RISHI PAL SINGH AND ORS. versus MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 508 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RISH! PAL SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
B 
[ARUN KUMAR AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Acquisition of large tracts of lands-Compensation-Computation of-
C Exemplars of small plots-Consideration cf-Refi.~rence court considering 
exemplars of small plots and making adequate discount-Held, in appropriate 
cases where other relevant or material evidence is not available, there is no 
bar to exemplars of small plots being considered provided adequate discount 
is made-Matter remanded to High Court for decision afresh on material 
D available on record. 
Present appeals were filed challenging the order of the High Court 
,.. 
whereby it set aside the order passed by the reference court under the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and remanded the matter on the grounds that 
the exemplars relied on by the reference court were ofsmall plots whereas 
E in the instant case large tracts of lands were acquired; and that the 
exemplars produced on behalf of the acquiring authority were not 
considered. 
F 
Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the High Court, 
the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no bar in law to exemplars of small plots being 
considered provided adequate discount is given in this behalf. In an 
appropriate case, specially when other relevant or material evidence is not 
available, such exemplars can be considered after making adequate 
G discount. This is a case in which appropriate exemplars are not available. 
The reference court has made adequate discount for taking the exemplars 
of smaller plots into consideration. 1511-A-B) 
H 
1.2. The reference court has referred to the exemplars of the 
acquiring authority but has observed that since they have not been proved 
508 
J 
RP. SINGH 1•. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [ARUN KUMAR, J.] 
509 
on record, they cannot be looked i11to. There is nothing wrong in the A _ 
reference court ignoring the exemplars said to have been filed by the 
acquiring authority. (511-B-CI 
2. The appeal before the High Court was the first appeal. It ought 
to have examined the impugned judgment and the material on record and 
given its findings based on appreciation of evidence. Besides, the cross B 
appeals of the land owners are still pending in the High Court. Therefore, 
the matter is remanded to the High Court for decision afresh on merits. 
~ 
[512-A( 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1288 of2006. C 
From the Final Order dated 21.5.2004 of the Allahabad High Court in 
F.A. No. 444 of 2003. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1289, 1290, 1291 and 1292 of 2006. 
Sunil Gupta, Vinay Garg, Himanshu Gupta, Prantap Kalra, Mrs. Deepam 
Garg, Shivaji M. Jadhav and Jitendra Mohan Sharma for the Appellant. 
Sudhir KuJshreshtha, Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Kamlendra Mishra, Pramod 
Swarup, B.N. Jha and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARUN KUMAR, J. Leave granted in all these Special Leave Petitions. 
D 
E 
These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court 
whereby the High Court set aside the judgment of the Reference Court passed F 
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and remanded the case to the 
Reference Court for fresh determination of the market value of the acquired 
land. 
Briefly, the facts are that a large tract of land was acquired vide a 
notification dated 14th August, I 987 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition G 
Act. The acquired land falls within the municipal limits of the city of Meerut 
(U.P.). The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) noted the potentiality 
of the acquired land for purposes of building activity in his award dated 22nd 
February, 1990. He however, fixed the market value of the acquired land at 
Rs.30/- per square yard. A reference under Section 18 of the Act at the H 
510 
si:rREME Ull'RT REPORTS 
[20061 2 S.C.R. 
A instance of the claimants was decided by the learned District Judge. Meerut 
vide judgment dated 23rd November. 200:!. The claimants were claiming 
compensation at the rate of Rs.270/- per square yard. The District Judge 
however. determined the rate of compensation as Rs.126/- per square yard 
besides the statutory benefits. Both the parties i.e. the claimants as well as the 
respondent, Meerut Development Authority appealed against the said judgment 
B of the Reference Court in the High Court of Allahabad. The appeals filed by 
the Meerut Development Authority were decided by the impugned or

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