f
..
SMT. INDIRA SOHAN LAL (DEAD) BY LRS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA
OCTOBER 25, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
A
B
Compensation-Award of-Reference
Couft
enhancing
compensation-High Court further enhancing to Rs. 7000 per bigha of
land with deep pits-The land required development-High Court considered C
a/I the relevant facts and rightly determined the compensation at a uniform
rate of Rs. 7000 per bigha-No interference called for.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14553 of
1~6.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.92 of the Delhi High Court
in R.F.A.No. 468 of 1989.
Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant.
Haresh Gupta and Wasim Qadri for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
E
F
(for short, the 'Act') was published on January 23, 1965 acquiring about G
14,000 bighas of land in Kalkaji, Tughalakabad for planned development.
The dispute in the present prnceedings relates to 38 bighas, 5 biswas of the
land. The District Collector awarded compensation @ Rs.700 per bigha
for lands with deep pits of 8 to 10 ft. The reference Court enhanced the
compensation @ Rs. 4,000 per bigha. The High Court enhancing the
compensation @ Rs.7,000 per bigha for land with pits and for the levelled H
1
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.
A land, Rs.17,000 per bigha deducted I/3rd towards the development charges
and determined the compensation accordingly.
Shri Mukul Mudgal, learned counsel for the appellant, contended
that the High Court having enhanced the compensation to Rs. 40,000 per
bigha for the levelled up land in a similar case, compensation
B Rs. 7,000 per bigha for the land with pits of a depth of 8 to 10 feet is
illegal. It is contended, on the other hand, by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the compensation awarded by the High Court
Rs. 7,000 per bigha for the land with deep pits of 8 to IO feet is just and
adequate. There is no warrant to enhance the compenrntion. He also states
that the High Court had granted compensation for the levelled up land Rs.
C 40,000 per bigha and deducted 1/3 but the lands in question is not on the
same parily. The lands are clearly required to be developed to bring them
on a par with levelled land and a huge amount is required for development.
Under those circumstances, there is no warrant to further enhance the
compensation.
D
In view of the rival contentions, the question for consideration is:
whether the grant of Rs. 7,000 per bi!(ha for the land, admittedly, with the
deep pits of an extent of 8 to I 0 feet requires further enhancement of the
compensation? It is not in dispute that the compensation granted @ Rs.
40,000 per bigha was only in respect of a small piece of land. In all the
E other case compensation@ Rs. 7,000 per bigha of the land in which there
are deep pits of the depth 8 to IO feet has been awarded and become final.
The lands require development and expenditure in that behalf is needed.
The High Court has considered all the relevant facts and found that uniform
rate of @ Rs. 7,000 per bigha for the land with deep pits of 8 to I 0 feet
depth would be the proper compensation. In the absence of any compelling
F material and High Court's refusal to advert to it we cannot enhance the
compensation from that awarded by the High Court which was not
challenged by the Union of India. Under these circumstances, we do not
find any circumstances warranting any interference.
G
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal dismissed.
•
'
<
Lex