LexKANWAR SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KANWAR SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A v. UNION OF INDIA OCTOBER 30, 1998 [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ. AND V.N. KHARE, J.] B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Acquisition of large tract of /and-Compensation-Determination of- Land owners claiming compensation at the rate granted for lands of aqjoining C villages-Claim held not tenable-Generally there would be different situation and potentiality of lands situated in different villages unless these factors are proved to be the same-Further, when sale instances relating to the same village are available there is no need to rely on judgments regarding acquired land of different village. A large tract of land of village 'R' was acquired by notification dated 23.1.1965 issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Simultaneously lands ofadjoining villages 'M' and 'MP' were also acquired by another notification of even date. The Land Acquisition Collector divided D a part of the land ofvillage 'R' into three belts and by award No. 1958/67 dated 16.3.1967 fixed their market price at the rates of Rs. 800. Rs. 600 and E Rs. 400 per bigha for respective belts. The remaining land was divided into two belts and by the Award No. 146/80-81dated30.3.1981 their price was fixed at the rate of Rs. 1,800 and Rs. 1,500 per bigha for the respective belts. The claimants, not being satisfied, preferred references. Two reference courts enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7000 and Rs. 5000 for respective F belts, whereas the third reference court rejected the reference. The claimants filed appeals before the High Court. The Union oflndia also filed cross-objections against some cf the orders of reference courts. Meanwhile the references pertaining to the awards regarding lands of villages 'M' and 'MP' were disposed of by the respective reference courts. G One court enhanced the market value of the land to Rs. 18000 per bigha whereas the other court determined the compensation at Rs. 24,340 per bigha. Union of India filed appeals against both the orders. High Court dismissed summarily the appeal against the former order; and fixed the market value at Rs. 14,340 per bigha in the latter case. 505 H 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A In the appeals filed by the landowners of village 'R' it was contended before the High Court that since the High Court had fixed the market value at Rs. 14,340 per bigha for the lands of adjoining village acquired simultaneously, they should also be awarded compensation fixing the price of their lands at Rs. 14,340 per bigha. The High Court allowed the appeals B of the Union of India partly and held that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 3000 per bigha. Aggrieved, the claimants of village 'R' filed the present appeals. It was contended for the appellants that there should be uniformity in the matter of grant of compensation and the High Court committed a C grave error in depriving the appellants of the compensation which they were entitled to under the law and, therefore, they should be granted compensation at Rs. 14,340 per bigha as was granted to :he landowners of the adjoining village. It was also contended that the Union of India having not preferred any appeal or cross-objection against the award of one of the reference courts in respect of L.A. case No. 3116/&2 pertaining to a part of D the land of their village, as a result of which there existed two sets of rates of compensation, and in such circumstances the appellants should be granted the same compensation as was. granted to the claimants of L.A. case No. 3116/82. Dismissing the appeals, this Court E HELD: 1.1. The claim of appellants that they deserved to be awarded the same rate of compensation as was awarded to the claimants of the adjoining villages, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is not tenable. Generally there would be different situation and potentiality of the land in two different villages unless it is proved that the situation and F potentiality of the land in two different villages are the same. The High Court in the present case has found that the situation and potentiality of land in appellants' village are different than those of the adjoining village. This finding of the High Court is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and does not call for interference. The judgment of the High Court is neither perverse nl'r illegal. (511-A-C; 513-F) G 1.2. Be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.