Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • — Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate.
  • — Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate.
Judges
  • Mr. Justice Devinder Gupta
  • Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • — Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate.
  • — Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate.
Judges
  • Mr. Justice Devinder Gupta
  • Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Devinder Gupta, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This set of appeals arises under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Land in village Dallupura was notified for acquisition under Section 4 by two different notifications dated 17.11.1980 and 24.11.1981 for planned development of Delhi. The Collector made awards: Award No. 79/82-83 (dated 9.3.1983) offering Rs. 12,500 per bigha for land under the 17.11.1980 notification, and Award No. 6/85-86 (dated 4.5.1986) offering Rs. 12,000 per bigha for land under the 24.11.1981 notification. The claimants sought references. Reference Courts, by separate awards, enhanced compensation variably — in many cases to Rs. 76,550 per bigha and in some to Rs. 13,500 per bigha. The claimants filed appeals for further enhancement; the Union of India filed appeals in a limited number of cases seeking reduction (urging compensation ought to be Rs. 30,000 per bigha). The Court was called upon to determine the correct market value / compensation and related monetary consequences (solatium, additional amount, interest), and to adjudicate the appeals filed by both claimants and the Union.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. What is the fair market value / correct compensation payable for the land in village Dallupura acquired under the notifications dated 17.11.1980 and 24.11.1981?
  2. Whether parity must be maintained in awarding compensation for similarly situated adjoining lands acquired under the same notification and, if so, whether the rate fixed in other awards (notably Rs. 76,550 per bigha and Rs. 345 per sq. yard in related cases) governs the present claims?
  3. Whether the Union of India can challenge the enhanced awards in the limited appeals it has filed when it did not challenge identical awards in numerous other, similarly situated cases (i.e., whether the Union is precluded from contesting the higher rate by its prior inaction)?
  4. What ancillary monetary payments are payable on the enhanced award: solatium, additional amount under the Act, and interest (rates and periods)?

Arguments of the Parties

Claimants' Arguments

  • The claimants relied principally on this Court's decision in Anil Kumar Sharma and Others v. Union of India (RFA 601/92, reported as 85 (2000) DLT 825) which fixed fair market value for village Kondli at Rs. 345 per sq. yard as on 17.11.1980 and 25.2.1981. They argued parity with Kondli and that Dallupura was as good as or superior to Kondli.
  • They stressed that village Dallupura was superior in regard to location and potentiality (bounded by pucca roads, Hindon Canal, proximate to Noida Industrial Complex and DDA building activities), and therefore deserved at least the same rate as fixed in Anil Kumar Sharma's case if not a higher rate.

