LAL CHAND versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 12-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 622 
A 
LAL CHAND 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 4945 of 2006) 
B 
AUGUST 12, 2009 
[R.V. ffAVEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
't 
c 
Sections 4(1 ), 23, 25 - Acquisition of lands in Rithala 
village on the outskirts of Delhi -
Compensation -
Determination of - ODA plots in the acquired lands - Rates 
of allotment shown by DOA in its Brochure for the Scheme in 
that area - Cannot form the basis - Criteria for compensation 
...
D and acceptance of sale deeds therefore - Discussed -
Compensation enhanced - Evidence Act, 1872 - Stamp Act, 
\_ 
S.47A. 
Sections 51, 51 A - Scope of - Discussed. 
E 
The appeals relate to determination of market value 
in regard to lands situated at village Rithala on the 
outskirts of Delhi acquired for different purposes under 
four different Notifications. 
F 
The awards of the Reference Court were. challenged 
before the High Court and it awarded Rs.67,536/- per 
bigha in regard to the first three acquisitions and Rs.73, 
584/- per bigha in respect of the last acquisition, relying 
upon the allotment rates of Delhi Development Authority 
G 
for plots shown in its Brochure issued in respect of 
Rohini Residential Scheme (Phase-I) formed by acquiring 
part of Rithala village and surrounding villages. 
f-
.. 
On appeal by the claimants as also the Union of 
India, the Court set aside the judgment of the High Court 
H 
622 
LAL CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
623 
and remanded the matter back to it for determination of A 
the market value afresh. It was observed that the lease 
premium in respect of fully developed plots (which was 
given in the DOA Brochure) could not be the basis for 
determining the freehold market value of undeveloped 
land, that the sale deeds pertaining to the acquired lands 
B 
or nearby lands would be the most relevant piece of 
evidence, and that the claim of the land owners that the 
~ 
value should be determined on the basis of acquisition 
of the year 1961 in the same village by increasing the 
award price of Rs.7000/- per bigha at the rate of 12% p.a. c 
for 20 years was unacceptable. 
The High Court after hearing the parties and 
accepting two documents of sale for Rs.19,000/- and 
Rs.35,000/- per bigha, taking an average, determined the 
value at Rs.27,000/- in respect of the land covered by the 
D 
last Notification and at Rs.25,000/- in respect of the lands 
covered by the first three _Notifications, on the ground that 
the acquisitions were made about 10 to 11 months prior 
to the last Notification. Hence the appeals. 
Partly allowing the appeals of the claimants for 
increase and dismissing the appeals filed by DOA for 
reduction in compensation, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. The allotment rates of plots adopted by 
Development Authorities like DOA cannot form the basis 
F 
for award of compensation for acquisition of 
undeveloped lands for several reasons. Firstly market 
value has to be determined with reference to large tracts 
of undeveloped agricultural lands in a rural area, whereas 
the allotment rates of development authorities are with 
G 
reference to small plots in a developed lay out falling 
within Urban areas. Secondly, DOA and other statutory 
authorities adopt different rates for plots in the same area 
with reference to the economic capacity of the buyer, 
H 
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A making it difficult to ascertain the real market value, 
·~ 
whereas market value determination for acquisitions is 
uniform and does not depend upon the economic status 
I 
of the land loser. Thirdly_, the Court is concerned with 
market value of freehold land, whereas the allotment 
8 "rates" in the ODA Brochure refer to the initial premium 
payable on allotment of plots on leasehold basis. [Para 
7] [639-A-D] 
Ranvir Singh v. Union of India 2005 (12) SCC 59 and 
c Cement Corporation of India Ltd. V. Purya 2004 (8) SCC 270, 
referred to. 
2.1. As contrasted from the assessment of market 
value contained in non-statutory Basic Value Registers, 
the position may be different, where the guideline market 
~! 
D values are determined by Expert Committees constituted 
under the State Stamp Law, by following the detailed 
* 
procedure laid down under the relevant rules, and are 
published in the State Gazette. Such state stamp Acts 
and the Rules thereunder, provide for scientific and 
E methodical assessment of market value in different areas 
by Expert Committees. 

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