MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BHATINDA AND ORS. versus BALWANT SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 322 · Decided: 25-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BHATINDA AND ORS. 
v. 
BAL WANT SINGH AND ORS. 
JULY 25, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
Award of compensation-Belting-Flat rate of market value-Belting 
C upheld and award of compensation at flate rate-Held: EIToneous, arbitrary 
and capricious and hence not justified. 
Certain agricultural lands were acquired for establishing water 
treatment plant and allied public purposes. The Collector awarded com-
pensation upto a depth of 100 yards at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per acre and 
D at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per acre for the rest of the land. On reference it 
was enhanced to Rs.1,50,000 per acre in respect of a depth of 50 yards, to 
Rs. 60,000 per acre for depth of 50 to 100 yards and to Rs. 50,000 per acre 
for the rest of the lands. On appeal, a Single Judge of the High Court while 
upholding the principle of belting, disagreed with the distinction between 
E 50 yards and 100 yards, end granted market value at the rate of Rs. 
1,50,000 per acre upto a depth of 100 yards and Rs. 65,000 per acre for the 
rest of the land. On appeal, the Division Bench granted uniform flat rate 
of Rs. 1.50,000 per acre to the entire area. Hence these appeals. The 
cross-appeals have been filed by the claimants. 
F 
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the cross-appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Division Bench committed patent error of law in 
awarding Date rate. The Single Judge had noticed the prevailing prices of 
lands abutting the roads and lands behind 100 yards from the road. Since 
it was found from intrinsic evidence on the factual matrix, he rightly 
G recorded the finding that the court has to resort to belting. It is also to be 
noted that the sale deeds executed on the same day with reference to the 
land situated abutting the road and the lands interior to the road did not 
fetch the same price. Thus, it could be seen that fixation of the flat rate to 
the entire land is a manifest illegality committed by the Division Bench. It 
H had also not referred to the factual matrix available on record except 
322 
•
MUNICIPALCOMMITfEE v. BALWANTSINGH 
323 
discussion on the principles of law laid down in various decisions of that A 
Court. This Court has also considered this aspect of the matter in several 
decisions and held that in an appropriate case, where evidence on record 
is available the Court would be justified in fixing the belting and to 
determine the market value of the land on that basis. Therefore, the 
Division Bench was not right in awarding the compensation at a flat rate 
to the entire land. [326-G-H, 327-A-B] 
e 
2. The principle of average will not be applied in the case to deter-
mine the compensation. The Division Bench did not look into the intrinsic 
evidence on record. On the other hand, as a general proposition of law, 
B 
the principle of flat rate was adopted which is clearly illegal. When the C 
transactions and the sale deeds relating to the land abutting the road and 
the land situated interior, effected on the same day, shows the difference 
in the price, the former fetched higher value and the latter securing lesser 
value, it itself would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the application 
of the principle of flat rate is clearly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious. D 
[327-D-E] 
3. The compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 per acre of the land upto a depth 
of 100 yards is clearly legal, just and fair. For the rest of the land a sum 
of Rs. 80,000 per acre would be just and appropriate compensation since 
the lands situated interior fetched lesser prices as evidenced by the sale 
deed on record. [327-F] 
E 
4. The claimants are not entitled to the payment of additional 
amount under s.23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, but they are entitled 
to the enhanced solatium at the rate of 30% and interest on enhanced 
market value, at the rate of 9% from the date of taking possession for one F 
year and 15% thereafter till the date of the payment of deposit in the Court 
whichever is earlier. [327-H, 328:A1 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.91 of the Punjab & G 
Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 231 of 1984. 
Muni Lal Verma, S.K. Bagga, Gopal Subramaniam, O.P. Sharma, 
A.B. Rohtagi, Rajiv Dhawan, Seraj Bagga, Ms. Tanuj Bagga, Ms. S. Bagga 
Mukul Mudgal, R.C. Gubrale, KR. Gupta, Vivek, Ashok Sudan, Ms. 
Namita Sharma, K.R. Mohan, R.K. Garg and N.D. Garg for the appearin

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