LexBASANT KUMAR ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BASANT KUMAR ETC. A v. UNION OF INDIA ETC. SEPTEMBER 12, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B La11d Acquisition Act, 1894 : Compensation-Award-All lands can11ot a11d should 11ot be classified as possessed of same market value-Burde11 on claimant to prove market C value-Cowts should adopt realistic standards a11d pragmatic approach in evaluation of the evidence-Doctline of equality i11 detenni11ation a11d pay- me11t of same compensation for all claimants involved in the same 11otifica- tioit is not good plinciple-Deductio11 towards providing amenities like roads, pad:s, electlicity, sewages water facilities etc.-High Cozat not justified in adopting ad-hoc pli11ciple-Claima11ts e11titled to e11ha11ced compensation, D interest on enhanced compensatio11 at the rate of 6% per annum and 15% solatiwn on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit into Cowt. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4327 of E 1991 Etc. Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 8.7.91 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 97 of 1980. P.C." Jain, N.K. Jain and Ms. Sheela Goal for the Appellants. F The following Order of the Court was delivered : These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bertch of the High ~ourtof Delhi made on July 8, 1996.in Letters Patent Appeal No. 97/80 and other cases. G Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') was published on October 24, 1961 acquiring a larg.: extent of 1669 bighas 18 biswas of land for the planried development of Delhi. The said lands are situated in revenue estate of Posangipur. The H 231 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A Land Acquisition Officer categorised the lands into two blocks - Block A and Block B. He assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1400 per bigha for Block A and Rs. 1200 per bigha for Block B. On reference under Section 18, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated March 8, 1968 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3050 per bigha. On B Regular First Appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the award of the reference Court. When the LP A was filed, the Division Bench held that the LP A did not lie. c In Balbir Singh v. Union of India, in RFA No. 214/68 by judgment dated may 14, 1980, the sanie was taken on merits in the appeal. Similar is the case in SLP (C) No. 17055/92 relating to Chhajju in RFA No. 65/69 of the even number dated May 14, 1980. Thus, these appeal by special leave. The extent of the land involved in Basant KumaT's case, viz., CA No. D 4327/91 is not clear as no one is appearing for the appellant. But as regards the appeal of Chhajju, his lands are of an extent of 37 bighas 10 biswas in which his share is 01ie-half. As regards Balbir Singh's lands, he has 66 bighas, 10 biswas in which he has l/3rd share. The question for considera- tion is : what will be the reasonable compensation which the lands under E acquisition were capable to secure as on the date of the notification? F Shri N.C. Jain, the learned senior counse:l appearing for the appel- lants, contended that in RFA No. 55/70 Raghuvir Singh v. Union of India, arising out of the same notification, another Division Bench of the High Court had determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 8700 per bigha and less Rs. 500 per bigha for the notified lands; and similar was the view taken by another Bench of that Court in LP A No. 137 /80 and batch decided on April 19, 1991 titled Chet Ram & Ors. v. Union of India, all these lands being situated in the same village, the appellants are also entitled to the same rate of compensation. The Union of India has not filed any appeals G against those cases. The lands are possessed of same potential value and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the same compensation. We had adjourned the case on the last occasion, as no one appeared for the Union of India; Since, even today, no one is appearing for the Union of India, we have taken assistance of Shri Jain and have waded through the entire H material evidence. The question is : whether the appellants are entitled to ;.- BASANTKR. v. U.0.1. 233 the same compensation as was determined by the High Court in the A appeals arising out of Raghuvir Singh's and Chet Ram's case? It has been firmly settled law by beed role of decisions of this Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.