CHANDRASHEKHAR & ORS. versus ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 08-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 10 S.C.R. 505 
CHANDRASHEKHAR & ORS. 
v. 
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 
(Civil Appeal Nos.4163-4165 of 2009) 
JULY 8, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: 
A 
B 
s.23 - Acquisition of land·- Compensation - Deduction c 
of, for deficit in court fee - High Court holding the claimants 
entitled to enhanced compensation but reducing the same for 
deficit in court fee - Held: Once the court has taken the view 
that claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation, they 
should not be denied the same on mere technical ground of 0 
non-payment of court fee, and an opportunity must be given 
to them for payment of requisite court fee. 
s. 23(1) - Market value of acquired land - Determination 
of on the basis of a judgment - Held: The claimant must 
adduce evidence for determining market value of the acquired 
E 
land according to the decision relied upon - In the instant 
case, claimants tailed to furnish such basis. 
In the instant appeals filed by the landowners, the 
question for consideration before the Court was: whether 
F 
the High Court having held that the landowners were 
entitled to compensation @ Rs.32.10/- per sq. ft., was 
justified in restricting the amount to Rs.23/- per sq. ft. only 
in view of the deficit in the court fee paid by the land 
owners in their cross-objections, without affording them 
G 
• 
the opportunity to pay the balance court fee. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
505 
H 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. Once the court has taken the view that the 
claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation, they 
should not be denied the same on mere technical ground 
of non-payment of the court fees, and an opportunity 
must be given for payment of the same. [Para 6] [513-C-
B DJ 
Bhag Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1985) 3 
sec 737, retied on. 
1.2. In the instant case, the High Court has 
C recognized the high value of the lands of the appellants 
and held that the actual market value of the acquired land 
would have been Rs.32.10/- per sq. ft. The High Court also 
took into consideration the awards passed by the civil 
court and observed that the entitlement of the appellants 
D in the instant case would be far more than the rate of Rs. 
32.10/- per sq. ft. However, the High Court erred in 
restricting the claim to Rs.23/- per sq. ft. on mere 
E 
· technical ground of non-payment of requisite court fee. 
[Para 7] [513-0-G] 
1.3. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Buta 
Singh* has not reversed the decision in Bhag Singh and 
the law laid down in Scheduled Caste Coop.** is 
materially different from the law established by this court 
F in Bhag Singh since both the decisions dealt with 
different matters and moreover the Scheduled Caste 
Coop. decision has in fact recognised the validity of the 
law laid down in Bhag Singh. Therefore, following the 
judgment of Bhag Singh, the decision in the instant case 
shall not be in conflict with the opinion of the Constitution 
G Bench decision in the case of Buta Singh. Thus, it is 
settled that the High Court should not have deprived the 
appellants of their rightful claim on the technical ground 
of want of requisite court fees, and an opportunity should 
have been afforded to them for payment of the deficit 
H court fee. [Para 13] [518-A-C] 
'> 
CHANDRASHEKHAR & ORS. v. ADDITIONAL SPECIAL 507 
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 
Bhag Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1985) 3 
SCC 737 and Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 
(2008) 1 o sec 797, relied on. 
*Buta Singh v. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 283, referred 
to. 
**Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd. v. 
Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 174, distinguished. 
1.5. In Pal Singh's case, the court in principle 
recognised the admissibility of previous decisions in a 
subsequent case as far as the market value of the 
acquired land was concerned. Thus, for a judgment 
relating to value of land to be admitted in evidence either 
as an instance or as one from which the market value of 
the acquired land could be inferred or deduced,. must 
have been a previous judgment of that same court and 
this requirement is fulfilled in the instant case. However, 
the requirement further was that it must have been 
proved by the person relying upon such judgment by 
adducing evidence aliunde and that due regard being 
given to all other attendant facts and circumstances it 
could furnish the basis for det

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.