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

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 24-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KARAN SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
SEPTEMBER 24, 1,997 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, I 894 : 
Market value-Determination-Comparable sales-Reliance by 
claimant of price on post-Notification transactions-Held such transaction C 
can guide the court in fixing market value under certain conditions but 
claimant has to prove that there was no rise of.prices after Notification--
Failure of claimant-No error was committed by High Court in not relying on 
such transactions. 
Market value-Determination of-Award/Judgements-Held, only D 
previous award/judgments could form the basis for fvcing the market value 
of acquired land. 
The appellant's land was notified for acquisition vide Notification issued 
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellants sought 
references for determination of compensation payable to them. The Addi. E 
District Judge determined the market value of appellants' land at the rate of 
Rs. 23,000 per bigha but for the other portion ofland he awarded lower rates 
of compensation. The appellants preferred regular first appeal against it. 
The High Court by a common judgement rendered in all appeals filed 
by the claimants granted compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 76,550 per F 
bigha to all claimants. Consequently, present appeals and the special leave 
petitions have come up before this court. 
The appellants contended that the leases, Ext. A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12 and 
A-13 relied upon by the appellants for enhancement of compensation for 
acquired land were erroneously rejected by the High Court on the ground G 
that these evidence related to the post-Notification issued under section 4 of 
the Act. The land comprised in Ext. A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12 and A-13 were 
situated near the acquired land and the leases thereof were executed shortly 
after the Notification, and as such they ought to have been relied upon by the 
High Court in arriving at the correct market value of the acquired land. 
H 
237 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals and petitions, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. When a land is compulsorily acquired, what is basically 
required to be done for awarding compensation is to arrive at the market value 
of the land on the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. The 
market value ofa piece of the land for determining compensation under Section 
B 23 of the Act would be the price at which the vendor and the vendee (buyer 
and seller) are willing to sell or purchase the land. The sale of land on or 
~ 
about the issue of the Notification is stated to be the best piece of evidence for 
determining the market value of the acquir~d land. Often evidence on 
transaction of sale of land on or a few days before the Notification is not 
c available. In the absence of such evidence contemporaneous transactions in 
respect of lands which had similar advantages and disadvantages would be a 
good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. 
(241-B-E) 
1.2 In the absence of any evidence of sale of land on the date of issue of 
/ 
D Notification, under certain conditions the post-Notification transactions of 
sales of land can be relied upon. It must be shown before the court by reliable 
evidence that there was no appreciation of the value ofland during the period 
.. 
of issue of Notification and the date of transaction of sale which is sought to 
! 
be relied upon for the purposes of fixing the market value of the acquired 
land. The burden is upon the claimant to .show that the price of the land 
E remained static and there was no upward rise in the price of the land during 
the period of issue of Notification and the date of transaction of sale. In the 
present case, except filing of Ext. A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12 and A-13, no effort 
was made by the claimants to establish before the Court that there was no 
upward rise in the price or increase in the price of the land during the period 
F between the issue of Notification and date of execution of the Exhibits sought 
to be relied upon. Hence, there was no error committed by the High Court in 
not relying on those Exhibits. (242-C-E) 
Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, AIR (1988) SC 943, followed. 
State of U.P. v. Major Jitendra Kumar, AIR (1982) SC 876 and Mehta 
G Ravindrarai Ajaitrai v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1989) SC 2051, distinguished. 
2. It is only the previous judgement of a court or an award giv

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