LexPAL SINGH AND ORS. versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
PAL SINGH AND ORS.
v.
UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH
B
SEPTEMBER 8, 1992
[L.M. SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
C
Section 23--Market Value of land-Reference Court awarding compen-
D
E
F
sation--On appeal High Court detennining higher compensation as agreed to
by parties-Subsequent judgment of the High Court awardi.~g still higher
compensation in respect of lands in the vicinity-Whether could be acted upon
for enhancement of compensation.
The petitioners who were not satisfied with the amounts of compen-
sation awarded to them by t~e Reference Court or the acquisition of their
lands, preferred appeals before the High Court. By a common judgment,
the High Court determined the amounts of compensation-as was agreed
to by counsel for the petitioners and the opposing parties. And the present
Special Leave Petitions were filed by the claimants, contending that a
subsequent judgment of the High Court has awarded higher compensation
for land in the vicinity of acquired lands and so they were also entitled to
the same higher compensation.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, this Court,
HELD: 1.1. No doubt, a judgment of a court in a land acquisition
case determining the market value of a land in the vicinity of the acquired
lands, even though not interparties, c9uld be admitted in eviden~e either
as an Instances or one from which the market value or the acquired land
could be deduced or inferred. But what cannot be overlooked is, that for
G a judgment relating to value of land to be admitted in evidence either as
an instance or as one from which the market value of the acquired land
could be inferred or deduced, must have been a previous judgment of
Court and as an instance, it mmt have been proved by the person relying
upon such judgment by adducing evidence allunde that due regard being
H
given to all attendant facts and circumstances, it could furnish the basis
452
PAL SINGH v. U.T. CHANDIGARH [VENKATACHALA, J.]
453
for determining the market value of the acquired land. [ 455 C-F]
A
1.2. In the instant cases, the petitioners have not produced the
judgment of the High Court on which they propose to rely for finding the
market value of their acquired lands as evideoce in their cases, in that
they could not have done so for the reason that it was not a judgment then
available to them as a previsous judgment relating to market value of land B
in the vicinity. No evidence was also adduced by the petitioners to show
that due regard being given to all attendant facts and circumstances, it
could form the basis for determining tht market value of their acquired
lands. Hence, there is no justification to act upon a subsequent judgment
of the High Court, to enhance the market value of the lands acquired from C
the petitioners. Moreover, when judgment is rendered by a Court deter-
mining the market value of lands acquired under the Act, by agreement of
parties, such judgment becomes final and it would not be open to any of
the parties thereto to appeal against that judgment. [455 F-H; 456 A-Cl
H.K Mallick v. State of West Bengal, (79 Calcutta Weekly Notes and D
Secretary of State v. Indian General Steam Navigation and Railway Co.
(l.L.R. 36 Cal. 967), referred to.
CIVJL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C}
~~~~
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.1979 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 435 of 1974.
With S.L.P. (C} Nos. 7367, 5052, 7391, 7392, 7394 and 7395 of 1980.
Ujjagar Singh, D.V. Sehgal, A.S. Chahal, B. Kanta Rao, L.R. Singh,
Yunus Malik, Ranbir Singh Yadav, G.K. Bansal, Vimal Dave, Ms. Neelam
Kalsi, Ms. Lily Thomas, Raj Birbal and R.S. Suri for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATACHALA, J. Special Leave Petitions {Civil) Nos. 7366, 7367
and 5052 of 1980: As these are petitions directed against the common
judgment dated 27.3.1979 in Land Acquisition Regular First Appeals
before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, they could be disposed of
F
G
by this common judgment.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTSf1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
Petitioners were appellants in the appeals before the High Court.
They had preferred those appeals claiming enhanced compensation for
their lands which had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short 'the Act') not having been satisfied with the amounts of compen-
sation awExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.