TARLOCHAN SINGH AND ANR; ETC. ETC. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 200 · Decided: 29-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N.P. SINGH, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
' I 
TARLOCHAN SINGH AND ANR; ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THE STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER29, 1994 
' 
· [K. RAMASWAMY, N.P. SINGH AND N. VENKA TACHALA, JJ.] 
.Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
' 
Sections 4 (1), 18 and 24-Compensation-Award of-Factors to be 
taken int() account-Relevance 4-Purpose of acquisition and future 
developme~I ·. and potential prospective use-Whether . relevant in . 
determining market value-Held: No. 
Land to· the extent of 881 acres were acquired for the planned 
development of a municipality. The Land "Acquisition Officer in his 
award determined the compensation to the plain lands at Rs. 39,400 
1-
I 
· 
_ 
per acre and to the land abutting upto a depth of 100 karams from the 
Ludhiana-Chandigarh main road at Rs. 42,400 per acre and to the · 
other lands at different rates. 
On a reference, the District Judge fixed the market value of the 
E · land abutting the Ludhiana~handigarh Road upto a depth of 100 
Karams at Rs. 72,600 per acre and for the ·remaining land at Rs. 58,080 
· per acre. The State did not file an appeal The claimants filed appeals 
for enhancement of the compensation. Single Judge of the High Court 
determined the market value at Rs. 89,000 and Rs. 39,000 respectively 
"· 
per acre •. The Division Bench maintained the award of compensation to 
, F' . t_he land upto a depth of 100 karams abutting the Ludhiana-
Chandiga.rh main road, but enhanced the market value for the rest of 
G 
H 
the lands from 100-200 karams a! Rs. 58,080 and for the remaining 
lands @ Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 48,400 per acre. The claimants have filed 
the present appeals for further increaseJn compensation • 
• 
Appellants contended that the Division Bench was not justified in 
deducting 
one-third 
towards 
development· charges; 
that 
the 
·compensation of Rs. 39,000 per acre for the lands in Kuliawal was 
··unjust and arbitrary since for the lands equally situated in Jamalpur, 
Rs. 50,000 was awarded; that since the State did not prefer any appeal, 
the reduction of the belting from 100 to 55 karams was not correct; and 
200 
T. SINGH v. THE STATE OF PB. 
201 
that potential value for future development should have been taken into A 
consideration in fixing the market value. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The appellants are not entitled to further increase for 
determinatioi:t of compensation and the appeals do not warrant B 
interference. [204 G] 
1.2. It is seen that a land of magnitude of 881 acres when was 
acquired for planned development of the town, a willing purchaser 
would offer- the same rates at which small plots admeasuring to 120 to 
250 sq. ft. were offered and sold. It is impossible to accept that the C 
lands would fetch that price when a large track of land was offered for 
sale in open market to willing buyer. Under those circumstances, sale 
transactions are absolutely and totally irrelevant and cannot form the 
basis to determine the compensation. Even though the vendor or 
vendees were examined to prove the sale transaction, this Court cannot D 
determine market value on that basis and award compensation. The 
.court has power and duty to evaluate the evidence in proper 
prospective, apply correct principles and award compensation. Since 
the State did not file any ap1>4:als, this Court cannot interfere witb the 
award of the market value determined @ Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 48,400 by 
the Division Bench of the High Court for the said lands. [203 D to F] 
E 
' 
2. It is common knowledge that even all the lands in the same 
village may not possess the same quality and command common 
market prices. It is seen that the lands in Jamalpur are cutting across 
the main road Ludhiana-Chandigarh and that, therefore, the High 
Court awarded·the compensation at different rates on the basis of F 
belting. Kuliawal lands are on the northern side below Tajpur Road 
and· the road is not an important one. It was also stated in the 
impugned judgment that lands.in Kuliawal village is not abutting main 
road and that, therefore, the lands do not command higher value. 
Accordingly, the market value was determined for the lands abutting 
55 karams at different rate and for the rest of the =ands compensation G 
was awarded @ Rs. 39,000. The appellants' lands are not within the 
belt. Therefore, the classification made on the basis of the situation of 
the land -cannot be said to be illegal. Since the lands situated in 
Kuliawal are not on par with the lands in Jamalpur village, the 
d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.