Supreme CourtDivision Bench(1995) 11 SC CK 0133

Pehlad Singh and Another vs Union of India (UOI)

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 21 November 1995 · Citation: (1995) 8 JT 498 : (1995) 6 SCALE 697(1) : (1995) 6 SCALE 697 : (1996) 1 SCC 310 : (1995) 5 SCR 532 Supp

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. S. Paripoornan, J · K. Ramaswamy, J
RESULT
dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No''s. 128 and 171 of 1985

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 324 words
1.

The notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published on March 8, 1957 for planned development of Delhi. The lands acquired for the development are 8.40 acres out of which the land Appellants are small in extent. In Justice A.S. Bhandari v. Union of India, (LPA No. 81 of 1979) decided on May 1, 1980, the Division Bench of the High Court determined the market-value at Rs. 10 per square yard, i.e., Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. The appellant, aggrieved by that, filed this appeal. The only question is whether it is a fit case to enhance the compensation to Rs. 12/- per square yard, i.e., Rs. 12,000/- per bigha as claimed by the appellant. Sri Juneja, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the lands in Justice Bhandari's case are brick-kiln land while the lands of appellant are agricultural lands. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to higher compensation. It is further contended that the notification u/s 4(1) was quashed in subsequent proceedings which was ultimately upheld on November 8, 1968. No further notification u/s 4(1) was published. Had it been so published, further increase of the compensation at Rs. 12/- per square yard would be just and fair compensation. Having given consideration to the contention of Shri Juneja, we find it difficult to accept the same. On the facts, evidence relied in Justice Bhandari's case is a sale deed of 560 square yards in which admittedly the market-value was fixed at Rs. 12/- per square yard. Since it is a small exteat of land, which formed the basis of the case to determine compensation at Rs. 10/- per square yard, the same price would not commend when large extent of land is offered for sale to a willing purchaser. Keeping that yard-stick in view, we think that it is not a fit case for further increase.

2.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without costs.