LexBHAGAT SINGH & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 529 -~ BHAGAT SINGH & ORS. A v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (CIVIL Appeal No. 7209 of 2004) AUGUST 4, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] ___.... Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition of land for public purpose - Determination of compensation - Principles discussed - Held: On facts, landowners were not shown to c have been prejudiced in any manner by the determination made by High Court - No reason for interference by Supreme Court. Land acquired for public purpose was categorized D ~ into three categories 'A', '8' and 'C'. The High Court, having regard to its earlier decision rendered in Ranjit Singh's case*, where the lands were acquired for the same purpose and under the same Notification, determined market value for the three categories at Rs.26,775/-; E Rs.24,7751- and Rs.22,775/- respectively. --+ In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the High Court committed serious error insofar as it did not take into consideration three sale deeds (marked as Exts. A-5 to A-7) F Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The determination of the market value of the land acquired, indisputably would depend upon a G ~ ~ 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 homestead land may be different. In given cases, location of land and in particular, closeness thereof from 529 H 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A any road or high-way would play an important role for I>-. determination of the market value wherefor belting system may in appropriate cases have to be resorted to. The position of the land, particularly in rainy season, existence of any building etc. also plays an important B role. A host of other factors including development in and around the acquired land and/or the potentiality of the development will have a bearing on determination of the value of the land. [Para 9] [534-D-F] c 1.2. Determination of the market value of the land may also depend upon the facts and circumstances. of each case, amongst them, however, would be the price of land, amount of consideration mentioned in a deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about D the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; in the 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 bearing trees. It is also well settled that for price determination purposes, the courts would be E well advised to consider the positive and negative factors. [Para 10] (534-G-H; 535-A-B] Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789; Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (2005) 12 SCC F 1; Ranvir Singh v. Union of India (2005) 12 SCC 59 Karimbanakka/ Sulaiman (dead) by L.Rs. v. Special Tahsildar for K.A.K.P.l.P. (2004) 13 SCC 643 and Basant Kumar v. Union of India (1996) 11 SCC 542, referred to G 2.1. In the present case, the High Court proceeded to determine the market value of the land keeping in view ,.. . its earlier decision in Ranjit Singh*. A Special Leave Petition filed against the said order stood dismissed in limine. In absence of any material brought on record, it is difficult to disagree with the High Court's opinion H BHAGAT SINGH & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 531 ·~ particularly when the aUention of this Court was not A drawn to any evidence that the lands in the case of Ranjit Singh was inferior in character vis-a-vis the lands acquired in the present case or that some other additional materials were brought on record in the present case so as enable this Court to take a different view. [Paras 6 and B 7] [533-G-H; 534-A-B] 2.2. So far as the three deeds of sale relied upon by ----.( the appellants-landowners are concerned, Exts.A-6 and A-7 were in respect of land situated in two different c villages while Ext.A-5 pertains to the village in question wherein the land was stated to have been sold at Rs.22,000/- per bigha. The attention of this Court was not drawn to any discussion made either by the Reference Court or any other evidence brought on record to D establish that the land under Ext.A-5 was similar to the lands under acquisition in the appeals in question. It was also not shown to which category the land sold in terms of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.