Page 1

CA NOS. ….. OF 2017 @ SLP (C) NOS. 3726-3728 OF 2016

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4295-4297 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.3726-3728 of 2016)

ALI  MOHAMMAD BEIGH AND ORS.                              …Appellants

Versus

STATE OF J & K                        ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and order

dated  24.09.2013  and  15.05.2015  passed  by  the  High  Court  of

Jammu  and  Kashmir  at  Srinagar  dismissing  CIA No.211 of  2009

along with  Cross Appeal  No.64  of  2011 and Review Petition  Civil

No. 07 of 2013 affirming the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal

awarded to the appellants by the Reference Court.

3. Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as follows:

Notification dated 16.06.1997 was issued by the Collector, Lakes and

Waterways  Development  Authority  (LAWDA),  Srinagar  vide

Page No. 1 of 10

Page 2

CA NOS. ….. OF 2017 @ SLP (C) NOS. 3726-3728 OF 2016

No.C-LDA/452-64,  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Jammu and Kashmir

Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of land measuring 505 Kanal

06 Marlas situated at Chandapora, Tehsil and District Srinagar, for the

construction and development of housing colony for the resettlement

of  dislocated families  of  the Dal  dwellers.  On 01.06.1999,  a  Final

Award  was  passed  by  the  Collector,  LAWDA,  Srinagar  under  the

Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act vide No. G-LDA 293-98 in

respect  of  land  measuring  505  Kanal  06  Marlas  situated  at

Chandapora,  Tehsil  and  District  Srinagar.  The  Land  Acquisition

Officer  assessed  the  compensation  amount  payable  to  the

applicants/estate  holders  at  the  rate  of  Rs.1,50,000/-  per  Kanal

Abi-Bagh, Rs.1,40,000/- per Kanal for Abi-Awal and Rs.1,30,000/-  for

Gair-Mumkin.    On 01.06.1999,  Collector  passed  the  Final  Award

fixing  compensation  rates:  (i)  Abi-Bagh  irrigated  Orchard  land   

(Rs.1.50 lacs per Kanal); (ii) Abi-Awal  agricultural land (Rs.1.40 lacs   

per Kanal);  and (iii)  Gair-Mumkin   Barren land (Rs.1.30 lacs per   

Kanal).  

4. Being  aggrieved  by  the  compensation  awarded  by  the

Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar, the appellants sought reference to the

District Judge/Reference Court to establish their claims for enhanced

Page No. 2 of 10

Page 3

CA NOS. ….. OF 2017 @ SLP (C) NOS. 3726-3728 OF 2016

compensation.   The  Reference  Court  vide judgment  dated

31.10.2008 held that the appellants are entitled to get compensation

of Rs.2,50,000/-  per Kanal and also awarded compensation to the

tune of Rs.10,000/- per Kanal on account of fencing.

5. Feeling  aggrieved  by  the  compensation  awarded  by  the

Reference Court, State filed appeal CIA No.211 of 2009.  Claimants

have  filed  Cross  Appeal  bearing  No.64  of  2011,  seeking

enhancement of compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal.  The High

Court dismissed the State’s appeal.  The Cross Appeal filed by the

appellants  was also dismissed by the High Court  holding that  the

appellants  have not  led any evidence which could  have been the

basis for enhancing compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal as has

been done in other cases. The review petition filed by the appellants

also came to be dismissed.  Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their

Cross Appeal and the review, the appellants have filed these appeals.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the case of

Reference No.5 of  2002 titled  Shamim Ahmed Dar and Ors. vs.

Collector, LAWDA,  the Reference Court  granted compensation at

the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal for the acquired land situated in

the  same  village  Chandapora  where  the  acquired  land  of  the

Page No. 3 of 10

Page 4

CA NOS. ….. OF 2017 @ SLP (C) NOS. 3726-3728 OF 2016

appellants was also situated and while so the Reference Court erred

in not granting the same rate of compensation, that is at the rate of

Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal to the appellants.  Learned counsel further

contended that Reference Court was not right in discriminating the

appellants  by  granting  compensation  to  them  only  at  the  rate  of

Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal while in the case of adjacent land owners

compensation has been fixed at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal.  

