Holding

The Supreme Court held that the land value fixed in Balbir Singh’s case (Rs 50,000 per bigha) should be applied without any depreciation, and modified the High Court’s award accordingly.

Summary

The appellants' land in Shahibabad Daulatpur village was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition officer initially fixed compensation at Rs 13,000 per bigha (Block A) and Rs 6,000 per bigha (Block B). The Reference Court enhanced it to Rs 17,500–18,000 per bigha, and the Delhi High Court further raised it to Rs 42,000 per bigha by applying a 12% per‑annum depreciation, relying on Balbir Singh’s and Bedi Ram’s decisions. The Supreme Court examined whether the depreciation was appropriate and whether the value fixed in Balbir Singh’s case (Rs 50,000 per bigha) could be applied to the present adjoining villages. It held that the High Court was correct in adopting the Balbir Singh precedent but erred in deducting depreciation, as the sale deeds considered in Balbir Singh’s case pre‑dated the present acquisition. Consequently, the Court modified the compensation to Rs 50,000 per bigha and rejected any further enhancement. The appeals were partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should be fixed at the value determined in Balbir Singh’s case.
Whether depreciation should be applied to the land value when the acquisition dates of the two cases are close.
Whether the precedent set in Bedi Ram’s case is applicable to the present acquisition involving adjoining villages.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 17, s. 4, s. 6

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationValuationDepreciationLand Acquisition ActSupreme CourtDelhi High CourtMarket valueBigha

Judgment

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 364

A PREMWATI
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 949 of 2005 etc.)
JULY 2, 2013
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

Land Acquisition - Land acquired - Determination of the
C value of the land - Land holder claiming the compensation
at Rs, 1,25,0001- per bigha - High Court by impugned order
relying on another case *(Balbir Singh's case) held that value
of the land should be fixed at Rs.50,0001- - But in view of the
fact that in *Balbir Singh's case, acquisition was one year prior
o to the acquisition in the instant case, the Court adopted
depreciated value and fixed the value at Rs.42, 0001- per
bigha - Held: Reasoning of High Court in relying on *Balbir
Singh's case for enhancing the value of the land is confirmed
- But the rate fixed by High Court is modified to Rs.50,0001-
E from Rs. 42, 0001- per bigha in view of the fact that value in
*Balbir Singh's case was fixed on the basis of cases which
were acquired prior to the acquisition in the present case.

Land belonging to the appellants was acquired
under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by notification uls. 4
F dated 26.3.1983. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the
value of lands as Rs.13,0001- per bigha, and Rs.6000/- in
respect of the lands falling under Block-A and Block-B
respectively. The appellants approached the Reference
Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount
G to Rs.1,25,000/- per bigha. Reference Court enhanced th~
value of the land in Block A as well as Block B to
Rs.17 ,500/- per bigha and Rs.18000/- per bigha for the
lands abutting the road. The appellants approached High
Court, for further enhancement of the value. The High
H 364
PREMWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 365

Court relied on its earlier judgments in *Ba/bir Singh's A
case and **Bedi Ram's case and agreed that the value of
the land has to be fixed at Rs.50,000/- per bigha as done
in those cases. But the Court applied rule of depreciation
in the present case as acquisition in the present case
was one year prior to the date of acquisition in *Balbir B
Singh's case. The Court, therefore, deducted the value
by12% per annum on the sum of Rs.50,000/- and then
enhanced the value of the land to Rs.42,000/- per bigha.
Hence, the present appeals.

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
c
HELD: 1. The reasoning of the Division Bench of the
High Court in having relied upon *Balbir Singh's case and
**Bed/ Ram's case fixing the value of the land was
perfectly justified. When once the Division Bench rightly D
felt that whatever was decided in *Balbir Singh's case, so
far as it related to the value of the land fixed therein, can
be applied even in respect of the land in the present case,
which is situated in an adjacent vi11age and the
acquisition in respect of. the lands in the said village was E
made simultaneously along with the lands which were
subject matter in *Balbir Singh's case and **Bedi Ram's
case, therefore, the same value, which was applied in
*Balbir Singh's case should have been applied even in
respect of the lands belonging to the appellants. [Para 12] F
[370-H; 371-A-C]

2. While every other reasoning of the Division Bench
in adopting the value, which was fixed in *Ba/bir Singh's
case was justified, there is no need to deduct any amount
from the said value, in as much as the exemplar relied G
upon by the Division Bench in *Balbir Singh's case, were
all sale deeds pertaining to the period 18.01.1982 to
22.07 .1983 i.e., prior to the very first notification issued in
respect of the present acquisition of all the four villages
viz., 01.08.1983. Therefore, even while confirming the H
. i

.- - .
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 $.C.R.