Respondent's (Union of India / State) Arguments

  • The Union relied heavily on Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India (1994 (55) DLT 511), which this Court allowed compensation at Rs. 76,550 per bigha for lands in village Gharoli acquired under 17.11.1980; that decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court (1997 (8) SCC 186). The Union contended that Gharoli's rate (Rs. 76,550 per bigha) was a firmly established market value and should govern similar lands.
  • The Union sought to distinguish Anil Kumar Sharma on the basis that its determination relied on sale instances from Jhilmil Tahirpur which was far away from Dallupura; thus, Anil Kumar Sharma's basis was not directly applicable.
  • In a subset of appeals (six), the Union urged that compensation should be limited to Rs. 30,000 per bigha (challenging amounts granted above that level).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Anil Kumar Sharma and Others v. Union of India, RFA 601/92, 85 (2000) DLT 825 Established fair market value for village Kondli at Rs. 345 per sq. yard as on 17.11.1980 and 25.2.1981; considered sale instances and potentiality, and compared Dallupura and Kondli. The Court accepted and relied upon this decision as a guiding factor and held that claimants in the present case are entitled to compensation at Rs. 345 per sq. yard (at least), applying its reasonings to Dallupura.
Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union of India, 1994 (55) DLT 511; affirmed by Supreme Court 1997 (8) SCC 186 Held fair market value of village Gharoli at Rs. 76,550 per bigha for lands acquired on 17.11.1980; established a high compensation rate for Gharoli which was affirmed on appeal. The Court considered this decision (and its Supreme Court affirmation) as relied on by respondents but concluded that Anil Kumar Sharma contained additional material and reasoning which justified departing from adopting the Gharoli rate for Dallupura.
Krapa Rangiah v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, (1982) 2 SC 374 When higher rate is awarded in a subsequent claim for adjoining land acquired under the same notification, and areas are comparable with same situation/potentiality, the same rate must be awarded (parity principle). The Court invoked this principle of parity to support awarding to claimants the same or comparable rate as determined in related decisions where lands were comparable and acquired under the same notification.
Nand Ram and Others v. The State of Haryana, JT 1988(4) SC 260 State cannot refuse to pay similar compensation for lands acquired under the same notification when similarly situated lands have already been awarded higher compensation. The Court cited this authority to reinforce the parity and non-discrimination principle in compensation for similarly situated lands acquired under the same notification.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Narayanaswamappa (dead) through Lrs. and Others — Civil Appeal No. 1667-85/83 (order dated 28.9.1994) Applied parity in compensation: awarded to claimants in adjoining village the same rate as fixed for contiguous village Karkardooma where acquisition was under same notification and comparable situation. The Court cited this order to support the approach of maintaining parity where villages are comparable and acquisitions were under the same notification for the same public purpose.
Madan Lal Thapar v. Union of India — Civil Appeals No. 3842-43/82 (29.11.1991) Supreme Court determination of compensation rates for lands in village Karkardooma (used in subsequent parity reasoning). Cited in relation to the Narayanaswamappa order showing the Supreme Court's earlier determinations being applied to adjoining villages for parity.
Mangtoo @ Mangoo v. Union of India & Ors, 78 (1999) DLT 723-(DR) Where two contiguous revenue estates/villages have same/similar location and potentiality, there is no reason not to allow the same market value absent distinguishing material. This Court's prior application of the parity principle was cited to support awarding the same market value to Dallupura claimants.
Bhag Singh and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 1576 Constitution Bench: State must pay compensation on basis of market value; once market value is held higher in one case, others similarly situated should not be denied that benefit (anti-discrimination). The Court relied on this Constitution Bench reiteration to uphold parity and to prevent discrimination by the State in paying different rates for similarly situated lands.
Kapur Chand Jain (dead) and others v. State Government of H.P and Others, (1999) 2 SCC 89 Addresses whether interest is payable on solatium (reference made to possible Supreme Court determination on this point). The Court directed that, if the Supreme Court in that reference holds interest payable on solatium, the claimants in the present case shall also be paid such interest; thus the decision conditions a component of monetary relief on that reference.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded in several discrete steps, each grounded in facts and binding or persuasive authorities cited in the opinion:

  1. Preliminary procedural/estoppel reasoning: The Court observed that the Union of India's failure to challenge awards in numerous similarly situated cases (where compensation was fixed at Rs. 76,550 per bigha) implied acceptance of that rate in those cases. The Court found that such inaction precluded the Union from contesting the higher valuation in the six appeals it had filed; accordingly those six appeals were dismissed on that basis.
  2. Factual review of Collector's findings: The Court summarized the Collector's observations on the topography and surroundings of Dallupura — proximity to Noida Industrial Complex, pucca roads on multiple sides, Hindon Canal, adjacency to DDA activities — all indicating enhanced potentiality and marketability of the acquired land. The Collector had compared Dallupura with Kondli and had used prior sale transactions (including one from 10.7.1980 and an earlier 1974 transaction) as guiding data.
  3. Reference Court's approach: The Court noted that the Reference Court had accepted parity with other awards (notably LAC No. 142/90 and LAC No. 144/90) which had fixed compensation at Rs. 76,550 per bigha, concluding the lands were similarly situated and thus applying that rate to Dallupura.
  4. Precedential comparison and choice: The claimants relied on the Anil Kumar Sharma decision fixing Kondli at Rs. 345 per sq. yard. The respondents relied on Karan Singh fixing Gharoli at Rs. 76,550 per bigha (affirmed by the Supreme Court). The Court examined both precedents carefully, noting that Anil Kumar Sharma contained additional material (sale instances, schedules of rates, locality comparisons) and had applied those to hold Kondli at Rs. 345 per sq. yard. The Court found Anil Kumar Sharma's reasoning persuasive and binding for present purposes.
  5. Application of parity principle: The Court relied on Supreme Court and High Court authorities (Krapa Rangiah, Nand Ram, Narayanaswamappa order, Mangtoo, Bhag Singh) emphasizing that where lands are acquired under the same notification, are contiguous or similarly situated and comparable in potentiality, parity in compensation must be maintained and discrimination avoided.
  6. Conclusion on compensation quantum and monetary incidents: Applying Anil Kumar Sharma and the parity principle, and in the absence of material distinguishing Dallupura from Kondli, the Court concluded the claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs. 345 per sq. yard (irrespective of classification). The Court then specified solatium (30% on enhanced amount), additional amount (12% from date of publication of notification under Section 4 to date of award or Collector taking possession, whichever earlier), interest (9% p.a. for one year and 15% p.a. thereafter until payment), and a conditional direction to pay interest on solatium if the Supreme Court in the Kapur Chand Jain reference holds it payable.
  7. Miscellaneous procedural direction: The Court directed drawing of the decree sheet subject to claimants making good any deficiency in court fees within four weeks.

