A
SURAT SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS ETC •
. . ' v .• - .
-,.,
UNION OF INDIA
· AUGUST 13, 1996
"
B.
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) ·
Land Acquisition Ai:4 J894 :·~ections 4(lf and 53.
···;,_· .. ,·.
. :1
Land acquisition-Large extent o~Award of compensation byLand
C Acquisition Officer-Enhancement by Reference Court and High Court-Ap-
peal by dissatisfied claimants-Held sale instance relating to small pieces of
land ca1mot be solely relied upon-Assuming that sale transactions were true
I/3rd of the value towards development charges have to be deducted °while
. '
awarding compensation-in such a case Ian.downer would have got less than
D thai awarded by High Court-Held in such circumstances no iiiteiference' was.
called for. with the orde~ of High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4028 ~f
1988 Etc.
E
From the Judgm~nt and Order dated 18.10.84 of the Delhi High
Court in R.F.A. No. 575 of 1970.
·
·
·
F
K. Priyadarshi, Ranbir Yadav and H.M. Singh for the Appellants.
Wasirn.A .Qadr~ B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This case relates to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published on October 24, 1961. The Land
Acquisition Officer in his award dated December 16, 1964 granted com-
G pensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per bigha. on reference, the Additional
District Judge by his award and decree dated May 20, 1970 enhanced the
compensation varying between Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 3,000 per bigha in respect
of ABC Blocks. The High Court in the impugned judgment dated Septem-
ber 11, 1984 enhanced the compensation to the uniform rate of Rs. 7,000
H per Bigha. DfssatiSfied therewith, the claimants have filed these appeals.
640
SURATSINGHv. U.0.1.
Though there is some force in the contention of learned senior A
counsel for the appellants that there is a difference between the earlier
cases and this case, since the notification in the earlier cases dated back
to 1959 and this notification to 1961, the sale instances relating to the small
pieces of land cannot be solely relied upon when lands of an extent of
around 16000 and odd bighas is acquired. There is no proof of these' sale-
B
transactions. Moreover, even if they were true, 1/3rd of the value towards
development charges has to be deducted. This exercise was not done. Even
if it is done, the appellant will get less than what was awarded by the High
Court. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the
judgment and order made by the High Court since the State did not file
·· any appeal.
C
The appeals are accordingly dismissed No costs .
T.NA.
. Appeals dismissed.
'' '
'
Lex