LexJAI PARKASH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c JAi PARKASH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA MARCH 19, 1997 [A.M. AHMADI, CJ. AND SUHAS C. SEN, J.) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23-Market valu~Detennination of-Compensation in respect of lands situated in neighbouring vil- lag~Relevance of Constitution of India-Arlicle 136-lnteif erence unde1: The lands of the Appellants located in village Keshopur were ac- quired under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act vide two notifica- tions issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisitions issued under Section D 14 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector divided the Acquired lands into various blocks and awarded different compensa- tion for different blocks. On reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensations awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector were raised by the Additional District Judge. E Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the Appellants filed F appeal before the High Court contending, inter alia, that for similarly placed lands located in another village named Chokhandi a higher com- pensation was allowed. The High Court, taking into account the price of the lands in neighbouring villages, the size of land, its potential value etc., held that distinction should not be made between various blocks of lands and fixed an enhanced uniform market value of the acquired land. The present appeals were filed before this court for enhancement of compensation. G Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. The order under appeal passed by the High Court does not call for interference. Merely because higher compensation was given for lands situated in a neighbouring village does not entitled the appellants to get the same comp~nsation. The High Court has taken into considera- H tion all the relevant facts like the size of the plot, location, potential value 88 : . •. JAIPARKASH v. U.0.1.(SEN,J.] 89 of the land and also a few relevant sale deeds. No error of law has been A shown to have been committed by the High Court. [92-B-C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2043 of 1997 Etc. Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.95 of the Delhi High Court B in R.F.A. No. 369 of 1970. B.K. Mehta, N.S. Vasisht Pradeep Misra, D.K. Garg, Dr. Maya Rao, M.S. Mann, S.B. Upadhyay, Pankaj Kalra, Indeevar Goodwill and Ms. Indira Sawhney for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J. Leave granted. c This group of appeals relates to assessment of compensation of land acquired in the village Keshopur by the Union of India by two notifications D dated 13.11.1959 and the other dated 24.10.1961 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). So far as the land acquired under notification dated 13.11.1959 was concerned, the Land Acquisition Collector divided the acquired land into E two Blocks - A and B - and fixed compensation for Block A land at Rs. 600 per bigha and for Block B land at Rs. 100 per bigha. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge raised the amount of compensation to Rs. 3, 500 per bigha for Block A and Rs. 3,000 per bigha for Block B. ·· The High Court took into consideration various factors including compensation for similar lands acquired by the Government where com- pensation was fixed at a much higher rate. The High Court noticed that the instances cited by the appellants were of the land situated in Chokhan- F di, whereas the dispute of the present case related to lands in a different village Keshopur. The High Court also took into notice from the facts G produced before it that in the neighbourhood of this village prices of the lands were showing an upward trend. The lands were being bought and sold by people for purposes of building houses. Small plots were being sold. Sale of small plots indicated that the land in village Keshopur had poten- tiality as a building site. The High Court, therefore, was of the view that H 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 3 S.C.R. A no distinction should be drawn between the land.falling under Block A and Block B. The High Court, therefore, fixed market value of the land ac- quired pursuant to the notification dated 13.11.1959 at Rs. 7,000 per bigha. For the land acquired pursuant to the notification dated 24.10.1961, the Land Acquisition Collector had divided the land into three Blocks - B Block A, Block B and Block C - and fixed the compensati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.