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent–State submitted

that  the  appellants  have  failed  to  adduce evidence  to  justify  their

claim qua compensation to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- granted to the

land owners.  On the contrary, it was submitted that the land owners

in  Reference  No.5  whose  compensation  has  been  enhanced  to

Rs.4,00,000/-  have  proved  their  case  by  adducing  evidence  in

support of the said enhanced compensation.  It was urged that the

case of the appellants can in no way be compared with Reference

No.5 and other cases inasmuch as in the said reference, land owners

have clearly proved the rate at Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal as per the

market rate and the High Court rightly dismissed the Cross Appeal of

the appellants and the impugned judgment warrants no interference.   

Page No. 4 of 10

Page 5

CA NOS. ….. OF 2017 @ SLP (C) NOS. 3726-3728 OF 2016

8. We have  carefully  considered  the  rival  contentions  and  also

perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.

9. Admittedly,  the  land  measuring  65  Kanal  ½  Marla  of  the

appellants herein comprising of Khasra Nos. 115, 363/118, 179, 155,

197, 155, 90, 157, 100, 372/112, 102, 172, 173, 14 4 Min, 198, 148

and  194  covered  by  Reference  No.15/2002  was  acquired  for  the

purpose of resettlement of Dal dwellers  in the year 1997-1999.  In or

about the same time, the lands adjacent to the land of the appellants

in Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora were also acquired

for  the  same  purpose  of  resettlement  of  Dal  dwellers  by  various

references.   Comparative table of the details of acquisition of lands

of  the  appellants  and  the  other  land  acquired  in  Chandapora,

Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora is as under:

Village S.4(1) Notification

S.6 Declaration

Final Award Reference Court Award

Chandapor a

10.01.1997 02.06.1997 01.06.1999 Reference  No.15/2002  DOA 31.10.2008  Reference  No.5/2002  DOA 03.11.2008

Bhagi-Chan dapora

24.06.1997 05.07.1997 01.06.1999 Reference  1/2003 6/2002 DOA 03.11.2009

Pazwalpora 16.06.1997 05.07.1997 14.07.1999 Reference No.7/2002  DOA 03.11.2009

Page No. 5 of 10

Page 6

CA NOS. ….. OF 2017 @ SLP (C) NOS. 3726-3728 OF 2016

10. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  has  drawn  our  attention

towards the fact that the villages of Chandapora, Bhagichandapora

and Pazwalpora  are  situated  adjacent  to  each  other  and  share  a

common  border/boundary  with  each  other.  The  inter  se distance

between  these  villages  is  not  much,  however,  centre  to  centre

distance between these villages is less than half a kilometre.  The

learned  counsel  has  also  drawn  our  attention  to  the  Site  Plan

showing inter se location of these villages and the land acquired there

from by the Collector, LAWDA, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir in the

year 1999, for the public purpose of re-settlement of Dal dwellers,

which was obtained under the Right  to Information Act,  2005 [RTI

Act].  In response to the information sought by the appellants under

the RTI Act, communication dated 08.12.2015 was sent stating that

the  villages  of  Chandapora,  Bhagichandpora  and  Pazwalpora  are

situated  adjacent  to  each  other  and  shared  a  common

border/boundary with each other.  The Site Plan showing the location

of  the  villages  of  Chandapora,  Bhagichandpora  and  Pazwalporas

also fortifies the information furnished that the above three villages

are  situated  adjacent  to  each  other  and  share  a  common

border/boundary with each other.   

Page No. 6 of 10

Page 7

CA NOS. ….. OF 2017 @ SLP (C) NOS. 3726-3728 OF 2016

11. In  cases  of  acquisition  of  land  in  Bhagichandpora  and

Pazwalpora  in  Reference  Nos.1/2003,  6/2002  and  7/2002,  the

Reference  Court,  after  referring  to  the  evidence  adduced  by  the

claimants thereon and also after referring to assessment of market

rate  by  Tehsildar  at  Rs.4,00,000/-  per  Kanal,  held  that  the  land

owners are entitled to compensation for the acquired land at the rate

of Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal with solatium (Jabirana) at the rate of 15%

apart from interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation

in excess to the sum awarded by the Collector, LAWDA.

