this Court.

     (3)    Additionalcompensation under Section 23(1-A) is
            also payable in all those cases where the             F
            proceedings were pending and the award had not
            been made by the Collector on or before 30-4-
            1982 [Section 30(1)(a)].

     (4)    Similarly every landowner is entitled to additional   G
            compensation where the land acquiring
            proceedings started after 30-4-1982 whether the
            award by the Collector was made before 24-9-1984
            or not [Section 30(1 )(b)].
                                                                  H
    1132         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A          (5)     XXX"

       5. Accordingly_ as per the sub-para (3) of paragraph 110,
  it is clear that the claimants would be entitled to the
  compensation under Section 23 (1-A) read with Section 30 (1)
  (b) since the award had not been made on or before
8
  30.04.1982. The claimants would, therefore, be entitled to that
  benefit though the benefit seems to have been rejected by the
  High Court without giving any reasons. That direction of the High
  court is, therefore, set aside and it is held that the claimants      --
  would be entitled to the benefit under Section 23 ( 1-A) of the
C Act.

        6. However, Shri P.H. Parekh 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
D 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
E Kondli, Gharoli and Dallupura, this Court had awarded
  compensation@ Rs.76,550/- per bigha. In that case, this Court,
  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
F 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,
G 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
H
      PREM CHAND & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA                    1133
              [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]

in this case, the claimants had claimed the compensation @           A
Rs.350/- per bigha by way of an amendment. Shri Parekh
pointed out that the Notification in Bali Ram Sharma's case
(cited supra) was dated 17.11.1980 which is comparable to the
Notification in the present case which is dated 22.03.1978. He
further pointed out that there is evidence that the lands at         B
Dallupura, compensation of which is in question in the present
appeal, were actually converted into the plots. He, therefore,
claims compensation @ Rs.76,550/-.

     7. On the other hand, Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Counsel       C
appearing for the Union of India disputes this and claims that
the High Court was right in fixing the compensation @ 39,300/
- per bigha.

     8. On the question of parity, there can be no dispute that
the lands at Kondli, Dallupura and Gharoli are identically           D
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         E
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 @              F
Rs.76,550/-. He, therefore, urged to maintain the parity in this
case also.

     9. However, it is pointed out by Shri Malhotra that the rate
of Rs. 76,550/- is in respect of the Notification dated 17.11.1980   G
and the Notification in the present case was published only on
22.03.1978 and, therefore, some allowance would have to be
given for that. Shri Malhotra is undoubtedly right. We, therefore,
scale down the compensation by deducting 10 per cent of the
rate of Rs.76,550/-. Ordinarily, we would have scaled down by
                                                                     H
    1134     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A 20 per cent but considering the fact that the lands in this case
  have been found to be already developed into plots, we would
  choose to scale down the compensation by 10 per cent to· the
  round figure of Rs.69,550/- The compensation shall be paid @
  Rs.69,550 plus the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) read with
B Section 30 (1) (b) of the Act.

        10. With these directions, the appeal is allowed in part.

    K.K.T.                                 Appeal partly allowed.