SHER SINGH ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 08-01-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
SHER SINGH ETC. ETC. 
A 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JANUARY 8, 1991 
[L.M. SHARMA AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 
1894--Section 25-Compensation-
Enhancement-Not permissible when evidenc;e not brought on record. 
The appellants were the claimants:--land owners, whose lands 
were acquired for establishing a residential cum-commercial complex. 
The Land Acquisition Collector belting the land in three parts awarded 
compensation for block 'A' at the rate of Rs.4.13 per sq.yd.; for block 
'B' at the rate ofRs.2,43 per sq.yd. and for block 'C' at Rs.1.65 per sq.yd. 
In First Appeal the High Court was persuaded to confme to belt-
c 
'1" · ing 'A' & 'B'. The High Court fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.23 
D 
per sq.yd. for belt' A' and for belt 'B' Rs.16 per sq.yd. 
The Claimants by special leave filed -present appeals for enhance-
ment contending that the acquired land comprises of a large area, 
situated alongside the G. T. Road in a strip approximately 3 kms. in 
length on the other side of which was the railway line; that the belting 
E 
0 had been done in a haphazard way; that the land having l)een acquired 
for building purposes, its quality as agricultural land should not have 
weighed; and compensation should have been assessed uniformally . 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The rate of Rs.42 per sq.yd. is claimed on the basis that 
., 
a part of land measuring about 125 sq.yd. which found part of the 
yacquired land, was, before the acquisition, purchased by a purchaser ll~ 
the rate of Rs.42 per sq.yd. and that was an indication that the land 
acquired would have fetched Rs.42 per sq.yd. f3E] 
2. The High Court had rejected the contention of;;the appellants 
taking the twin view that firstly the land involved was small in measure 
and secondly it was fully constructed ·having a house and a gooown 
-
_)facing the G. T. Road itself. This reasoning is sound. [3F] -
G 
J, The judgment in which Rs.42 had ·been awarded in another 
H 
1 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
2 
SUPREME COURT, REPORTS 
• ' 
• 
-
;.. 
I 
~ 
• 
• 
-
I . 
.. : 
... 
[ 1991] I S.C.R. 
i 
case has not ~n;bfo~gb~;on record a~ a piece of.eyidence to be relied 
upon by the Claimants, and no permission has been sought to adduce 
additional evidence. The said judgm,ent ~annot therefore be used as a 
precedent even. to persuade this Court to take the view that the rate 
should be ,~.42 ~r, sq;yd.,for· belt. 'A~ if not uniform.ally. All these 
factors cumulatively lead to the view that appellants have no case for 
enJianceipent, .and· hav~ been adequately .. compensated. for the land 
acquired~ [JH; .~ A·IJL , .· )' 
.. 
. . " ., ,,_, 
~ 
,.1 t>d qVIL .A.J?P~L!-ATE. JJ]RISDIQTION: .Civil .-Appeal Nos .. 
2646-52 Of 1986., ,, ,.._ .. · • I 
1. 
i-·· 
" C. 
. ' · ,. 
. 
""'· . 
. -~·· 
. . 
.. 
~ 
. ... 
. 
-
.. · 
r_ 
••• i~ .. , 1, ~' 
·.~ ,: ~;.J. 
! ,J,;.,:_: 
I~~ 
~~u-~:._,t' ·: J)"_'•<' 
I 
·,,·~.:t..-...e,· •• 1.i'...
1 
:;l· 
.· , rFrorn1,the ~udgtp._~nt·:ap.d· .Order .. dated theril2.-10A98Lof .the 
Punjab.and ~aryana High~~om:t· i11.R,egulaqFirst Appeal. Nos. 758, 
760, 787, 814, 769, 1011and789of1979: · 
!'.r .. :.-:: :}.• .~,~!""'··~ 
~;_~-1~ 
'-·-t""'.::.'i 
·q ~-.,,;~ .) •i_:~_1; 
-~ '.1 ~-: ·~··1 ~;-
'r:;1:-.· 
j 
·~ 
_q9vind Mu~hoty,, R,.P)3hatt,:D.K. Gargil'rem Malhotra,'K.C. ~Y 
Sharma and R. C. ~a!-lshi}(:_(or the Appellants. : : · ·. · : ' . ·, 
' · , . 
_:;. "f1'.{ 
, 
'1.1 .• 
• :l.f;_'I 
~.: • f'f :· • 'j :_. ·;. ,. ::. 
.·_" 
, .TheJudgmentof the C()ut:t was del.ivered byo 
1. L~ , 
.. 
\i"' 
:'~-.·~.:· : ... _. 
_t;.' 
·i .• :.-:-. *··" _1.kt- ... '.~.'.l .i~"-· ;..·!, >· :;/;~ ~··1 .. :: .• 
·L 
: 
<:tt P~CllJ!l~ J., Thi~;buncJ:i of,appeals,and:speciat:leave petitions r, 
E 
are at the. instanc;~,<;>f th(!_ diss~tisfieciiiandiowners whose lands were· 
acquired in bulk by the. St~t.e~of.Haryana,,in the t()wn of!Hissar; for 
estabiishing a residential-cum~commercial complex. 
,. lU ~ I 
'-,;. '. i~ i . 
.. :· 
t.~ ')'. 
" f 
-· ·• 
The land totalled approximately 331 acres. The land Acquisition 
C~ll~ctor, app()ip.ted to deterlil~ne the:c<;>mpensation belted the land in 
F · 
t~ree.parts awarci~ng f()r block .'A' compensation at the rate of RsA. n · -rj' 
p~f.'.sq .. yd~; f<;>f .block .'.8-'.at. the Tate-of.Rs. 2.43 p.er!sq. yd. ·and for l 
blos.k ·q at Rs:.L._65.per sq.yd ... Theidissatisfied claimants .took·the 
matter in reference t() ,the. Addi. ·District: Judge, Hissar. who main, 
tained

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