12. As  noted  earlier,  village  Chandapora  is  situated  adjacent  to

villages  Bhagichandpora  and  Pazwalpora;  while  so,  there  was  no

reason  why  the  Reference  Court  differentiated  the  land  of  the

appellants-land  owners  of  the  acquired  land  in  Chandapora  land

Reference  No.15/2002  by  awarding  lesser  compensation  of

Rs.2,50,000/-.  On a perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court

in  Reference  No.15  of  2002,  it  is  seen  that  the  witnesses  were

examined by the appellants to substantiate their case that the market

rate of the land in village Chandapora in the year 1998 was about

Rs.8,00,000/-  per  Kanal.  Though  the  Tehsildar  of  the  area

recommended Rs.2,50,000/-  per  Kanal,  the witnesses have stated

Page No. 7 of 10

Page 8

CA NOS. ….. OF 2017 @ SLP (C) NOS. 3726-3728 OF 2016

that the compensation fixed by Tehsildar was not reliable and  not

based on any material.  The appellants have also produced a sale

deed by one Mr. Bansilal under which he sold a small strip of land

measuring 1360 sq. feet in the vicinity of the acquired land for an

amount  of  Rs.1,00,000/-.  But  the  Reference  Court  discarded  the

evidence of witness Bansilal on the ground that under the sale deed

only a small area of land was sold and the sale deed cannot be taken

to be a representative character of the entire land.  In our view, the

Reference Court was not right in discarding the said sale deed which

was supported by oral evidence of the witnesses, to substantiate their

claim that the market rate assessed by the Tehsildar at Rs.2,50,000/-

was not a fair compensation.

13. When the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the

acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the

same purpose, it  would not be proper to discriminate between the

land owners unless there are strong reasons.  In Union of India vs.

Bal Ram and Another (2010) 5 SCC 747, this Court held that if the

purpose of acquisition is same and when the lands are identical and

similar  though lying in  different  villages,  there is  no justification to

make any discrimination between the land owners to pay more to

Page No. 8 of 10

Page 9

CA NOS. ….. OF 2017 @ SLP (C) NOS. 3726-3728 OF 2016

some of the land owners and less compensation to others.  The same

was the view taken in  Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and

Others. (2005) 12 SCC 564, where this Court held as under:-

“15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we see no justification to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market  value  of  the  lands  forming  the  subject-matter  of  the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the  area  in  question,  it  appears  to  us  that  while  the  lands  in question  are  situated  in  five  different  villages,  they  can  be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch  of  land  and  another.  The  entire  area  is  in  a  stage  of development  and  the  different  villages  are  capable  of  being developed in  the  same manner  as  the  lands comprised in  Kala Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to interfere with the same.

16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the market value of the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur which were acquired at the same time as the lands in the other five villages  was  correctly  taken  to  be  a  comparative  unit  for determination of the market value of the lands comprising the lands forming  the  subject-matter  of  the  acquisition  proceedings  under consideration…….”

14. When the lands are acquired at the same time and for the same

purpose that is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the lands situated in

three  different  villages  namely,  Chandapora,  Bhagichandpora  and

Pazwalpora, and since the land is similar land, it would be unfair to

discriminate between the land owners and other references and the

appellants who are the land owners in Reference No.15 and pay less

Page No. 9 of 10

Page 10

CA NOS. ….. OF 2017 @ SLP (C) NOS. 3726-3728 OF 2016

that  is Rs.2,50,000/-  per Kanal to the appellants and pay more to

other  land  owners  that  is  Rs.4,00,000/-  per  Kanal.   Impugned

judgments of the High Court in CIA No. 211/2009 and Cross Appeal

No. 64/2011 are to be set aside by enhancing the compensation to

Rs.4,00,000  per  Kanal.   As  a  sequel  to  this,  the  order  passed in

review is also to be set aside.

15. In the result, the impugned judgments are set aside and these

appeals are allowed.  It  is held that the appellants are at par with

other  land owners  whose lands were  acquired in  Bhagichandpora

and Pazwalpora in other references, and hence they are also entitled

to  enhanced  compensation  of  Rs.4,00,000/-  per  Kanal  with  15%

solatium (Jabirana) and all other statutory benefits.  No costs.

     …….…………...………J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

…………….……………J. [R. BANUMATHI]

New Delhi; March 21, 2017

Page No. 10 of 10