LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. versus MANGATU RAM ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. v. MANGATU RAM ETC. APRIL 29, 1997 [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : A B Ss. 23(1), 23( 1-A), 28-A-Land Acquisition Officer classified lands in C different belts and granted compensation accordingl~High Court granted enhanced compensation on uniform rate-Held, when large extents of lands with different features are acquired, necessary reasonable classification should be made before determining compensation-Article 14 of the Constitution has no application in these circumstances-Lands re-classified and compensation D granted at the rates of Rs. 1,00,000 per acre, Rs. 60,000 per acre and Rs. 30,000 per acre respectively-Claimants entitled to benefit under Amendment Act 68 of 1984-Those claimants who had not earlier sought reference but. made applications u/s. 28-A within three months of the .award of reference Court would be entitled to same compensation as awarded by reference court in other matters-Those who made applications beyond time are not entitled E lo re-determination of compensation-Constitution of India-Article 14. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3816 of 1997 Etc. Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.1.94 of the Punjab & Haryana F High Court in L.P.A. No. 664 of 1991. N.N. Goswami, V.C. Mahajan, G.L. Sanghi, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Anil Katiyar, Niranjana Singh, Satpal Singh, K.P. Mittal, M.S. Dahiya and Prem Malhotra for appearing parties. G The following Order of the Court was delivered : In CA Nos. 3816, 3818-35, 4070-4139, 3947, 4157~58, 4036-69, 4033-35, 3936-46/97@ SLP Nos. 1013, 1545-1662, 3004-73, 19017, 8255-56/95, 2947- 80, 2920-22 and 16892-902/96 · H 1121 1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R. A Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on June)8, 1984. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the lands into four blocks, viz., A, B, C and D and B awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 60,ooo; Rs. 40,000, Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 15,000 respectively. The total of 3781 kanals and 2 marlas and 1138 kanals and 11 marlas of land was acquired and compensation was accord- ingly granted. On reference under Section 18, the Additional District Judge classified the lands as Classes 'A' and 'B' and a"'.arded the compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000 for Class 'A' and @ Rs. 50,000 for Class 'B'. On appeal, C the learned Single Judge of the High Court granted uniform rate of compensation@ Rs. 1,05,000. The Division Bench heard L.PA. No. 664/91 and batch and dismissed the appeals on January 5, 1994. Thus, these appeals by special leave. D The question that arises for consideration is : whether the view of. the High Court in not making any belting and granting uniform rate of compensation for all the lands is correct principle of law? We find that the High Court has adopted absolutely. incorrect principle of law. It is seen that several fake deeds have been filed, in particular as per Ex. BA spoken through PW-3, 16.7 kanals of land were sold for Rs. 1,40,000. It is settled E legal position that it is the duty of the Court to sit in the arm chair of a willing and prudent purchaser and seek answer to the question whether he would purchase the lands offered for sale with the existing features, at the same market value proposed by the Court. It is also settled law that though determination involves some guess work, it must have reasonable basis and F feats of imagination should be eschewed. It is salutary duty of the court to award reasonable and adequate compensation. The plan has been placed before us. The Land Acquisition Officer has marked the lands in red colour the lands classified as 'A' and 'B' class lands in green colour. The question that arises for consideration is : whether the belting is G necessary in the circumstances of these cases? When a large extent of land under acquisition comprises of lands of several persons and some lands are abutting the main road and some lands are in the interior, the same would not have the uniform rate of market value. Necessarily, reasonable demar- cation/classification should be made before determination of the· compen- H sation. Accordingly, we justified the classification of the lands into category U.0.1. v. MANGATU RAM 1123 'A' and 'B'. The Land Acquisition Officer has mentioned the total ext
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.