A
B
c
D
E
PEHLAD SINGH AND ANR. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Land Acquisition-Compensation-Detennination of-Price for small
extent of land cannot f onn basis for large extent of land.
Land measuring 8.40 acres was acquired out of which the land
belonging to the appellant was in small extent. The appellant was awarded
compensation @ Rs. 10 per sq. yard. He filed an appeal seeking higher
compensation @ Rs. 12 per sq. yard.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD: On the facts, evidence relied in Justice Bhandari's case is a
sale deed of 560 square yards in which admittedly the market-value was
fixed at.Rs. 12 per sq. yard. Since it is a small extent ofland, which formed
the basis of the case to determine compensation at Rs. per sq. yard, the
same price would not commend when large extent of land is offered for
sale to a willing purchaser. Keeping ~hat yard-stick in view, it is not a fit
case for further increase. [533-D-E]
Justice A.S. Bhandari v. Union of India, LPA No. 81 of 1979 decided
F
on 1.5.1980 by Delhi High Court; referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 128 of
1985 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.84 of the Delhi High Court
G in R.F.A. No. 470 of 1977.
H
Prem Prasad Juneja for the Appellants.
C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
532
t
PEHLAD SINGH v. U.0.1.
533
The notification under section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 A
(for short, 'the Act') was published on March 8, 1957 for planned develop-
ment of Delhi. The lands acquired for the development are 8.40 acres out
of which the land of appellants are small in extent. In Justice A.S. Bhandmi
v. Union of India, LPA No. 81 of (1979) decided on May 1, i980, the
Division Bench of the High Court determined the market-value at Rs. 10
per square yard, i.e., Rs. 10,000 per bigha. The appellant, aggrieved by that,
filed this appeal. The only question is whether it is a fit case to enhance
B
the compensation to Rs. 12 per square yard, i.e., Rs. 12,000 per bigha as
claimed by the appellant. Shri Juneja, learned counsel appearing for the
claimants contended that the lands in Justice Bhandari' case are brick-kiln
land while the lands of appellant are agricultural lands. The~efore, the C
appellants are entitled to higher compensation. It is further contended that
the notification under section 4(1) was quashed in subsequent proceedings
which was ultimately upheld on November 8, 1968. No further notification
under section 4(1) was published. Had it been so published, further in-
crease of the compensation at Rs.12 per square yard would be just and fair D
compensation. Having given consideration to the contention of Shri Juneja,
we find it difficult to accept the same. One the facts, evidence relied in
Justice Bhandari's case is a sale deed of 560 square yards in which admit-
tedly the market-value was fixed at Rs. 12 per square yard. Since it is a
small extent of land, which formed the basis of the case to determine
compensation at Rs. 10 per square yard, the same price would not com-
E
mend when large extent of land is offered for sale to a willing purchaser.
Keeping that yard- stick in view, we think that it is not a fit case for further
mcrease.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without costs.
F
T.N.A
Appeal dismissed.
Lex