Prem Chand & Ors vs Union Of India

"REPORTABLE"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2856 OF 2010 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 6178 OF 2005)

Prem Chand & Ors. ... Appellants

Versus

Union of India ... Respondent

JUDGMENT

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein the

High Court has awarded the land acquisition compensation @ Rs.39,300/-

per bigha. The High Court relied on its earlier judgment without citing the

same wherein it had fixed the land acquisition compensation @

Rs.34,150/- per bigha in respect of the Notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act dated 19.08.1976. On that basis, the High Court,

considering the difference of 1-1/2 years, enhanced the amount at the rate 2

of 10 per cent per year and thus granted compensation @ Rs.39,300/- per

bigha.

3. The concerned lands are from village Dallupura which have been

acquired by the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act

dated 22.03.1978 which ripened into the Notification under Section 6 dated

27.09.1978. The High Court, however, specifically ordered that the

appellants would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 23 (1-A) of the

Land Acquisition Act (hereafter `the Act').

4. Shri P.H. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel pointed out firstly that the

claimants in this case could not have been deprived of the benefit under

Section 23 (1-A) of the Act since the award was passed on 25.02.1983 and

it was pending on 24.09.1984. He invited our attention to the Constitution

Bench decision of this Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala &

Ors. [1994 (5) SCC 593] wherein this Court had culled out the ratio in

paragraph 110 as follows:

"110. For all these reasons the questions raised in these petitions are answered as below:

(1) Section 23(1-A) providing for additional compensation is attracted in every case where reference was pending under Section 18 before the Court [Section 23(1- A)].

3 (2) No additional compensation is payable in appeals pending on or after 24-9-1984 either in High Court or this Court.

(3) Additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) is also payable in all those cases where the proceedings were pending and the award had not been made by the Collector on or before 30-4-1982 [Section 30(1)(a)].

(4) Similarly every landowner is entitled to additional compensation where the land acquiring proceedings started after 30-4- 1982 whether the award by the Collector was made before 24-9-1984 or not [Section 30(1)(b)].

(5) XXX"

5. Accordingly as per the sub-para (3) of paragraph 110, it is clear that

the claimants would be entitled to the compensation under Section 23 (1-

A) read with Section 30 (1) (b) since the award had not been made on or

before 30.04.1982. The claimants would, therefore, be entitled to that

benefit though the benefit seems to have been rejected by the High Court

without giving any reasons. That direction of the High court is, therefore,

set aside and it is held that the claimants would be entitled to the benefit

under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act.

6. However, Shri P.H. Parekh argued that the High Court had erred in

fixing the compensation @ Rs.39,300/- per bigha. He further pointed out

that the claimants herein had moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 4

read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, enhancing their

claim before the High Court to Rs.350 per sq. yds. He pointed out that in

the case reported as Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma

& Others [2004 (6) SCC 533] in respect of the villages Kondli, Gharoli and

Dallupura, this Court had awarded compensation @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha. In that case, this Court, relying on Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India

[1997 (8) SCC 186] had scaled down the compensation to Rs.76,550/- per

bigha from the one awarded by the High Court @ Rs.3.45 lakh per bigha.

Shri Parekh, therefore, suggests that even the claimants in this case

whose lands have been acquired in Dallupura would be entitled at least to

the compensation @ Rs.76,550/- per bigha. The lands at Dallupra, Kondli

and Gharoli have been held to be identically circumstanced. In fact, in

Bali Ram Sharma's case (cited supra), the Court was dealing with the

lands at Gharoli, Kondli and Dallupura where the High Court had awarded

the compensation @ Rs.3.45 lakhs. This Court did not agree with that and

scaled it down to Rs.76,550/-. It is, therefore, the learned Senior Counsel

claims the compensation at least at that rate. It is to be noted that even in

this case, the claimants had claimed the compensation @ Rs.350/- per

bigha by way of an amendment. Shri Parekh pointed out that the

Notification in Bali Ram Sharma's case (cited supra) was dated

17.11.1980 which is comparable to the Notification in the present case

which is dated 22.03.1978. He further pointed out that there is evidence 5

that the lands at Dallupura, compensation of which is in question in the

present appeal, were actually converted into the plots. He, therefore,

claims compensation @ Rs.76,550/-.

7. On the other hand, Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing

for the Union of India disputes this and claims that the High Court was right

in fixing the compensation @ 39,300/- per bigha.

8. On the question of parity, there can be no dispute that the lands at

Kondli, Dallupura and Gharoli are identically circumstanced, as held by this

Court in Bali Ram Sharma's case (cited supra). It would, therefore, be

not proper to grant the compensation at much lesser rate of Rs.39,300/-

per bigha. The learned Counsel also pointed out a decision of this Court to

which one of us, (Cyriac Joseph, J.) was a party reported as Union Of

India v. Harpat Singh & Ors. [2009 (8) SCALE 201]. This Court followed

the judgments in Karan Singh's case (cited supra) and Bali Ram

Sharma's case (cited supra) and approved them. These judgments were

in respect of Gharoli, Kondli and Dallupura, where the compensation was

paid @ Rs.76,550/-. He, therefore, urged to maintain the parity in this

case also.

9. However, it is pointed out by Shri Malhotra that the rate of

Rs.76,550/- is in respect of the Notification dated 17.11.1980 and the 6

Notification in the present case was published only on 22.03.1978 and,

therefore, some allowance would have to be given for that. Shri Malhotra

is undoubtedly right. We, therefore, scale down the compensation by

deducting 10 per cent of the rate of Rs.76,550/-. Ordinarily, we would

have scaled down by 20 per cent but considering the fact that the lands in

this case have been found to be already developed into plots, we would

choose to scale down the compensation by 10 per cent to the round figure

of Rs.69,550/- The compensation shall be paid @ Rs.69,550 plus the

benefit under Section 23 (1-A) read with Section 30 (1) (b) of the Act.

10. With these directions, the appeal is allowed in part.

........................................J. (V.S. Sirpurkar)

...........................................J. (Cyriac Joseph)

New Delhi;

March 30, 2010.