RANVIR SINGH AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 07-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

RANVIR SINGH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 
[ASHOK BHAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1), II and 18-Land Acquisition 
Officer awarding different amounts of compensation for lands acquired through 
different notifications-Enhancement of compensation by Reference Court- C 
High Court further enhancing compensation relying on documents specifying 
rates of developed land, notifications issued determining circle rates for purpose 
of stamp duty and a brochure brought out by State Authority for sale of 
adjacent developed lands and by rejecting the sale deeds on the ground of 
non-examination of vendors and vendees-Correctness of-Held, on facts and 
law, High Court was wrong in relying on the documents and rejecting the sale D 
deeds-Hence, remitted back to High Court with directions for determining 
the market value on the basis of materials on record and other relevant 
factors. 
Union of India issued four notifications on different dates under 
section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of various E 
blocks of land situated in Delhi. Land Acquisition Officer made four 
A wards granting different rates of compensation for acquisition under 
different notifications. On reference by the claimants, the Reference Court 
-~· 
enhanced the rates of compensation. The High Court has further enhanced 
the rates of compensation for acquisition under different notifications by F 
relying on documents specifying rates for developed land, notifications 
issued determining circle rates for purpose of stamp duty and on a 
brochure brought by State Authority for sale of adjacent developed lands. 
Appeals were filed before this Court by the claimants and Union of India. 
The Union of India contended that the High Court wrongly awarded G 
high rates of compensation to the claimants by relying upon the documents 
specifying rates of developed residential and commercial land in different 
areas of Delhi and a brochure of the State Authority inviting applications 
for purchase of fully developed lease-hold plots in the adjacent residential 
31 
H 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A scheme; that the notifications issued determining circle rates for fixing the 
rates of stamp duty cannot form the basis for determining the market value 
of the acquired lands; and that the sale deeds produced before the Courts 
below could not be rejected merely on the ground that the same had not 
been proved by examining the vendors and vendees. 
B 
The claimants contended that the xerox copies of the sale deeds 
produced before the court were inadmissible in evidence and that the High 
Court correctly relied upon the brochure issued by the State Authority in 
the adjacent residential scheme. 
C 
Remitting back the appeals to High Court with directions, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The High Court did not place any reliance upon the sale 
instances whereupon strong reliance has been placed by the parties solely 
on the ground that neither the vendors nor the vendees thereof had been 
examined as witnesses. It has also not placed any reliance upon any other 
D judgment or award filed by the parties. The High Court, while arriving 
at the said finding, evidently took into consideration the law as it then 
stood. In view of the latest Constitution Bench decision of this Court in 
Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purva and Ors., the High Court was required 
to consider the deeds of sale in their proper perspective for determining 
the market values of the acquired land. (41-E-F; 42-H; 43-A) 
E 
CementCorpn. of India Ltd. v. Purva and Ors., (2004) 270 CB, referred 
to •. 
1.2. The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 postulate that 
F secondary evidence can be led by the parties in the event primary evidence 
is not available. The claimants did not raise any objection as regard 
admissibility of the said deeds of sale. The xerox copies of the sale deeds 
were marked as exhibits without any objection having been taken by the 
respondents herein. Such an objection cannot, therefore, be taken for the 
first time before this Court. What would be their evidentiary value may 
G ultimately fall for consideration by the Court but the said deeds cannot 
be rejected only on the ground that only xerox copies thereof had been 
brought on records. The onus to prove the market value as obtaining on 
the date of notification was on the claimants. It was for them to adduce 
evidence to prove th

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