1996 JTR(SC) 1192
1996 3 CurCC(SC) 391 ; 1996 Supp JT 494 ; 1996 6 Scale 100 ; 1996 11 SCC 170 ; 1996 Supp4 SCR 375 ; 1996 6 Supreme 741
1996(6) Supreme 741
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Karan Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Union of India -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 423 of 1985
Decided on 7-8-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Prem Prasad Juneja, Advocate.
For the Respondents : V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate and C.V.S. Rao, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
1/3rd of the market value has to be deducted towards development charges in assessing compensation for land acquired under Land Acquisition Act.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.11
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.23, S.54, S.4
A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with the Civil Procedure Code and the Constitution of India, governs the acquisition of land and the jurisdiction to adjudicate compensation claims. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, empowered the notification that acquired the land in this case, while Section 54 of the Act delineates the limited scope of appeals to the High Court, with further recourse to the Supreme Court only via Article 136 read with Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code through special leave. The compensation awarded by the Reference Court was informed by market valuation principles and considerations under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, which mandates deductions for development charges.
B) Key legal principles include that compensation must reflect market value less statutory deductions, appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act lie only to the High Court, and appeals to the Supreme Court require special leave under Article 136. The Court emphasized that where the State does not appeal and the award is not demonstrably erroneous, interference is not warranted.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated March 8, 1957, acquired land comprising one biga and 14 biswas. Compensation was assessed at Rs. 10 per square yard by the Reference Court, based on a prior High Court precedent involving a sale at Rs. 12 per square yard, with one-third deducted as development charges. The appellant sought the higher rate but was unsuccessful and filed this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly applied the market value principles, and the deduction of one-third as development charges was appropriate. The appellant would receive less than the claimed rate if the award were interfered with, and since the State did not appeal, there are no grounds to disturb the decision.
Issues:
Whether the compensation awarded reflects the correct market value after statutory deductions and whether the appeal lies to this Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act or requires special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi:
The compensation awarded was legally sound, the market value considerations were properly applied, and the appeal does not meet the threshold for Supreme Court intervention as the State did not challenge the award.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded.
A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with the Civil Procedure Code and the Constitution of India, governs the acquisition of land and the jurisdiction to adjudicate compensation claims. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, empowered the notification that acquired the land in this case, while Section 54 of the Act delineates the limited scope of appeals to the High Court, with further recourse to the Supreme Court only via Article 136 read with Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code through special leave. The compensation awarded by the Reference Court was informed by market valuation principles and considerations under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, which mandates deductions for development charges.
B) Key legal principles include that compensation must reflect market value less statutory deductions, appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act lie only to the High Court, and appeals to the Supreme Court require special leave under Article 136. The Court emphasized that where the State does not appeal and the award is not demonstrably erroneous, interference is not warranted.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated March 8, 1957, acquired land comprising one biga and 14 biswas. Compensation was assessed at Rs. 10 per square yard by the Reference Court, based on a prior High Court precedent involving a sale at Rs. 12 per square yard, with one-third deducted as development charges. The appellant sought the higher rate but was unsuccessful and filed this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly applied the market value principles, and the deduction of one-third as development charges was appropriate. The appellant would receive less than the claimed rate if the award were interfered with, and since the State did not appeal, there are no grounds to disturb the decision.
Issues:
Whether the compensation awarded reflects the correct market value after statutory deductions and whether the appeal lies to this Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act or requires special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi:
The compensation awarded was legally sound, the market value considerations were properly applied, and the appeal does not meet the threshold for Supreme Court intervention as the State did not challenge the award.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded.
ORDER
This appeal arises from the judgment dated July 23, 1984 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court made in RFA No. 281 of 1979.
2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act") acquiring a large extent of land was published on March 8, 1957. The land of the appellant admeasuring one biga and 14 biswas formed part of that land. Reference Court relying upon judgment of the High Court in A.N. Bhandari v. Union of India1, awarded compensation @ Rs. 10/- per square yard. On appeal, it was confirmed. The High Court relied upon a single sale deed in similar case in which market value had been fixed @ Rs. 12/- per square yard. Therefore, the appellant also claimed that rate. Since he was not awarded the rate claimed by him, he has filed appeal in this Court challenging the impugned judgment of the High Court.
3. Shri Juneja, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court, having found that the market value of the land in question could fetch was Rs. 12/- per square yard, would have granted compensation at that rate. Though prima facie we find the contention plausible and acceptable, in view of the legal position that at least 1/3rd of the market value has to be deduced towards development charges and that the said consideration was not adopted in the case on which reliance is placed, the fact boils down that if the award is to be interfered with, the appellant would get less than what has been granted to him by the High Court. However, since the State has not filed any appeal and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is not a case warranting interference.
4. The appeal under Section 54 of the Act would not lie to this Court. A reading of Section 54 would clearly indicate that the appeal shall lie in any proceedings under the act only to the High Court against the award and decree of the reference Court and further appeal to this Court would be under Article 136 of the Constitution read with Section 11, CPC. by way of special leave and not under Section 54 of the Act.
Accordingly, this appeal cannot be treated to be an appeal under Section 54 of the Act but one by special leave under Article 136. In either case, we do not find any ground warranting interference. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
*******