CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1995) 07 SC CK 0044

Nawal Singh and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 25 July 1995 · Citation: (1995) 6 JT 100 : (1995) 2 MLJ 117 : (1995) 4 SCALE 695 : (1995) 3 SCC 315 Supp : (1995) 2 SCR 307 Supp

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. S. Paripoornan, J · K. Ramaswamy, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No''s. 1895, 2130, 2524, 2525, 2823, 2970 and 3151 of 1980, 1375, 1376, 1577, 1784 and 3112 of 1981, 3758 of 1982 and 7048 of 1995 SLP (c) No. 2161/81
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 446 words
1.

Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on November 13, 1959 acquiring 1876 Bighas 19 Biswas land situated in Jwalahari for planned development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the lands as A,B, C blocks and awarded @ Rs. 1600/-, Rs. 1400/- and Rs. 1000/- per bigha respectively. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge by his Award and Decree dated September 8, 1979 further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4250/-, 3200/- and 2150/- per bigha respectively. The High Court, on appeal, further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5250/-, 4000/- and 3000/- respectively. Not being satisfied with the enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court, the claimants have filed these appeals u/s 54 of the Act claiming enhanced compensation @ Rs. 9,000/- per bigha.

2.

The High Court found that there are no sale transactions in the village Jwalahari other than one sale transaction in Village Madipur which is said to be adjacent to the village Jwalahari. That sale deed was dated April 20, 1959 just before the Notification. An extent of 1472.22 sq. yards was sold in Khasra No. 828 for a consideration of Rs. 7726/- which worked out at Rs. 5250/- per bigha. Based thereon, the High Court has enhanced the compensation. It is now a settled principle that the price of a small extent of land cannot form the sole basis for fixation of higher compensation when a large track of land is acquired. Since the State did not file any appeal, we need not go into the correctness of the finding recorded by the High Court. Suffice it to state that there is no other evidence on record for us to further enhance the compensation.

3.

It is next contended that the High Court having made a distinction between the owner and the mortgagee and enhanced 25% extra compensation to the owner, committed a grave error of law in not awarding the same to the appellants. We find no discernible principle made by the High Court to further enhance 25% more to the owner while awarding the market value to the mortgagee. Under these circumstances, we do not find any legal principle warranting further enhancement of 25% extra compensation. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.

4.

All applications for substitutions &consolidation and reduction of security are allowed.

C.A.Nos. 2525, 2524, 2970, 2823,1895/80,1577, 3112, 1376/81, 3151/80, 3758/82, 1784/81, 1375/81 and C.A. No. 7048... of 1995 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 2161/81).

5.

Leave granted in SLP No. 2161 of 1981.

6.

Following the order made just now in C.A. No. 2130/80, these appeals shall stand dismissed. No costs.