LexPREMWATI versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 8 S.C.R. 364 PREMWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 949 of 2005 etc.) JULY 2, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Land Acquisition - Land acquired - Determination of the C value of the land - Land holder claiming the compensation at Rs, 1,25,0001- per bigha - High Court by impugned order relying on another case *(Balbir Singh's case) held that value of the land should be fixed at Rs.50,0001- - But in view of the fact that in *Balbir Singh's case, acquisition was one year prior o to the acquisition in the instant case, the Court adopted depreciated value and fixed the value at Rs.42, 0001- per bigha - Held: Reasoning of High Court in relying on *Balbir Singh's case for enhancing the value of the land is confirmed - But the rate fixed by High Court is modified to Rs.50,0001- E from Rs. 42, 0001- per bigha in view of the fact that value in *Balbir Singh's case was fixed on the basis of cases which were acquired prior to the acquisition in the present case. Land belonging to the appellants was acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by notification uls. 4 F dated 26.3.1983. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value of lands as Rs.13,0001- per bigha, and Rs.6000/- in respect of the lands falling under Block-A and Block-B respectively. The appellants approached the Reference Court seeking enhancement of the compensation amount G to Rs.1,25,000/- per bigha. Reference Court enhanced th~ value of the land in Block A as well as Block B to Rs.17 ,500/- per bigha and Rs.18000/- per bigha for the lands abutting the road. The appellants approached High Court, for further enhancement of the value. The High H 364 PREMWATI v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 365 Court relied on its earlier judgments in *Ba/bir Singh's A case and **Bedi Ram's case and agreed that the value of the land has to be fixed at Rs.50,000/- per bigha as done in those cases. But the Court applied rule of depreciation in the present case as acquisition in the present case was one year prior to the date of acquisition in *Balbir B Singh's case. The Court, therefore, deducted the value by12% per annum on the sum of Rs.50,000/- and then enhanced the value of the land to Rs.42,000/- per bigha. Hence, the present appeals. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court c HELD: 1. The reasoning of the Division Bench of the High Court in having relied upon *Balbir Singh's case and **Bed/ Ram's case fixing the value of the land was perfectly justified. When once the Division Bench rightly D felt that whatever was decided in *Balbir Singh's case, so far as it related to the value of the land fixed therein, can be applied even in respect of the land in the present case, which is situated in an adjacent vi11age and the acquisition in respect of. the lands in the said village was E made simultaneously along with the lands which were subject matter in *Balbir Singh's case and **Bedi Ram's case, therefore, the same value, which was applied in *Balbir Singh's case should have been applied even in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants. [Para 12] F [370-H; 371-A-C] 2. While every other reasoning of the Division Bench in adopting the value, which was fixed in *Ba/bir Singh's case was justified, there is no need to deduct any amount from the said value, in as much as the exemplar relied G upon by the Division Bench in *Balbir Singh's case, were all sale deeds pertaining to the period 18.01.1982 to 22.07 .1983 i.e., prior to the very first notification issued in respect of the present acquisition of all the four villages viz., 01.08.1983. Therefore, even while confirming the H . i .- - . 366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 $.C.R. A reasoning of the Division. Bench in· relying upon *Balbir Singh's case for enhancing· the value, .the rate fixed by the Division Bench is modified to a sum of Rs.50,000/- per· big ha. There is no merit in the claim of the appellants for claiming any further enhancement beyond the sum of. B Rs.50,0001- per biglia, in as much as there ·was absolutely no legally acceptable material In support of any such. claim. [Paras 14 and 15] [371-E-H; 372-A-Cl · · *Balbir Singh vs. Union of India 50 (1993) DLT. 40; C **Bedi Ram vs. Unionof India and Anr. 93 (2001) DLT 150 - referred to. : · · · ' · · · · · · , D Case Law. Reference: 50.(1993) DLT 40 93 (2001) DLT .150 referred to. referred to .Para 12 ·Para 12 ·
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.