Holding and Implications

CORE RULING: The appeals of the claimants are allowed; the appeals filed by the Union of India are dismissed.

Direct Effects on the Parties:

  • The claimants are awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 345 per sq. yard for land in village Dallupura (irrespective of classification).
  • In addition to the enhanced compensation, claimants shall receive:
    • Solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation;
    • An additional amount of 12% on the market value from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 to the date of award or the date of Collector taking possession, whichever is earlier;
    • Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at 9% p.a. for one year and thereafter at 15% p.a. until payment;
    • If the Supreme Court in Kapur Chand Jain (1999) 2 SCC 89 holds interest payable on solatium, claimants will also be paid such interest.
  • Union of India's limited challenges (six appeals) are dismissed; additionally, the Court found Union's prior inaction vis-à-vis many identical awards amounted to acceptance/estoppel and justified dismissal of those appeals challenging amounts above Rs. 30,000 per bigha.
  • Decree sheet to be drawn subject to claimants making good any court-fee deficiency within four weeks.

Broader Implications: The judgment applies and reaffirms established parity principles from Supreme Court and High Court authorities: where lands are acquired under the same notification and are similarly situated and comparable in potentiality, parity in compensation is mandated and discrimination by the State in paying unequal compensation to similarly situated claimants is impermissible. The opinion applies existing precedents rather than purporting to lay down a novel legal principle.

Show full summary ...

    Shri Rattan Lal & Ors. v. Union Of India

    Devinder Gupta, J.:— Appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the claimants are for further enhancement in the amount of compensation. Appeals by Union of India are for reduction in the amount of compensation.

    2. Land acquired through two different notifications under Section 4 of the Act on 17.11.1980 and 24.11.1981 is the subject matter of the appeals. On 17.11.1980 by notification issued under Section 4 of the Act land situate in village Dallupura was sought to be acquired at public expense for public purpose, namely, planned development of Delhi. It was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was made on 29.9.1981 The Collector, Land Acquisition made his award No. 79/82-83 on 9.3.1983 offering amount of compensation to the claimants at a rate of Rs. 12,500/- per bigha.

    3. Another notification dated 24.11.1981 was issued under Section 4 of the Act notifying more land situate in village Dallupura for being acquired at public expense for the same public purpose for which declaration was made on 25.5.1985 The Collector, Land Acquisition made his award No. 6/85-86 on 4.5.1986 offering compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per bigha. Felt aggrieved with the amount of compensation offered to them, the claimants sought references.

    4. The reference Courts answered the references by separate awards. In one set of cases, the reference court held the claimants entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,500/- per bigha with respect to the land, which was acquired through notification dated 17.11.1980 In the remaining cases, in which land was acquired through the same notification dated 17.11.1980 the Reference Courts enhanced the amount of compensation holding the fair market value to be Rs. 76,550/- per bigha. Only in one case in which land was acquired through second notification dated 24.11.1981, the Reference Court answered the reference holding the claimants entitled to compensation also at the rate of Rs. 76,550/-per bigha.

    5. Claimants in the said case in which land was acquired through notification dated 17.11.1980 have preferred an appeal (RFA.No 432/94) seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation. Separate appeal (RFA No. 423/94) has been filled by Union of India in that case seeking reduction in the amount of compensation. Other appeals pertain to the land, which was acquired through notification dated 17.11.1980

    6. As noticed above, 32 appeals are those in which the claimants have sought enhancement in the amount of compensation. The Reference Court allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 76,550/- per bigha. It is significant to note that only 5 appeals have been preferred by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation. Thus there are only 6 appeals preferred by Union of India seeking reduction in the amount of compensation urging that the compensation ought to have been allowed only at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per bigha. Thus the challenge in six appeals is for the amount of compensation awarded over and above Rs 30,000/-per bigha.