A reasoning of the Division. Bench in· relying upon *Balbir
Singh's case for enhancing· the value, .the rate fixed by
the Division Bench is modified to a sum of Rs.50,000/- per·
big ha. There is no merit in the claim of the appellants for
claiming any further enhancement beyond the sum of.
B Rs.50,0001- per biglia, in as much as there ·was absolutely
no legally acceptable material In support of any such.
claim. [Paras 14 and 15] [371-E-H; 372-A-Cl ··

*Balbir Singh vs. Union of India 50 (1993) DLT. 40;
C **Bedi Ram vs. Unionof India and Anr. 93 (2001) DLT 150 -
referred to. : · · · ' ··· · · ·

Case Law. Reference:
50.(1993) DLT 40 referred to. .Para 12
,
D 93 (2001) DLT .150 referred to ·Para 12 ·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 949
of 2005. ·
- - - ' ' ·.·
· .. From. the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2003 of the
E· High Court of Delhi. at New Delhi iri RFA No.132of1999
- ., ' •-
..
WITH .· ···•
. . .

C.A. No. 2443 of 2005.
Sarijay Sharawat for the Appellant.·
F
Rekha Pandey, Sadhana Sandhu, D.S. Mahra, Baldev
Atrey, Anil Katiyar, for the Respondents. •· ·
. . . - .
-
· The
. -
Judgment of the Court
. . '
was delivered
''
by. . ' ·
- ~

G . . FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J •.1:These
two appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Division
Benc;:h of Delhi High Court dated 07.02.2003, passed in batch
of first appeals commencing from RFA No.167 of1991 etc. We _
are concerned with the judgments passed in RFA No.132 of
H 1999, wherein the appellant in C.A.No.949 of 2005, was the
PREMWATlv. UNION OF.INDIA&.ORS. 367
[MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
appellant before the High Court and RFA No.129 of 1999, A
wherein the appellant in CA.No.2443 of 2005 was the appellant
before the High Court. The appellants were husband and wife.
The appellant in C.A.No.2443 .of 2005, died· during .the
pendency of the appeal before the. High Court ai{d the appeal
was pursued by.his LRs. . . . . · ·· ·" B

· 2. The question involved in these two appeals is about the
value of the land to be determined under the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {hereiriafterreferred to as 'the Act').
There was a Notification under Section 4 of the Act, issued on
26.03.1983, followed by a Notification issued under Section C
17(1) of the Act, in respect of the lands situated in Shahibabad
Daufatpur, Khera Kalan, Siraspur a'iid Samaipu( villages. Under
Section 6 of the Act a declaration was also made on the same
date viz., 26.03.1983. The lands of the appellants before us
were all situated in the village Shahibabad Daulatpur. The extent D
of land acquired from the appellants were 94 bighas and 2
biswas bearing different Khasra Nos. covered by LAC case
Nos.27 of 93 and 23 of 1993. The other extent of land was 4
biswas in Khasra No.33/26, covered by LAC case Nos.28 of
1993 and 29 of 1993. The concerned Awards were Award E
Nos.26/83-84 and 57/83-84 respectively. The Awards were
dated 01.08.1983 and 26.09.1983 respectively. As per the
Award,' the value of the lands we"re fixed by the Acquisition
Officer in a sum of Rs:13,000/- per bigha, in respeCt of the
lands falling under Block-A and Rs.6,000/- per big ha, in respect F
of the lands falling.under Block-B. The samewas the value fixed
in Award No.57/83-84. Aggrieved by the compensation fixed
under the 'Award, the appellants preferred LAC case Nos. 23, ·
27, 28 and 29 of 1993. · ·· · ' ·· · · · ·
. '
·,.- -
3. The reference Court by its judgment dated 07.01 ~1998, G
determined the value in respect of both categories of land viz.,
A and Bin a·sum of Rs.17,500/- per bigha and in respect of
the lands abutting the road in a sum of Rs.18,000/- per bigha ..
Before the reference Court, t~e appellants initially claimed ·H .
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R._

A compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per bigha, but later on
they amended their petition and claimed the market value in a
sum of Rs.1,25,000/- per bigha. Aggrieved by the value fixed
by the reference Court, the appellants approached the High
Court and the High Court by the impugned judgment enhanced
B the value to a sum of Rs.42,000/- per bigha. Aggrieved against
the same, the appellants have come forward with these
appeals.

4. We have heard Mr.Sanjay ::>narawat, learned counsel
C appearing for the appellants and Ms.Rekha Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondent (s). We have also perused the
Award, the judgment of the Reference Court, as well as that of
the Division Bench of the High Court and other material papers
placed before us.

D 5. Having considered the respective submissions and the
judgment impugned, along with the other material papers, we
are of the considered opinion that further enhancement to a
marginal extent can be justifiably granted in favour of the
appellants.
E
6. When we perused the judgments of the Reference
Court, we find that on behalf of the appellants, four wi~nesses
were examined. P.W.1 Shri Jasbir Rana, is the son of the
original appellant Rajinder Singh, P.W.2 Shri Rehmat llahi, who
was a Reader in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi
F at the relevant time, P.W.3 Halqa Patwari Rajinder Singh, was
examined to show that Aks Sajra of village Shahibabad
Daulatpur and P.W.4 Shri Jaswahar, was a witness from the
Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. On
the side of the respondents, no evidence was let in, while two
G documents were tendered at the instance of the learned
counsel for the respondents. One of the documents was the
judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 30.03.1987,
pertaining to the same village, as well as the same notification
dated 26.03.1983 and the second document was a copy of the
H
PREMWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 369
[MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
Award under Reference being Award No.26/83-84 which were A
marked as Exs. R1 and R2.

7. On behalf of the appellants reliance was placed upon
an earlier Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court.
While enhancing the compensation to a sum of Rs.42,000/- per
8
bigha, the High Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Balbir
Singh Vs. Union of India dated 30.10.1991, in RFA No.810
of 1988, which was reported in 50 (1993) DLT 40. In Balbir
Singh's case, the question related to the value of the land in
respect of the lands acquired in Siraspur village for planned
development of Delhi, in particular for settin·g up an industrial C
estate. Notification
. .
under Section 4 of the Act in that case
. was
dated 27.07.1984 and the total extent of land acquired was
2123 bighas and 5 biswas. The land value fixed by the
Acquisition Officer was Rs.17,000/- per bigha for category A
· lands and Rs.13,000/- per bigha for category B lands. The D
reference Court enhanced it to Rs.25,000/- per bigha for A
category and Rs.21,000/- per bigha for B category. In respect
of some of the lands in B category, it was fixed at Rs.22,000/-
per bigha. The High Court enhanced it to a sum ofRs.50,000/..
per bigha for leveled land and Rs.45,000/- per bigha for the E
lands in depression.

8. While fixing the land value at Rs.50,000/- per bigha in
Balbir Singh's case, the High Court took into consideration the
·sale deeds, which were executed between the periods F
18.01.1982 to 22.07.1983, which was in the range of
Rs.25,000/- to Rs.96,000/- per bigha. Certain other
considerations ~lso weighed with the High Court, while
determining the land value in Balbir Singh's case, but we are
not concerned with the same.
G
9. One other relevant factor which is required to be noted
in the case on hand was that though in Balbir Singh's case,
the lands were actually situated in the revenue estate of
Siraspur, the High Court chose to rely on the same. In the case
on hand, while enhancing the value to Rs.42,000/-, the High H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (f013) 8 S.C.R.

A Court applied the rule of depreciated value, in as much as the
acquisition in respect of Siraspur village in Balbir Singh's case
was pursuant to Section 4 Notification, dated 27 .07 .1984. It is
relevant to note that the present acquisition was made pursuant
to Section 4 Notifications of August 1983 and September
B 1983. The Division Bench therefore, deducted the value by 12%
per annum on the sum of Rs.50,000/- and arrived at Rs.42,000/
- per bigha.

