LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. versus SHRI CHAIN SINGH AND OR,S. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. A v. SHRI CHAIN SINGH AND OR,S. ETC. MAY 8, 1997 [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] B Jammu and Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968: ,, S.8--Requisitioning and acquisition of land-1007 kanals of land ac- c quired-Compensation-Determination of-Arbitrator and High Court awarded compensation @ Rs. 70,000 per kanaH'actors to be taken into .... consideration-Explained--Compensation reduced to Rs. 30,000 per kanal . Union of India v. H<iri Knshan Khosla (dead) by Lrs., (1993] Supp. 2 SCC 149 and Periyar & Pamkanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kera/a, (1991] 4 D sec 207, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3568 of 1997 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.96 of the Jammu & Kashmir E High Court in L.P.A. No. 20 of 1996. P.P. Malhotra, P.P. Rao, M.P. Shorawala, Anil Katiyar, R.P. Singh, A.K. Pandey, R.K. Khanna, Pankaj Kalra, U.A. Rana and Rajiv Tyagi for the appearing parties. F The following Order of the. Court was delivered : Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. The land to an extent of 1007 kanals and 6 marlas situated in village G Sansoo in Tehsil and District Udhampur was initially requisitioned under -- Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act. On December 26, 1988, proceedings for acquisi- tion of the land were initiated. The compensation was determined under Section 8 of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 12,000, Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 9,000 per kanal to Warhal Changhi, Warhal H 293 .- 294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A Mandi and Banjar Kadeem lands respectively. Dissatisfied therewith, an application under Form 'G' seeking reference was filed. The Arbitrator was appointed under Rule 9 read with Section 8(1) of the Act. Thereafter the Arbitrator determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 70,000 per kanal. On appeal, the learned single Judge confirmed the saine and the B Division Bench held that no Letters Patent Appeal would lie. Thus, this appeal by special leave. It is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer has adduced the oral as well as documentary evidence. The claimants also filed the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence. On consideration of the evidence, C the Arbitrator as well as the High Court have held that the lands are situated in a developed area and possessed of and commanded good market value for sale in the open market to a willing purchaser and, therefore, they are capable of fetching market value ranging from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 2 lakhs per acre and in view of the fact that the sale deeds ' relied on were in respect of small pieces of land they determined the D compensation at the rate of Rs. 70,000 per acre. The question is : whether the view taken by the Arbitrator as well as by the High Court is correct in law? It is settled law that under Section 8(3) of the Act, as amended by Act 6 of 1977, the compensation payable E for the acquired property under Section 7 shall, in the absence of an agreement, be the price which the requisitioned party would have fetched in the open market, if it had· remained in the same condition as it was at the time of the requisition, and been sold on the date of the acquisition in . the same condition. In other words, the principle required to be applied would be that the existing conditions as on the date of the acquisition (as F if existed in conditions) in which the land existed on the date of requisition, be the determining factor for fixing the compen~ation as per the market value prevailing as on the date of the acquisition and compensation has to be determined accordingly. G This Court in Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (dead) by Lrs., [1993) Supp. 2 SCC 149 at 166, para 611, considered the question under the Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act, 1952 which is pari materia to the Act, and held thus : "We are of the opinion that the amount of compensation can be H fixed by agreement under Section 8(1)(b). In the absence of such .. -f I V.O.l.v. CHAINSINGH 295 an agreement, it is left to the. discretion of the arbitrator. The A arbitrator under Section 8(1)(e) is to hear the dispute. Thereafter · he is to determine the compensation which appears to him to be just. He must have regard to the circumstances of each case while applying the provisions
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.