    7. At the very outset, we may observe that the very act of Union of India in not questioning the determination of the amount of compensation in the other cases, in which compensation has been determined in favour of the claimants at the rate of Rs. 76,550/- per bigha is sufficient to dismiss its six appeals. This act of Union of India would lead to drawing of an inference that in those case where appeals have not been filed it accepts the fair market value at Rs. 76,550/- per bigha. By this act Union of India will be precluded from making challenge that the market value is less than Rs. 76,550/- per bigha. It will thus be presumed that in cases where appeals have not been filed, where land is similarly situate having same and similar potentiality, having been acquired through the same notification for the same public purpose, the Government accepts valuation at one particular rate i.e Rs. 76,550/- per bigha. The Government will be deemed to have accepted the award or at least a fact that the same was the fair market rate of land as on 17.11.1980 and for that reason the six appeals filed by Union of India must fail and are hereby dismissed.

    8. Collector, Land Acquisition has in his award noticed the topography of the acquired land situate in village Dullupura. He noticed that a Pucca Road from Hindon Canal to Noida Industrial Complex (U.P) passes through the North side of the land under acquisition. Towards south-east a Pucca Road also divides the territorial boundaries of village Dallupura and Harola, District Bulundashahr, U.P in the south boundaries of village Chilla-Saroda-Bangar touches the land under acquisition and Hindon Canal passes through the western side of the land. He also noticed that being adjacent to Noida, a big industrial complex in U.P the importance of land had gone up and its potentiality for housing or for factory purposes had also increased. He also noticed that the land under acquisition was bounded by Noida Industrial Complex, Pucca Road, Hindon Canal and village Abadi of Dallupura. Therefore, it could fetch higher market value. On three sides the land was found to be bounded with Pucca Roads. In his award the Collector also noticed that some area of village Kondli was also acquired earlier through notification dated 8.4.1979 Another area in the same village had been acquired prior thereto in April, 1973. The Collector in his award No. 80/82-83 of village Kondli, which was acquired through notification dated 17.1.1980 made observations regarding situation was potential value of land of village Kondli vis-a-vis village Dallupura and fixed the market value of land in village Kondli by relying on the pieces of evidence relatable to village Dallupura after observing that the land of village Dallupura is better located and had better potentiality than the acquired land in village Kondli. In Award No. 80/82-83 the Collector Land Acquisition compared the land of villages Dallupura with that of Kondli as follows:

    “In order to arrive at the fair and reasonable market value of the land under acquisition prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4 i.e 17.11.80, we can take help of sale transaction dated 14.2.74 involving the land bearing khasra Nos. 221 and 2228 total measuring 5 bighas for Rs. 30,000/- and average of which comes to Rs. 6,000/- per bigha. The area of above transaction is located towards the North of village Abadi of Kondli and is the part of the present scheme of acquisition. Since then this area has gained great importance by coining up of Noida Industrial and residential complex of U.P which is quite adjacent to the land under acquisition. Now this land has special adoptability for housing or factory purposes so it could also not be a safe base to arrive at correct and fair market vale of the land under acquisition. Some interested persons also filed a sale transaction pertaining to Khasra No. 294/1, measurinjg 2 bighas 14 biswas for Rs. 35,000/- on 10.7.1980 in the adjacent village of Dallupara, the average sale per bigha comes to Rs. 12,962.96 p. though the involved in the sale transaction is situated above one k.m far from the land under acquisition, yet both the land has similarity in fertilizers and nature only slight difference is of potentiality of building purpose, the land of village Dallupura has gained good importance of coming up Noida complex in U.P and building activities of DDA in village Chilla Saroda Bangar. But it could be a guiding factor in arriving at fair and correct market value of the land under acquisition.”

    9. The Reference Court by the impugned award in LAC No. 511/93 out of which RFA 338/94 has arisen, while determining the market value, found as a matter of fact that the claimants land is similar to the land of village Kondli and Gharoli in terms of potentiality, quality and situation, which was acquired through notification dated 17.1.1980 The three villages fall in a straight line in close proximity to each other touching the boundary of one village with other. However, the Reference Court based his award by placing reliance upon another award rendered in LAC No. 142/90 (Ex. A. 21) which reference had arisen out of award No. 30/82-83 of village Kondli in which land had been acquired through notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 17.11.1980 for the same public purpose. He also placed reliance upon another award in LAC No. 144/90 relating to village Gharoli (Ex. A-21A) in which also the land had been acquired under Section 4 of the Act through the same notification issued on 17.11.1980 and for the same public purpose. In both these cases compensation had been awarded at the rate of Rs. 76,550/- per bigha. Relying upon these two awards, the Reference Court, after having concluded that the lands were similarly situate having same potentiality also proceeded to hold the fair market value at Rs. 76,550/- per bigha for all categories of land situate in village Dallupura.

