INDER SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 371 · Decided: 27-04-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
..... 
INDER SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. ~C. 
APRIL 27, 1993 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND R.M. SAHAIJJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Sections 4, 18, 32-Acquisition of land-Compensation-Payment 
of-Potentional value for future development'-Comparable sale 
transaction-Consideration of-Determination and payment of 
compensation-Ordered. 
The Respondents acquired some lands for setting up Brick Kilns. The 
lands consisted of Abi (cultivated land), Barani (rainfed land) and ghair 
munkin (waste land) and the Collector fixed the compensation @ at Rs. 
23,600, Rs. 17 ,000 and Rs. 12,000 per acre of the respective lands. 
On a reference the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.33,600 
per acre for Abi lands. No enhancement was allowed in respect of the other 
categories ofland. It however allowed solatium at 15 % and interest at 6 % p.a. 
on the enhanced compensation. On appeal, a Single Judge of the High Court 
confirmed the same. These appeals were filed againstthesaid Judgment of the 
High Court. 
The appellants contended that the acquired lands had the potential 
value for residential and commercial purposes and there was no justification 
for classification of the lands and all the lands shall be treated at party in 
determination of market value; that in a similar case, the market value was 
enhanced to Rs. 75,000 per acre and in view of the fact that certain mutation 
entries showed a market value of similar lands ranging from Rs. 1,16,000 to 
Rs. 1,60,000, per acre the appellants claimed for compensation of adeast at 
Rs. 75,000 per acre. 
On behalf of the Respondents it was contended that the mutation record 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
was not admissible as no one connected with the sale transactions was 
examined to prove the documents, the ground for sales, comparative advan-
tages and their respective situation; that the lands possessed comparable or 
better amenities and wheiher the lands are very near to the lands under H 
371 
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
acquisition. The compensation awarded by the Collector at the rate of Rs. 
15,525 per acre was upheld by the Reference Court, and this ottered ·a 
reasonable base to fix the market value of the lands under acquisition. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Partly allowing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Neither the appellants nor the Land Acquisition Officer had 
examined. witnesses in proof of the sale transactions referred in the mutation 
entries. It is settled law that a claimant is entitled to just and reasonable 
compensation under s. 23, To determine the market value of the lands, it is 
necessary to examine witnesses to prove the prevailing prices as on the date 
of publication of the notification under s. 4(1). The sale transaction of the same 
Lands or sales oflands situated in the neighbourhood possessed of same or 
similar advantages would furnish as evidence of comparable sales. It would 
be possible to have reliable evidence when sale transactions are proved by 
either the vendor or the vendee and if either of them was not available, the 
attesting witness who had personal knowledge of the transactions is to be 
examined by producing either the original sale deed or certified copies thereof 
as evidence. Since at the relevant time it was not being insisted upon, none of 
the witnesses were called to prove the sale deeds or to prove the sale 
tr_ansactions. Thus, the documentary evidence of sale transactions or the 
mutation entries on either side are clearly not admissible and therefore, they 
cannot be looked into, and are accordingly excluded from consideration. 
(375-GH, 376 A-E) 
2. The situation of the lands clearly shows that the lands are situated very 
close to developed Chandigarh planned city and are very near to Sukha Lake 
and the railway track. They are situated within the freezed zone for future 
F 
potential development of the city. Though the acquisition was for establish-
ment of Brick Kilns, by its very nature the lands may not immediately be 
capable of being used for residentiat or commercihl purposes, but certainly 
possessed of potential value for future development as residential and com-
mercial purposes. There is a distinction between the lands acquired for Motor 
Market or Mansa Housing Complex on the one hand and the lands under 
G 
acquisition on the other hand, though the lands are Abi lands going by the 
situation of the lands, the market value of the land acquired for motor market 
do not render any 

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