1995 JTR(SC) 790
1995 3 CCC(SC) 272 ; 1995 3 CurCC(SC) 272 ; 1995 4 Scale 726 ; 1995 5 SCC 310 ; 1995 Supp2 SCR 572
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
PAINDER SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
SLP (C) No. 32 of 1990{From the Judgment and Order dated 22-8-1989 of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. No. 52 of 1989} with SLPs Nos. 2397, 2620
and 2622 of 1990
Decided on 8-8-1995
Advocates appeared:
L.C. Chechi and Sarwa Mitter, Advocates, for the Petitioners;
Ms Indra Sawhney and S.A. Matto, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.23
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was invoked through a notification dated 6-4-1964 for large-scale land acquisition in Delhi, with compensation initially awarded under Section 4(1) and subsequently enhanced by civil and high courts. Section 23 of the Act governed the determination of market value, while Section 48 of the Stamp Act was relied upon by authorities to fix a fiscal circular value, which the courts distinguished from compensation assessment under the Acquisition Act.
(B) The court held that fiscal circulars under the Stamp Act cannot dictate compensation under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and that enhanced compensation requires evidence of comparable land sales or similar advantageous features; mere reliance on unrelated circulars is illegal.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 6-4-1964 for land in Delhi city including Village Madanpur Khadar. Compensation was awarded at multiple levels, culminating in a High Court enhancement to Rs 12,000 per bigha, which petitioners challenged for further enhancement to Rs 25,000 per bigha, citing higher values for adjacent lands and a stamp duty circular.
Findings of Court:
The court reviewed related judgments and a stamp duty circular, concluding that the circular issued for registration purposes under the Stamp Act does not establish market value under Section 23(1) of the Act, and that the High Courts compensation fixation based on that circular was not illegal but the petitioners failed to provide evidence for further enhancement.
Issues:
Whether compensation under the Land Acquisition Act can be determined by reference to a stamp duty valuation circular; whether adjacent land compensation rates are binding; and what evidence supports enhancement of compensation above court-decreed levels.
Ratio Decidendi:
Compensation under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act must be based on market value as evidenced by sale transactions and potential of the land, not on fiscal circulars issued under the Stamp Act; without adduced evidence of higher market value, enhancement is not warranted.
Result:
The special leave petitions are dismissed, and the compensation order of Rs 12,000 per bigha as enhanced by the High Court is upheld.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was invoked through a notification dated 6-4-1964 for large-scale land acquisition in Delhi, with compensation initially awarded under Section 4(1) and subsequently enhanced by civil and high courts. Section 23 of the Act governed the determination of market value, while Section 48 of the Stamp Act was relied upon by authorities to fix a fiscal circular value, which the courts distinguished from compensation assessment under the Acquisition Act.
(B) The court held that fiscal circulars under the Stamp Act cannot dictate compensation under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and that enhanced compensation requires evidence of comparable land sales or similar advantageous features; mere reliance on unrelated circulars is illegal.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 6-4-1964 for land in Delhi city including Village Madanpur Khadar. Compensation was awarded at multiple levels, culminating in a High Court enhancement to Rs 12,000 per bigha, which petitioners challenged for further enhancement to Rs 25,000 per bigha, citing higher values for adjacent lands and a stamp duty circular.
Findings of Court:
The court reviewed related judgments and a stamp duty circular, concluding that the circular issued for registration purposes under the Stamp Act does not establish market value under Section 23(1) of the Act, and that the High Courts compensation fixation based on that circular was not illegal but the petitioners failed to provide evidence for further enhancement.
Issues:
Whether compensation under the Land Acquisition Act can be determined by reference to a stamp duty valuation circular; whether adjacent land compensation rates are binding; and what evidence supports enhancement of compensation above court-decreed levels.
Ratio Decidendi:
Compensation under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act must be based on market value as evidenced by sale transactions and potential of the land, not on fiscal circulars issued under the Stamp Act; without adduced evidence of higher market value, enhancement is not warranted.
Result:
The special leave petitions are dismissed, and the compensation order of Rs 12,000 per bigha as enhanced by the High Court is upheld.
Indra Sawhney, L.C.Chechi, S.A.Matto, SARVA M.MITTER
ORDER
1. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) acquiring a large extent of land for development of Delhi city was published on 6-4-1964. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs 5000 and Rs 4500 per bigha by his award No. 87 of 1980-81. On reference, the civil court, viz., the Additional District Judge, enhanced it by his award and decree dated 30-8-1983 to Rs 7260 and Rs 7000 per bigha respectively. On appeal, the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 22-8-1989 made in RFA No. 52 of 1989 and batch uniformly enhanced the market value to Rs 12,000 per bigha. Feeling aggrieved, this petition has been filed for further enhancement to Rs 25,000 per bigha.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that these lands relate to Village Madanpur Khadar. He contends that for the adjacent lands in Village Badarpur and Molarband, the reference court and the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 43,000 per bigha etc. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in confining the market value to Rs 12,000 per bigha.
3. We have gone through the judgments in those cases. Reliance was placed on the circular, issued obviously under Section 48 of the Stamp Act, by the Central Government fixing the market value for the purpose of registration at Rs 60 per sq. yard. This Court has considered the entire gamut of the operation of the relevant provisions of Stamp Act and Section 23(1) of the Act and held that the fixation by the Government of the amount under Stamp Act for fiscal purpose bears no relevance to determine the market value under Section 23(1) of the Act. The claimant aliunde need to establish the prevailing market value as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) by adduction of evidence to prove the acquired land and the land covered by sale transactions bear similar or same potentialities or advantageous features. The courts below have relied only on the circular issued by the Government for fiscal purpose, viz., for stamp duty. The contra view taken by the High Court in that behalf is clearly illegal and the same cannot form basis for further enhancement. Dehors the above judgment, there is no other evidence to enhance further compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of the High Court in relation to the notification dated 5-7-1973 in which the compensation was awarded @ Rs 68,000 per bigha for Village Tughlakabad. That is also founded upon the circular issued by the Government on 26-3-1966 referred to earlier and relates to a notification issued after about 10 years of the notification at hand. So this judgment also renders little assistance.
5. Accordingly, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
For Citation: 1995(5) SCC 310