-
KARAN SINGH AND ORS.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA
AUGUST 7, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
S.23( 1 }'-Acquisition of land-Co111pensation-Dete1111ination of- Ref-
erence cow1 relying upon the judg111ent of High Court, awarded co111pensation
C
@ Rs. 10 per sq. yd.-High Cow1 relied upon a single sale deed in si111ilar
case in which 111arket value had beenfixed at Rs.12 per sq. yd.-Land-owner
filed appeal claiming the said rate-High Cow1 declined to inte•fere--Appeal
to this court-Held in view of the legal position that at least one-third of the
market value has to be deduced towards development charges, the appellant
would get less than what has been granted to him-Since the State has not D
filed appeal, it is not a case wa,,.anting inteiference.
S.54-Appeal in any proceedings under the Act would lie to High Cow1
against the aivard and·decree of the reference cou1t and ftutlzer a]Jpeal to the
:Supreme Court would be under Article 136 of the Constitution--T!1e present
appeal cannot be treat.ed as one under s.54.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : .Civil Appeal No. 423 of
1985.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.84 of the Delhi High Court
in R.F.A. No. 48 of 1978.
Prem Prasad Juneja for the Appellants.
VC. Mahajan and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal arises from the Judgment dated July 23, 1984 of the
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court made in R.F.A. No. 281 of 1979.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
E
F
G
(for short, the "Act") acquiring a large extent of land was published on H
375
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
March 8, 1957. The land of the appellant admeasuring one bigha and 14
biswas formed part of that land. Reference Court relying upon judgment
of the High Court inA.N. B!ia11dari v. U11io11 of India, LPA 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
B
deed in similar case in which market value had been fixed @ Rs. 12 per
square yard. Therefore, the appellant also claimed that rate. Since he was
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
C 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
at that rate. Though p1ima fade 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
D fact boils down that if the award is to be interfered with, the appellant
would get Jess than what has been granted to him by the High Court.
However, since the State has not filed any appeal and in the facts and
circurr.stanccs of the casc1 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 lo 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.
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
G is dismissed. No costs.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.
•
Lex