    10. Claimants have based their entire case for further enhancement in the amount of compensation on a judgment of this Court in R.F.A 601/92 (Anil Kumar Sharma and Others v. Union of India), reported as 85 (2000) DLT 825. This Court held the fair market value of land situate in village Kondli to be at the rate of Rs. 345/- per sq. yard as on 17.11.1980 and 25.2.1981 Three cases were disposed of by a common judgment delivered in Anil Kumr Sharma's case (supra). Two appeals were filed by Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, namely, RFA Nos. 601 and 603 of 1992. Cross objections were filed by Bali Ram Sharma (RFA. 604/92). Land was situate in village Kondli and was acquired through two separate notifications issued on 17.11.1980 and 25.2.1981 In the cases in hand the land situate in village Dallupura was acquired through two notifications issued on 17.11.1980 and on 24.11.1981 Claimants uged that since the Land Acquisition Collector had assessed same market value for the lands situate at villages Kondli and Dallupura and the Reference Court also made determination on the same reasonings by allowing the same market value, which had been allowed for the lands situate at village Kondli, therefore, there is no reason why the claimants/appellants be not paid amount of compensation at the same rate of Rs. 345/- per sq. yard, if not more. It was urged that the land situate at village Dallupura was far superior than the land situate at village Kondli in all respets Land was bounded by Pucca Road, Hindon Canal and village Abadi of village Dallupura. Land of village Dallupura as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act has gained importance with the coming up of Noida complex in U.P Building activities of Delhi Development Authority in village Chilla Saroda Bangar being this the admitted position compensation deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, by placing reliance heavily on the decision of this Court in Karan Singh & Ors. v. Union Of India.. 1994 (55) DLT 511 urged that Karan Singh and others had preferred appeal to this Court seeking further enhancement in the amount of compensation. Subject matter in the said case was the determination of compensation payable for lands situate in village Gharoli acquired through notification dated 17.11.1980 Thus Court in that case allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 76,550/- per bigha. Award of the reference court Ex. A-21A was that in Karan Singh's case (supra), which was considered in the impugned award by the Reference Court. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the decision of this Court was affirmed by Supreme Court in Karan Singh and Others v. Union of India 1997 (8) SCC 186. Thus rate of village Gharoli thus having finally been determined by Division Bench of this Court and having been affirmed by Supreme Court, it can safely be said that as on 17.11.1980 the fair market rate of land of village Gharoli was Rs. 76,550/- per bigha. Thus there is no reason for further enhancement being allowed in favour of the appellants merely on the ground that for village Kondli compensation has been assessed by this Court at Rs. 345/- per sq. yard. He tried to distinguish the decision in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) contending that determination in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) was made on the basis of sale instance of village Jhilmil Tahirpur, which was far awary from village Dallupura.

    11. We have given our due consideration to the submissions made at the bar. There is no dispute that the three villages adjoin each other, Gharoli lies towards North East side of village Dallupuar and Kondli. Determination of the market value, in so far as village Gharoli is concerned was earlier in point of time when Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) had not yet been decided and needless to add that in Anil Kumar Shama's case (supra) decision of this Court in Karan Singh's case (supra) though was referred but was not relied upon either by the claimants or by the respondents. Karan Singh's case (supra) was decided by this Court on 11.8.1994 The same finally stood decided by Supreme Court in 1997 whereas Anil Kumar Sharma's case was decided on 21.7.2000 We have gone through the two decisions, namely, one on which reliance is placed by the appellants and the other on which reliance is placed by the respondent. In addition to the material, which had been considered in Karan Singh's case (supra) additional material had been brought on record in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra), which were duly taken note of. Determination was not made solely on the basis of the material, which was available in Karan Singh's case (supra). One of the instances relied upon in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) was the sale pertaining to the land in village Kondli itself wherein fair market rate as on 1976 in village Kondli was found to have been in the vicinity of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard. Instances pertaining to village Dallupura were also duty taken note of and it was observed that village Dallupura, though is not far away but the lands of village Dallupura were comparable to the acquired land in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) and ought to have been taken as the base for determination of the market value payable for the lands of village Kondli. Schedule of rate as notified by Government of India, Ministery of Works, Housing and Urban Development were also taken note of. Taking into consideration the potentiality, location and other relevant factors in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) it was held that the fair market of land situate at village Kondli as on 17.11.1980 and 25.2.1981 was at the rate of Rs. 345/- per sq. yard. It is not disputed that till date decision of this Court rendered in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) holds good. As such, there is no reason why Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) be not relied upon since we fully agree with the reasonings adopted in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra) and in our view that must be guiding factor in determining the amount of compensation in the instance case. There are other reasons also in doing so.

