JAGDISH SINGH AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 29-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAGDISH SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
MARCH 29, 1995 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Compensation-Determination of-Land of different persons-Acquisi-
C tion of-No satisfactory evidence to determine compensation land-wise of 
each claimanfo-Taking into account m~nicipal limit as the basis-Decreasing 
the compensation progressively on the basis of increasing distance-Held 
valid. 
D 
Sections 23( 1-A), 23(2) and 28 (As amended by 1984 Act): Benefits 
undel--Entitlement to. 
For acquisition of a large extent of land comprising of seven villages 
Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
published on 21.1.1977 and the Collector made his award under section 11 
E on April 11, 1980. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation on 
February 9, 1982. On further appeals, the High Court enhanced the 
compensation between Rs. 57,400 and Rs. 78,000 per acre. As there was no 
satisfactory evidence to determine the compensation land-wise of each 
claimant, the High Court took into account the municipal limits as the 
F basis and decreased the rate of compensation progressively on the basis 
of increasing distance. The appellants who were awarded Rs. 57 ,400 for 
their 'lands filed appeals in this Court claiming higher compensation of 
Rs. 78,000 per acre on the ground that (i) the High Court has committed 
grievous error In adopting each village as a measure to determine the 
compensation and that it should have determined compensation land wise; 
G and (ii) for the acquisition of land in other village which was away from 
Municipality comp~sation of Rs. 78,000 per acre was awarded and the 
appellants were entitled to parity in compensation because their lands 
were situated very 11ear to abadl and were therefore possessed of more 
potential value than the land in other villages. On the other hand the State 
H did not question enhancement .of compensation on merits. 
72 
JAGDISH SINGH v. U.0.1. 
73 
Dismissing the appeals of the claimants and allowing the State A 
appeals in part, this Court 
HELD : The High Court has not committed any error of law war· 
ranting interference for further enhancing the market value. However, it 
has committed manifest error of law in applying Sections 23(l·A), 23(2) 
and 28 as ame11ded by Act 68 of the 1984 giving enhanced interest and B 
solatium and additional compensation at U%·per annum from the date of 
the notification till the date of Award or the date of taking possession, 
whichever is earlier. In cases of present nature, the claimants are not 
w -.; 
entitled to such benefits. [74·F·GJ 
c 
CiviL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4341 of 
1995 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.1987 of the Punjab and 
Haryarta High Court in L.PANo. 634 of 1984. 
S.K. Bagga, Muni Lal Varma; Mrs. S. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga, Y.P. 
Mahajan for P. Parmeswaran (Ms. Shasbi Kiran) (NP), Ranbir Yadav and 
G .K. Bansal for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
Delay in filing the Special Leave Petition and substitution applica· 
lions is condoned. All the substitution applications are allowed. 
Leave granted in all the matters. 
Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published 
D 
E 
F 
in the Gazette on 21.1.1977 acquiring a large extent of land comprising of 
seven villages, including Kheri Gujran, Bir Kheri Gujran, Haji Majra, 
Pasiana and Sher Majra in Tehsil and District Patiala for defence pur· 
poses. The Collector made his award under s.11 on April 11, 1980. On 
reference under s.18, the Additional District Judge, Patiala, enhanced the G 
compensation on September 4, 1980 and on February 9, 1982. On further 
appeals, the High Court enhanced the compensation between Rs. 57,400 
to 78,000 per acre. The lands in question relate to Sher Majra. For these 
lands Rs. 57,400 per acre was awarded. Still not being satisfied, the 
claimants have filed these appeals claiming compensation at Rs. 78,000 as H 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 3 S.C.R. 
A allowed in respect of village Malo Majra. 
Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the High Court 
has committed grievous error in adopting each village as a measure to 
determine the compensation. On the other hand, the court should have 
B adopted land wise and should have determined compensation accord-
ingly. It is further contended that the lands of the appellants are situated 
very near to residentia
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.