Prem Chand & Ors. Vs. Union of India
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2856 of 2010
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6178 of 2005]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 11.12.2003 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in R.F.A. No. 149 of 1997]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6178 of 2005]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 11.12.2003 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in R.F.A. No. 149 of 1997]
Petitioner: Prem Chand & Ors.
Respondent: Union of India
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2856 of 2010
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6178 of 2005]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 11.12.2003 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in R.F.A. No. 149 of 1997]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6178 of 2005]
[From the Judgement and Order dated 11.12.2003 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in R.F.A. No. 149 of 1997]
Judges: V.S. Sirpurkar & Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 30, 2010
Appearances:
Appearances
Mr. P.H. Parekh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Mohit Choudhary, Ms. Puja Sharma, Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Mr. Ramesh Gopinathan, Advocates, with him for the Appellant(s).
Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Mr. Shailender Sharma, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu (for Mrs. Anil Katiyar), Advocates, with him for the Respondent(s).
Mr. P.H. Parekh, Senior Advocate, Mr. Mohit Choudhary, Ms. Puja Sharma, Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Mr. Ramesh Gopinathan, Advocates, with him for the Appellant(s).
Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Mr. Shailender Sharma, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu (for Mrs. Anil Katiyar), Advocates, with him for the Respondent(s).
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sections 23(1-A), 4 – High Court granted compensation @ 39,300/- per bigha relying on its earlier judgement with 10% enhancement – Disallowing benefit under Section 23(1-A) – Whether High Court justified in disallowing the benefit when award was passed on 25.02.1983 and pending on 24.09.1988. Held, no. As per Apex Court decision in K.S. Paripoornan’s case [JT 1994 (6) SC 182] claimants are entitled to benefit under Section 23(1-A) since the award had not been made on or before 30.04.1982.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sections 23(1-A), 4 – High Court granted compensation @ 39,300/- per bigha relying on its earlier judgement with 10% enhancement – Disallowing benefit under Section 23(1-A) – Whether High Court justified in disallowing the benefit when award was passed on 25.02.1983 and pending on 24.09.1988. Held, no. As per Apex Court decision in K.S. Paripoornan’s case [JT 1994 (6) SC 182] claimants are entitled to benefit under Section 23(1-A) since the award had not been made on or before 30.04.1982.
Land acquisition – High Court awarding compensation @ Rs. 39,300/- per bigha – Land in Dallupura – High Court in Bali Ram Sharma’s case, awarding Rs. 3.45 lakh per bigha which was reduced to Rs. 76,550/- by Apex Court – That land was also in Dallupura – Whether High Court was justified in granting compensation @ Rs. 39,300/- – Plea that the rate of Rs. 76,550/- is in respect of notification dated 17.04.1980 and notification in this case was published in 22.03.1978. Held compensation scaled down by 10% of the rate of 76,550/- and fixed at Rs. 69,550/- plus benefit under Section 23(1-A) read with Section 30(1)(b) of the Act.
Held:
As per the sub-para (3) of paragraph 110 of K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala & Ors. [JT 1994 (6) SC 182] 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. (Para 5)
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 (supra). It would, therefore, be not proper to grant the compensation at much lesser rate of Rs.39,300/- per bigha. (Para 8)
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. (Para 9)
Cases Reffered:
1. Union of India v. Harpat Singh & Ors. [JT 2009 (11) SC 134] (Para 8)
2. Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma & Others [JT 2004 (6) SC 422] (Para 6)
3. Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India [JT 1997 (8) SC 257] (Para 6)
4. K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala & Ors. [JT 1994 (6) SC 182] (Para 4)
2. Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma & Others [JT 2004 (6) SC 422] (Para 6)
3. Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India [JT 1997 (8) SC 257] (Para 6)
4. K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala & Ors. [JT 1994 (6) SC 182] (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
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 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. [JT 1994 (6) SC 182 : 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)].
(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 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 [JT 2004 (6) SC 422 : 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 [JT 1997 (8) SC 257 : 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 Dallupura, Kondli and Gharoli have been held to be identically circumstanced. In fact, in Bali Ram Sharma’s case (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 (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 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 (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. [JT 2009 (11) SC 134]. This Court followed the judgments in Karan Singh’s case (supra) and Bali Ram Sharma’s case (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 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.
***********
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 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. [JT 1994 (6) SC 182 : 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)].
(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 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 [JT 2004 (6) SC 422 : 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 [JT 1997 (8) SC 257 : 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 Dallupura, Kondli and Gharoli have been held to be identically circumstanced. In fact, in Bali Ram Sharma’s case (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 (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 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 (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. [JT 2009 (11) SC 134]. This Court followed the judgments in Karan Singh’s case (supra) and Bali Ram Sharma’s case (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 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.
***********