    12. In Krapa Rangiah v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, (1982) 2 SC 374, it was held that when higher rate is awarded by High Court in a subsequent claim for adjoining land acquired under the same notification under which the land of claimants was acquired, area being comparable and situation being same in both cases, same rate for acquisition of land must be awarded. In para 3 of the judgment, reason has been assigned that the area being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the plots having been acquired under the self same notification for Housing Scheme same rate of compensation should be awarded to all the claimants. In other words, parity in the amount of compensation, when lands are acquired in the same village and the adjoining village, same being comparable, the situation also being same and similar and area having same potentiality, deserves to be maintained. Not maintaining parity in the matter of paying compensation when land is acquired by the State would amount to discrimination.

    13. In Nand Ram and Others v. The State of Haryana, JT 1988(4) SC 260 it was held that the State cannot refuse to pay, in respect of lands acquired under the same notification, similar compensation as is awarded to the land owner, whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date.

    14. Same principles were again applied by Supreme Court in CA 3538/98 and in Civil Appeal arising in SLP(C) 10188/85 and 9027/85 by a common order passed in Civil Appeal No. 1667-85/83 (The Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Narayanaswamappa (dead) through Lrs. and Others, on 28.9.1994 in those appeals question had arisen about payment of compensation for land acquired in village Ghazipur. Village Ghazipur was held to be adjoining to village Karkardooma. Noticing the rates at which compensation had been allowed to the claimants whose lands were situate in village Karkardooma, as was determined by Supreme Court in Madan Lal Thapar v. Union of India. Civil Appeals No. 3842-43/82 decided on 29.11.1991, Supreme Court ordered compensation to be paid at the same rate to the claimants whose lands were situated in village Ghazipur, which had been acquired for same public purpose under the same notification on the ground that lands were comparable, situation are same and land had been acquired under the same notification for same public purpose.

    15. This Court has also followed the same principle of maintaining parity in the matter of awarding compensation, when it is noticed that under the same notification land is acquired in adjoining villages. In Mangtoo @ Mangoo v. Union Of India & Ors, 78(1999) DLT 723-(DR) it was held that when two revenue estates or villages are contiguous to each other having same and similar location and potentiality, there is no reason by not allowing the same market value to the claimants especially when no material is brought on record that there is any distinguishing feature or any reason that why different compensation be allowed.

    16. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Bhag Singh and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 1576 has reiterated the principle that the State is bound to pay, to the claimants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired and once it is held in a particular case that the market value is higher, there is no reason why the other claimants should be denied benefit of the payment of market value so determined. To deny this benefit to the claimants would tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire the land of the claimants on payment of less than the true market value. In other words, paying less amount of compensation to the claimants than the actual market value and allowing it to some other claimants would be discriminatory.

    17. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that in the absence of any other material brought to our notice, the claimants are entitled to compensation, if not, higher than at least at the rate of Rs. 345/- per sq. yard. as has been allowed by this Court in Anil Kumar Sharma's case (supra). Consequently, the appeals of claimants are allowed with proportionate costs. The Claimants are held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 345/- per sq. yard irrespective of classification of land. Decree sheet will be drawn, subject to the claimants making good deficiency of court fee, if any, within a period of four weeks from today. In addition to the enhanced amount of compensation at the aforementioned rate, the claimants will be paid solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and additional amount of 12% on the market value from the date of publication of notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4-of the Act from the date of award or the date of Collector taking possession, whichever is earlier. Claimants shall also be paid interest at the rate of 9% p.a for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a till the date of payment, on the enhanced amount of compensation. In case interest is held payable on colatium by the Supreme Court in the reference, which has been made in Kapur Chand Jain (dead) and others v. State Government of H.P and Others (1999) 2 SCC 89, the claimants will also be paid such interest. Appeals of Union of India stand dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Shri Rattan Lal & Ors. v. Union Of India
    (Aug 24, 2001)