SHER SINGH ETC. ETC. v. ~) STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
JANUARY 8, 1991 [L.M. SHARMA AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 25—Compensation— Enhancement—Not permissible when evidence not brought on record.
4 The appellants were the claimants—land owners, whose lands . were acquired for establishing a residential cum-commercial complex. ‘S The Land Acquisition Collector belting the land in three parts awarded compensation for block ‘A’ at the rate of Rs.4.13 per sq.yd.; for block ‘B’ at the rate of Rs.2,43 per sq.yd. and for block ‘C’ at Rs.1.65 per sq.yd.
In First Appeal the High Court was persuaded to confine to belt- Ny ~ ing ‘A’ & ‘B’. The High Court fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.23 per sq.yd. for belt ‘A’ and for belt ‘B’ Rs.16 per sq.yd.
The Claimants by special leave filed-present appeals for enhancement contending that the acquired land comprises of a large area, situated alongside the G.T. Road in a strip approximately 3 kms. in length on the other side of which was the railway line; that the belting
. fan had been done in a haphazard way; that the land having been acquired c, for building purposes, its quality as agricultural land should not have weighed; and compensation shouid have been assessed uniformally.
» Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: 1. The rate of Rs.42 per sq.yd. is claimed on the basis that
“a part of land measuring about 125 sq.yd. which found part of the
‘y~ acquired land, was, before the acquisition, purchased by a purchaser at the rate of Rs.42 per sq.yd. and that was an indication that the land acquired would have fetched Rs.42 per sq.yd. [3E]
2. The High Court had rejected the contention ofthe appellants taking the twin view that firstly the land involved was small in measure and secondly it was fully constructed having a house and a godown
~ facing the G.T. Road itself. This reasoning is sound. [3F] | — 3. The judgment in which Rs.42 had been awarded in another
2 _ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
case has not been-brought.on record. as a piece of evidence to be relied upon by the ‘claimants, and no permission has been sought to adduce additional evidence. The said judgment cannot therefore be used as a precedent even to persuade this Court to take the view that the rate should be ,Rs. 42 per. sq.yd..for-belt ‘A’ if not uniformally. All these factors ‘cumulatively lead to the view that appellants have no case for enhancement, and - have been adequately: compensated for the land acquired. (3H; & A-B), OS a a ee
CIVIL: APPELLATE. JURISDICTION: Civil “Appeal Nos..
2H So Bn ped Rh ou Ppeat . hie on Sot Erm, tee voted Wa we
From. ‘the. Tlidgment, ‘and. ‘Order, dated the 12-10. 1981. of. the.
Punjab. and. Haryana High: Court: in Regular; First ‘Appeal Nos.. 758,
760, 787, 814, 769, 1011 and 789 of 1979. v web welts She tbe oe ; * Govind ‘Mukhoty, R P. Bhatt, D. K. Garg, Prem Malhotra, ‘K.C, Sharma and R. C. Kaushik, for the ‘Appellants. i" et6 52 toi
S. P. Goel and: Mahabir Singh for the Respondents. #97 The J udgment of the Court was delivered by: Be od sol be ote ' PUNCHHT, J. This, bunch of ‘appeals: and: special: leave petitions are at the instance. of the dissatisfied ;land,;owners whose lands were ' acquired in bulk by the. State; of Haryana, ;in the: town of:Hissar, for establishing a résidential- -cum- -commercial complex. The edb ge . The land totalled approximately 331 acres. The land ‘Acquisition Collector, appointed t to: determine. the:compensation. belted the land in three. parts awarding for block ‘Aw’ compensation at the rate of Rs.4.13.° per.sq.-yd.; for block ‘B’ at ‘the-rate-of Rs. 2.43 perisq. yd. ‘and for block ‘C’ at Rs.1.65.per sq.yd. The ;dissatisfied claimants took” the.
matter in reference to the Addl. District: Judge, Hissar. who main- . tained the belting, but raised the compensation for block ‘A’ to Rs. 10 per.sq.yd., bleck ‘B’ to Rs. 6. per, sq. yd. and block. ‘C’ to Rs:4.50 Per Sq.. yay Me ee i woth get OLR, “y nape) SERS
Court, it was persuaded to wipe out ‘C’ and confine it to belting ‘A’ & . ‘Bia The .entire.evidence was consideredyby, the sHigh' Court. mati- ' culously to come to the conclusion that belt ‘A’ should fetch compensation at the rate of Rs.23 per sq.yd: and belt ‘B’ Rs. 16 per sq.yd. Still tower Wath ome Boo ut@aae, Te!
i. “When ‘the matte! was taken; sup:i in‘First*Appeab before. the High.
"ad
, SHER SINGH y. STATE, OF HARYANA [PUNCHHI, J.] _ 3 not satisfied the claimants/appellants ” special leave have:approached this Court for. further, enhancement. . oe Coe eb tae OS
The goal of the, appellants i is that the belting as: such should ¢ g0 , and the land should uniformally be assessed to compensation at. the rate of Rs.42 per sq.yd.. The foundation for the argument in the first ‘instance is that. the acquired land comprises of a large area, situated alongside the G.T. Road leading from Delhi to Hissar town in a strip approximately 3 kms. in length on the other side of which was. the railway line. It was also commented that the belting had been done in a
‘haphazard way. Keeping in regard the nature of the land, it was asserted that the land having been acquired for building purposes, its quality as agricultural dand should not have weighed with the courts
- __belew and compensation should have assessed uniformally space-wise:
. B
’ aa an.
“
These arguments does not appeal to us: Though the acquisition of | ground space is the object in view, yet the tiller’s affect to keep his land more productive cannot be lost sight of in awarding compensation. In fact the belting has kept in regard the quality of the land. This is the reason for its appearing to be a haphazard line on the plan. On the second limb of the argument, that it should have fetched ° uniform rate of compensation, we find no supportive material on record and none has been pressed before us on which we could change the decision, merely on the comment that belting is normally not resorted to. We are not persuaded in the instant case to discard the belting system and lean towards uniformity. ,
The rate of Rs.42 per sq.yd. is claimed on the basis that a part of land measuring about 125 sq.yd. which formed part of the acquired land, was, before the acquisition, purchased by a purchaser at the rate of Rs.42 per sq.yd. and that was an indication that the land acquired would have fetched Rs.42 per sq.yd. The High Court had rejected the | contention of the appellants taking the twin view that firstly the land involved was small in measure and secondly it was fully constructed naving a house and a godown facing the G.T. Road itself. We find this reasoning sound. Having not been able to persuade us, each of learned counsel for the appellants differently putforth that the sole instance which the High Court had rejected had later been relied by it in another case pertaining to other land under acquisition under the same ©
; notification and having awarded the rate of Rs.42 per sq.yd. We regret our inability to entertain the argument because thére is nothing on record to support the same. The judgment in which such view has statedly been taken has not been brought on record as a piece of evidence to be relied upon by the claimants and no permission has
Sd
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.
A __ been sought to adduce additional evidence. The said judgment cannot be used as a precedent even to persuade us to take the view that the rate should be Rs.42 per sq.yd. for belt ‘A’ if not uniformaly. All these factors cumulatively lead us to the view that appellants have no case for enhancement and have been adequately compensated for the land acquired. No interference is thus required in the instant case.
Accordingly for the view above taken, we dismiss the appeals as also the special leave petitions. I.A. for condonation of delay in SLP unnumbered titled Kanhya Lal v. State of Haryana, is dismissed as withdrawn at the askance of the learned counsel for the appellant. There shall be no order as to costs in all these cases. Cc
V.P.R Appeals dismissed.