STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus RAJENDRA SINGH

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 25-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
,• 
RAJENDRA SINGH 
JANUARY 25, 1996 
B 
.. 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
Sections 18, 20-Compensation-Award of-Burden on claimant to 
~ 
c adduce reliable and acceptable evidence-17zereafter burden shifts to the State 
to disprove it-<:owt to carefully assess the evidence on the touch stone of 
human conduct and pmdent purchaser-Approach adopted by Courts below 
beset with illegalities-Matter remitted to Reference Court to detennine the 
compensation, after affording opportunity to the claimant and the Land 
D 
Acquisition Officer. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2921 of 
;.--
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.2.94 of the Allahabad High 
Court in F.A. No. 233 of 1988. 
E 
Pramod Swarup and A.K. Srivastava for the Appellants. 
B.S. Jain, J.P. Singh and Ajay K. Agarwal for the Respondent. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court 
of Allahabad dated February 3, 1994 in FA No. 233/88. 5.357 acres of 
G 
agricultural land situated in Daoodpur, Pargana Chinaiya-kot Tehsil 
Mohammadabad, District Azamgarh was acquired for construction of Sirsa 
Alpika. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated January 10, 1985 
f-
determined compensation @ Rs.3,658.87 per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, 
the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 to the Civil Court. The Civil Court in its award and decree dated 
H February 17, 1988 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30,000 per acre. 
984 
_, 
STATE v. RAJENDRASINGH 
985 
Dissatisfied with the award of the Reference Court, both the claimants as A 
well as the State filed the appeaL In the impugned judgment, the learned 
Judge granted compensation @ Rs. 69,013.11 per acre. Thus this appeal 
by special leave. 
It is settled law that in reference under Section 18 claimant being 
dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, when the 
proceedings are taken under Section 20 of the Act, burden is always on 
the claimant like plaintiff to adduce reliable and acceptable evidence to 
prove proper, just and adequate compensation to the acquired land. If such 
an evidence was adduced, burden shifts on to the State to disprove it. It is 
further settled law that the sales transactions filed either in the narration 
B 
c 
of award or documents, without examination of either the vendee or by the 
vendor is not evidence. It is the duty of the Court to carefully assess the 
evidence on the touch stone of human conduct and prudent purchaser. 
Admittedly, in this case, though reference to four sales transactions has 
been made by the reference Court, neither the vendee nor the vendor was D 
examined nor was it established that the sale consideration which passed 
thereunder is true and the prices for which the sales came to be executed 
were real one between willing vendor and willing vendee. Equally, burden 
is on the claimant to establish that the lands relating to the sales transac-
tions and the lands under acquisition are possessed of same value, nature 
of the lands are same and capable to fetch same price, and so also other E 
situations as comparable features. Unfortunately, neither the reference 
Court nor the High Court has looked into this legal aspect of the matter 
and proceeded on the terms of those sale deeds. It is equally settled law 
that the Courts should avoid feats of imaginations, to fix fanciful price, and 
sit in the armchair of willing vendee to see whether a prudent purchaser 
F 
acting in normal market condition would be willing to offer the price which 
are mentioned in the sale instances. The Court should clearly and carefully 
evaluate the evidence and determine market value avoiding needless bur-
den on the exchequer and according adequate and just compensation to 
· the acquired land. The very approach adopted by the courts below is beset 
with illegalities and, therefore, we do not "find any legal basis to consider G 
the evidence on record to determine proper and adequate .compensation 
in respect of the acquired land. 
Under these circumstances, we are left with no option but to set aside 
the decree and award of the reference Court as well as of the High Court H 
986 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A and remit the matter to the reference Court to give an opportunity to the 
claimant as well as the Land Acquisition O
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.