10. For applying the said rate, the Division Bench relied
upon another decision of the Delhi High Court in Bedi Ram Vs.
C Union of India and another, reported in 93 (2001) DLT 150,
where the lands situated in the estate of Samaipur, which was
also one of the villages governed by the present acquisition
proceedings. One other relevant factor which is required to be
noted is that P.W.3, who is Halqa Patwari, has deposed before
D the reference Court and confirmed that the site plan marked
as 'E' is the correct consolidated site plan of village Samaipur
and village Shahibabad Daulatpur. He also further confirmea
that the boundaries of village Shahibabad Daulatpur and of
village Samaipur are adjoining and continuous. By relying upon
E the testimony of P.W.1, the son of the appellant, as well as
P.W.3 the Halqa Patwari, it was contended that the lands of
the two villages viz., Shahhibabad Daulatpur and village
Samaipur are adjoining villages and, therefore, the market
· value of the lands of these two villages cannot be different.
F
11. The High Court has in fact accepted the submission
by referring to village Siraspur with reference to the lands,
pertaining to the said village in Balbir Singh's case, in which a
year later, the value of the land was fixed to a sum of Rs.50,000/
G - per bigha.

12. Keeping the above factors in mind, when we consider
the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, we
find that the reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court
in having relied upon Balbir Singh's case and Bedi Ram's case
H was perfectly justified. We would, however, hasten to add that
PREMWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 371
[MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
when once the Division Bench rightly felt that whatever was A
decided in Balbir Singh's case, so far as it related to the value
of the land fixed therein, can be applied even in respect of the
land situated in Shahibabad Daulatpur, which is an adjacent
yillage and the acquisition in respect of the lands in the said
village was made simultaneously along with the lands situated B
in Samaipur and Siraspur villages, are of the considered
opinion that the same value, which was applied in Balbir
Singh's case should have been applied even in respect of the
lands belonging to the appellants. We say so because, we find
in Ba/bir Singh's case, while fixing the land value in a sum of c
Rs.50,000/- per bigha, the High Court considered the various
sale deeds of the period between 18.01.1982 and 22.07.1983.

13. In the case on hand, we are concerned with the land
situated in Shahibabad Daulatpur village and the extent of land
which were acquired from the appellants was 94 bighas 2 D
biswas of different Khasra Nos. covered by Award No.26/83-
84 and 4 biswas in Khasra No.33/26, covered by Award No.57/
83-84. Thus, the extent of land acquired from the appellants
were also considerably large. The total extent of land thus,
acquired in all the four villages were around 785 bighas of E
continuous lands and the acquisition was for the purpose of
establishing the Delhi Technological University.

14. We are, therefore, of the view that while every other
reasoning of the Division Bench in adopting the value, which F
was fixed in Balbir Singh's case was justified, there is no need
to deduct any amount from the said value, in as much as the
exemplar relied upon by the Division Bench in Balbir Singh's
case, were all sale deeds pertaining to the period 18.01.1982
to 22.07.1983 i.e., prior to the very first notification issued in G
respect of the present acquisition of all the four villages viz.,
01.08.1983, which notification pertains to the lands belonging
to the appellants which were situated in Sahibabad Daulatpur
village.

15. Therefore, even while confirming the reasoning of the H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R.

A Division Bench in relying upon Balbir Singh's case for
enhancing the value, we only modify the rate fixed by the
Division Bench to a sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha instead of
Rs.42,000/- per bigha. With the modification only in respect to
the rate per bigha, in all other respects the Division Bench
13 decision deserves to be confirmed. We however, do not find
any merit in the claim of the appellants for claiming any further
enhancement beyond the sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha, in as
much as there was absolutely no legally acceptable mater.ial
in support of any such claim.
c 16. The appeals stand partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.42,000/- per bigha as determined by the
Division Bench of the High Court to a sum of Rs.50,000/- per
bigha, in respect of both categories of land. With the above
modification in the rate of land value, the appeals stand partly
D allowed. Needless to add that appellants would be entitled for
consequential benefits as per the law, if any.

K.K.T. Appeal Partly allowed.