Jagdish Singh And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr

Delay in filing the Special Leave Petition and substitution applications is condoned. All the substitution applications are allowed.

Leave granted in all the matters.

Notification under s.4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 21.1.1977 acquiring a large extent of land comprising of seven villages, including Kheri Gujran, Bir Kheri Gujran, Haji Majra, Pasiana and Sher Majra in Tehsil and District Patiala for defence pur-poses. The Collector made his award under s.11 on April 11, 1980. On reference under s.18, the Additional District Judge, Patiala, enhanced the compensation on September 4, 1980 and on February 9, 1982. On further appeals, the High Court enhanced the compensation between Rs. 57,400 to 78,000 per acre. The lands in question relate to Sher Majra. For these lands Rs. 57,400 per acre was awarded. Still not being satisfied, the claimants have filed these appeals claiming compensation at Rs. 78,000 as allowed in respect of village Malo Majra.

Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the High Court has committed grievous error in adopting each village as a measure to determine the compensation. On the other hand, the court should have adopted land wise and should have determined compensation accord-ingly. It is further contended that the lands of the appellants are situated very near to residential abadi and that, therefore, their lands are possessed of more potential value than the lands in other villages. Having granted @ Rs. 78,000 for lands in Malo Majra which is also a way from the Patiala Municipality, the appellants are also entitled to compensation on the same parity. We find no force in the contentions. The State did not file appeals questioning enhancement of compensation on merits. So, we are obviated to go into the correctness of the enhancement ordered by the High Court.

The High Court has adopted a rough and ready evaluation in deter-mination of the compensation. It has taken into account the municipal limits as the basis and decreased the rate of compensation progressively as the distance increases. Here is a case where there is no satisfactory evidence to determine the compensation land-wise of each claimant. Therefore, the High Court, instead of remitting the cases and directing the District Judge to determine the compensation in respect of each of the claimants, has adopted, as stated earlier, a rough and ready method.

On the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the High Court has not committed any error of law warranting interference for further enhancing the market value. Section 4(1) notification was published on January 21,1977, award of the Collector is dated April 11, 1980 and that of the Additional District Judge on February 9, 1982, therefore, it has committed manifest error of law in applying Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 as amended by Act 68 of 1984 giving enhanced interest and solatium and additional compensation at 12% per annum from the date of the notification till the date of Award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. It is now settled law that in cases of present nature, the claimants are not entitled for the benefits under Sections 32(1-A), 23(2) and 28.

Accordingly, the appeals of the claimants are dismissed and the appeals filed by the Union of India are allowed only to the above extent of granting the benefits under the Amended Act 68 of 1984. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.