-
JHANDOO (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA
AUGUST 7, 1996
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
A
B
Ss.4(1), 23(1)-Acquisition of large extent of land in 1957-Compen-
sation awarded by referenc~ court at the rate of Rs. JO per sq. yd.-Appellant's C
clain1 for enhance111ent of contpensation on the basis of a sbnilar case in
which ma1ket value was detennined by High Court at Rs. 12 per sq. yd. based
Oil a sale deed, rejected by High Cowt-Held, keeping ill view the legal
positioll regarding deduction of development charges, alld the State havillg
not filed ally appeal, it is llOt a fit case for inteiferellce.
S.54-Appeal against the order of referellce court ill ally proceedillgs
Ullder the Act shall lie to High Cowt alld llOt to Supreme Court--Preseltt
appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitutioll callllOt be treated
to be an appeal u/s. 54.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil appeal No. 281 of E
1985.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.84 of the Delhi High Court
in R.F.A. No. 281 of 1979.
Prem Prasad Juneja for the Appellants.
V.C. Mahajan and C.V. Subba Rao for the respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
This Appeal arises from the judgment dated July 23, 1984 of the G
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court made in RFA No. 281of1979.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, the 'Act') acquiring a large extent of land was published on
March 8, 1957. The land of the appellant admeasuring one bigha and 14
biswas formed part of that land. Reference Court relying upon judgment H
377
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
of the High Court in A.N. Bha11dwi v. U11io11 of bidia, LP A No. 81 of 1979
decided on May 1, 1990 awarded compensation @ Rs. 10 per square yard.
On appeal, it was confirmed. The High Court relied upon a single sale
deed in similar case in which market value had been fixed @ Rs. 12 per
square yard. Therefore, the appellant also cl~imed that rate. Since he was
B not awarded the rate claimed by him, he has filed appeal in this Court
challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Shri Juneja, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
High Court, having found that the market value of the land in question
could fetch was Rs. 12 per square yard, would have granted compensation
C at that rate. Though prima facie we find the contention plausible and
acceptable, in view of the legal position that at least 1/3rd of the market
value has to be deduced towards development charges and that the said
consideration was not adopted in the case on which reliance is placed, the
fact boils down that if the award is to be interfered with, the appellant
would get less than what has been granted to him by the High Court.
D However, since the. State has not filed any appeal and in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is not a case warranting
interference:
E
F
The appeal under Section 54 of the Act would not lie to this Court.
A reading of Section 54 would clearly indicate that the appeal shall lie in
any proceedings under the act only to the High Court against the award
and decree of the reference Court and further appeal to this Court would
be under Article 136 of the Constitution read with ·section 11, CPC. by Way
of special leave and not under Section 54 of the Act, except when the High
Court has given certificate thereunder.
Accordingly, this appeal cannot be treated to be an appeal under
Section 54 of the Act but one by special leave under Article 136. In either
case, we do not find any ground warranting interference. Hence the appeal
is dismissed. No costs.
G R.P.
Appeal dismissed ..
...
Lex