UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.versusMANGATU RAM ETC.

                 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.                                A
                              v.
                     MANGATU RAM ETC.

                             APRIL 29, 1997

           [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND                                B
                     G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

       Ss. 23(1), 23(1-A), 28-A-Land Acquisition Officer classified lands in C
different belts and granted compensation accordingl~High Court granted
enhanced compensation on uniform rate-Held, when large extents of lands
with different features are acquired, necessary reasonable classification should
be made before determining compensation-Article 14 of the Constitution has
no application in these circumstances-Lands re-classified and compensation D
granted at the rates of Rs. 1,00,000 per acre, Rs. 60,000 per acre and Rs.
30,000 per acre respectively-Claimants entitled to benefit under Amendment
Act 68 of 1984-Those claimants who had not earlier sought reference but.
made applications u/s. 28-A within three months of the .award of reference
Court would be entitled to same compensation as awarded by reference court
in other matters-Those who made applications beyond time are not entitled E
lo re-determination of compensation-Constitution of India-Article 14.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3816 of
1997 Etc. Etc.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 5.1.94 of the Punjab & Haryana         F
High Court in L.P.A. No. 664 of 1991.

      N.N. Goswami, V.C. Mahajan, G.L. Sanghi, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Anil
Katiyar, Niranjana Singh, Satpal Singh, K.P. Mittal, M.S. Dahiya and Prem
Malhotra for appearing parties.                                           G

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      In CA Nos. 3816, 3818-35, 4070-4139, 3947, 4157~58, 4036-69, 4033-35,
3936-46/97@ SLP Nos. 1013, 1545-1662, 3004-73, 19017, 8255-56/95, 2947-
80, 2920-22 and 16892-902/96                                                ·H
                                   1121
    1122                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A          Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

           Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
    (for short, the 'Act') was published on June)8, 1984. The Land Acquisition
    Collector classified the lands into four blocks, viz., A, B, C and D and
B   awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,ooo; Rs. 40,000, Rs. 25,000 and
    Rs. 15,000 respectively. The total of 3781 kanals and 2 marlas and 1138
    kanals and 11 marlas of land was acquired and compensation was accord-
    ingly granted. On reference under Section 18, the Additional District Judge
    classified the lands as Classes 'A' and 'B' and a"'.arded the compensation
    @ Rs. 1,00,000 for Class 'A' and @ Rs. 50,000 for Class 'B'. On appeal,
C   the learned Single Judge of the High Court granted uniform rate of
    compensation@ Rs. 1,05,000. The Division Bench heard L.PA. No. 664/91
    and batch and dismissed the appeals on January 5, 1994. Thus, these
    appeals by special leave.

D         The question that arises for consideration is : whether the view of.
    the High Court in not making any belting and granting uniform rate of
    compensation for all the lands is correct principle of law? We find that the
    High Court has adopted absolutely. incorrect principle of law. It is seen
    that several fake deeds have been filed, in particular as per Ex. BA spoken
    through PW-3, 16.7 kanals of land were sold for Rs. 1,40,000. It is settled
E   legal position that it is the duty of the Court to sit in the arm chair of a
    willing and prudent purchaser and seek answer to the question whether he
    would purchase the lands offered for sale with the existing features, at the
    same market value proposed by the Court. It is also settled law that though
    determination involves some guess work, it must have reasonable basis and
F   feats of imagination should be eschewed. It is salutary duty of the court to
     award reasonable and adequate compensation. The plan has been placed
    before us. The Land Acquisition Officer has marked the lands in red
     colour the lands classified as 'A' and 'B' class lands in green colour.

           The question that arises for consideration is : whether the belting is
G necessary in the circumstances of these cases? When a large extent of land
  under acquisition comprises of lands of several persons and some lands are
  abutting the main road and some lands are in the interior, the same would
  not have the uniform rate of market value. Necessarily, reasonable demar-
  cation/classification should be made before determination of the· compen-
H sation. Accordingly, we justified the classification of the lands into category
                        U.0.1. v. MANGATU RAM                            1123

'A' and 'B'. The Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned the total extent          A
of the land in his respective awards. Since the lands are admittedly abutting
the Delhi-Hissar National Highway by-pass, the same would necessarily be
granted a higher market value than the lands situated in the interior.
Accordingly, we are of the view that lands situated around 500 yards from
the main road should be classified as 'A' class land irrespective of the
quality of the land, i.e., whether it is Nehari, Chahi, Banjar Quadium,
                                                                                  B
Banjar Jadid or Gair Mumkin, the uniform rate of compensation at Rs.
1,00,000 per acre would be granted to such lands. For the rest of the 'A'
Class lands, the compensation would be at Rs. 60,000 per acre. Banjar
Quadium, Banjar Jadid and Gair Mumkin lands are classified as 'B' class
lands and for that land, the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000 per acre      c
would be reasonable, just and adequate compensation.

       Shri G .L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants,
contends that if a claimant does not seek a reference under Section 18 and
if the award is made in respect of other persons covered under the same           D
notification and they have secured enhanced compensation, the respon-
dents should not be put in a worse off position than such persons in that
behalf. He seeks to place reliance on a judgment of this Court as an
instance of confirmation of the enhancement of compensation by way of
dismissal of the special leave petition, and contends that demarcation of
the land into Class 'A' and Class 'B' and the awarding the compensation           E
at different rates would be arbitrary violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
We find no force in the contention.

