ATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 04-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' ' -4 
-1 
" 
•-:.i: 
,...\ 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 315 
ATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 7203 of 2004) 
AUGUST 4, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Land acquisition - Market 
value - Determination of - Claim for compensation on basis 
of market value fixed of a similarly situated land in Lok Ada/at 
Settlement - High Court awarding compensation on basis of 
its earlier decision - Correctness of - Held: Correct - It is not 
known on what basis settlement was arrived at in Lok Ada/at 
' 
. 
- Absence of any detailed particulars showing similarity of 
land and/or advantages and dis-advantages pertaining 
thereto, settlement not rightly made basis for determining 
market value of land - High Court was required to determine 
fair market value of land on basis of the legal principles - It 
based its decision on its earlier common judgment delivered 
arising out of the same notification, which has attained finality. 
The question which arose for consideration in this . 
appeal was whether any agreement entered into by and 
between the holders of the lands and the Union of India 
in a Lok Adalat should have formed the basis for 
determination of the amount of compensation in respect 
of the lands which are said to be similarly situated. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Determination of the market value of the 
land acquired would depend upon a large number of 
factors including the nature and quality thereof. The 
norms which are required to be applied for determination 
of the market value of the agricultural land and 
315 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A homestead land are different. In given cases location of 
land and in particular, closeness thereof from any road 
or high-way would play an important role for 
determination of the market value wherefor belting 
system may in appropriate cases may be resorted to. The 
B position of the land, particularly in rainy season, 
. existence of any building etc. also plays an important 
role. A host of other factors including development in and 
around the acquired land and/or the potentiality of 
development will also have a bearing on determination 
c of the fair market value of the land. Determination of the 
market value of the land may also depend upon the facts 
and circumstances of each case, amongst them would 
be the amount of consideration mentioned in a deed of 
sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near 
0 about the date of issuance of Notification in terms of s. 
4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; in absence of any 
such exemplars, the market value can be determined on 
yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of 
number of fruit bea~ing trees. For the purpose of 
E determination of price of acquired land, the courts should 
consider the positive and negative factors. [Paras 10, 11 
and 12) [320-8-D; 320-E-F; 320-G] 
1.2. On what basis the settlement in the Lok Adalat 
•· • 
was arrived at is not known. Details of the land with regard 
F to location, nature, advantages and dis-advantages 
pertaining thereto are absent. In absence of any detailed 
particulars showing the similarity of the land and/or the 
respective advantages and dis-advantages pertaining 
thereto, the settlement was not rightly made the basis for 
G determining the market value of the land. Thus, the High 
Court was required to determine the fair market value of 
the land on the basis of the legal principles laid down by 
this Court. No contention has been could be raised that 
the High Court in passing the impugned judgment failed 
H 
ATTAR SINGH AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIAAND 317 
ANR. 
~ to take into consideration the well settled legal principles. A 
[Paras 14 and 15] [325-B-C; 325-D] 
1.3. The High Court based its decision on its earlier 
common judgment delivered in the case of * Jia Ram and 
others arising out of the same notification. There is no B 
information whether any appeal has been preferred 
against that judgment and if r 
what was the result 
thereof. In absence of that inf rmation, the appellants 
} .... should not be treated differently 
1 rom Jia Ram's case who 
might not have preferred any appeal and have accepted c 
the judgment of the High Court. [Para 16] [325-E; 325-F-
G] 
"1 
Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 
I 
SCC 789; Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC 
1; Ranvir Singh v. Union of I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.