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

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 307 · Decided: 25-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

NAWAL SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC. 
JULY 25, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
Compensatiort-Award of-Price of small extent of land-Not to f01m 
the sole basis for awarding higher compensation for large track of C 
lan~Awarding market value to moTtgagee and 25% extra compensation to 
owner-Held, not justified as no discernible principle has been made out. 
Certain lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the 
Collector classified the lands as A.B.C. blocks and awarded Rs. 1600, Rs. 
1400, and Rs. 1000 per bighas respectively. On reference, the Additional D 
District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4250 Rs. 3200 and Rs. 
2150 per bigha respectively. On appeal the High Court further enhanced 
the compensation to Rs. 5250, 4000 and Rs. 3000 respectively based on a 
single sale transaction in an adjacent village. 
The claimants preferred the present appeals claiming enhanced 
compensation @ Rs. 9000 per bigha. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. It is now a settled principle that the price of a small extent 
of land cannot form the sole basis for fixation of higher compensation 
wben a large track of land is acquired. Since the State did not file any 
appeal, there is need to go into the correctness of the finding recorded by 
the High Court. Suffice it to state that there is no other evidence on reco;a 
to further enhance the compensation. (308-G] 
2. There is no discernib!e principle made by the High Court to 
further enhance 25% more to the owner while awarding the market value 
to the mortgagee. Thus, there is no legal principle warranting further 
enhancement of 25% extra compensation as has been awarded by the High 
Court. (309-BJ 
307 
E 
F 
G 
H 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2130 of 
1980 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.79 of the Delhi High Court 
in R.F.A .No. 115 of 1979. 
B 
U.N. Bachawat, K. Madhava Reddy, Ranbir Yadav, P. Gaur, Rishi 
Kesh, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, Manoj Prasad, H.M. Singh, Anis Ahmed 
Khan, and J.D. Jain, (Not Present) for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C 
CA. No. 2130 OF 1980. 
Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published 
on November 13, 1959 acquiring 1876 Bighas 19 Biswas land situated in 
Jwalahari for planned development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Col-
lector classified the lands as A, B, C Blocks and awarded @ Rs. 1600, Rs. 
D 
1400 and Rs. 1000 per bigha respectively. On reference under s.18 of the 
Act, the Additional District Judge by his Award and Decree dated Sep-
tember 8, 1979 further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4250, 3200 and 
2150 per bigha respectively. The High Court, on appeal, further enhanced 
the compensation to Rs. 5250, 4000 and 3000 respectively. Not being 
E 
satisfied with the enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court, the 
claimants have filed these appeals under s.54 of the Act claiming enhanced 
compensation @ Rs. 9,000 per bigha. 
The High Court found that there are no sale transactions in the 
village Jwalahari other than one sale transaction in village Madipur which 
F 
is said to be adjacent to the village Jwalahari. That sale deed was dated 
April 20, 1959 just before the Notification. An extent of 1472.22 sq. yards 
was sold in Khasra No. 828 for a consideration of Rs. 7726 which worked 
out at Rs. 5250 per bigha. Based thereon, the High Court has enhanced 
the compensation. It is now a settled principle that the price of a small 
G extent of land cannot form the sole basis for fixation of higher compensa-
tion when a large track of land is acquired. Since the State did not file any 
appeal, we need not go into the correctness of the finding recorded by the 
High Court. Suffice it to state that there is no other evidence on record for 
us to further enhance the compensation. 
H 
It is next contended that the High Court having made a distinction 
NAWALSINGH v. U.0.1. 
309 
between the owner and the mortgagee and enhanced 25% extra compen-
A 
sation to the owner, committed a grave error of law in not awarding the 
same to the appellants. We find no discernible principl.e made by the High 
Court to further enhance 25% more to the owner while awarding the 
.market value to the mortgagee. Under these circumstances, we do not find 
any legal principle warranting further enhancement of 25% extr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.