      It is equally settled law that Article 14 has no application vis-a-vis
determination of the compensation for the obvious reason that it is hardly        F
possible that all the lands are equal in all respects; they differ from one
another and bear different features, e.g., nature, quality and character;
Therefore, all the lands do not command the same market value when they
are sold to a willing purchaser by a willing vendor in the open market.

      Under these circumstances, the doctrine of equality in the matter of        G
payment of compensation under Article 14 is inapplicable. Accordingly, we
hold that for 'B' Class lands, the compensation would be at the rate of Rs.
30,000 per acre. The claimants are entitled to the solatium at the rate of
30% on the enhanced compensation. They are also entitled to interest @
9% for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the          H
    1124                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (1997] 3 S.C.R.

A rate of 15% on the enhanced compensation. In addition, they are. entitled
    to additional amount at 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.
    The High Court had not kept this perspective in view in determining the
    compensation and thereby it had committed manifest error of law warrant-
    ing interference.

B         The appeals are accordingly allowed. The order of the reference
    Court is modified to the extent indicated above and the claimants shall be
    paid all the amount, if not already paid within a period of four months from
    the date of the judgment. No costs.

C          Jn C4 No. 4153 of 1997 (@ SLP (C) No. 7287/97)

           Leave granted.

           Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on June 18,
    1984. The collector made his award on 1.2.1986 under Section 11 of the
D   Act. On reference, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree
    dated March 28, 1989, enhanced the compensation. A written application
    was filed by some other persons; their lands were also covered by the said
    notification, but they had not sought reference under Section 18. The
    application came to be filed on June 24, 1989. Section 28-A postulates as
E   under:

             Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of
             the award of the Court - (1) Where in an award under this Part,
             the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in
             excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11,
F            the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same
             notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also
             aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that
             they had not made an application to the Collector under Section
             18, by written application to the Collector within three months
             from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount
G            of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the
             basis of the amount of the compensation <!warded by the Court:

                Provided that in computing the period of three months within
             which an application to the Collector shall be made under this
H            sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the
                       U.O.I. v. MANGATU RAM                            1125

        time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded."    A
      A reading thereof would clearly indicate that the persons interested
who had not sought reference under Section 18 but whose land is covered
by the same notification published under Section 4(1) and who are ag-
grieved by the acquisition, are entitled to make a written application to the
Collector within three months from the date of the award of the reference       B
Court for re-determination of the compensation. Admittedly, since applica-
tion under Section 28-A of the Act had been made on June 24, 1989 wit1lln
three months, he is entitled to the same compensation awarded by the
reference Court in its award and decree dated April, 3, 1989 as affirmed
by the High Court on appeal.                                                    C
      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

     !11 CA Nos. 4151-52, 4154-56, 4140, 4185-91, 4010-32/97 (@ SLP (C)
Nos. 7285-86, 7288-90, 4535, 9144-50/97 and 25319-41/96)
                                                                                D
      Leave granted.

       Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on June 18,
1984. The Collector made his award on January 21, 1986 under Section 11.
On reference under Section 18, at the instance of some of the claimants,
the reference Court, by its award and decree dated April 3, 1989, enhanced      E
the compensation. On appeal, it was confirmed. The application seeking
re-determination of the compensation under Section 28-A(l) came to be
made on 24.4.1989. Thus, it is seen that by operation of the limitation
prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 28-A, since the written applica-
tion was not filed within three months from the date of the award of the
                                                                                F
reference Court, the application is barred by limitation. The compensation
granted by the Collector on the basis of the said application is clearly
illegal. Therefore, the view of the High Court also is incorrect.

     The appeals are accordingly allowed. But, in the circumstances,
without costs.                                                                  G
      !11 CA No. 3817 of 1997 (@ SLP (C) No. 14176/96

      Leave granted.

      In respect of the notification published on June 18, 1984, the Collec-    H
    1126                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A tor made his award on January 31, 1986 under Section 11. On reference
  under Section 18 at the instance of some claimants, the reference Court,
  by its award and decree dated November 21, 1988, enhanced the compen-
  sation. The application under Section 28-A was filed on October 1, 1991.
  The written application can be filed by some who had not sought the
B reference under Section 18. Though they are entitled to make the applica-
  tion, the application should be filed within three months from the date of
  the award of the reference Court excluding the time taken for obtaining
  the certified copy of the award as provided under proviso to Section 28-A.
  Since the application under Section 28-A was filed beyond three months,
  on the above facts, the same is barred by limitation. The award of the
C enhanced compensation to the respondents in this appeal is clearly illegal
  and without jurisdiction.

          The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the reference Court
    as well as of the High Court stand set aside. No costs.

D        In CA Nos. 4195-07, 3961-4009, 3951-60, 4141-50, 4159- 84/97 (@ SLP
    (C) Nos. 19100-112, 21771-819/94, 19153-62, 5222-31/95 and 8823-48/96)

           Leave granted.

E        These appeals are in the nature of cross appeals and relate to further
    enhancement of the compensation granted by the High Court.          ·

          In view of the fact that the Union of India's appeals have been
    allowed, these appeals stand dismissed. No. costs.
F
    R.P.                            C.A. Nos. 3816, 3818-35, 4070-4139, 3947,
                                    4157- 58, 4036-69, 4033-35, 3936-46/97 and
                                                  C.A. NOS. 4151-52, 4154-56,
                                                4140, 4185-91, 4010-32/97 and
                                                          CA No. 3817/97 and
                                       C.A. Nos. 4195-07, 3961-4009, 3951-60,
                                                       4141-50, 4159-84/97 and
                                                  C.A. No. 4153/97 dismissed.