Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION

   CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S).  8161-8185 OF 2011 GUJARAT MINERAL DEV.CORPN.                         Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS RAM SANG BHAILALBHAI & ANR.                        Respondent(s)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 8147-8160 OF 2011

GUJARAT MINERAL DEV.CORPN.                         Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS SAROJBEN GORDHANBHAI PATEL & ORS.                 Respondent(s)

O R D E R  

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S).  8161-8185 OF 2011 Notification  under  Section  4  of  the  Land  

Acquisition  Act,  1894  (in  short  'the  Act')  was  published  in  respect  of  the  land  at  Village  Bhuri,  taluka  Jhagadia for the purpose of a Lignite Project  as  far  back  on  10th May,  1988.   Declaration  under  Section 6 of the Act followed on 20th  May, 1989.  The  Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation  at the rate of Rs.75/- per Are corresponding to Rs.  0.75  paisa  per  Sq.  Mtr.  as  per  the  Awards  dated  02.03.1990 and 08.03.1990.  Being dissatisfied with the

Page 2

2

compensation computed by the Special Land Acquisition  Officer, the claimants had raised dispute before the  Reference  Court  which,  after  hearing  the  parties,  increased the compensation to Rs.16.29 paisa per Sq.  Mtr. together with interest and 30 per cent solatium.  This was challenged in the High Court.  In the Impugned  Order the learned Division Bench has noted that village  Maljipara and village Bhuri are adjacent to each other;  and their boundaries touching each other.  Noting that  the compensation had been finally settled in respect of  the village  Maljipara, the Division Bench thought it  appropriate to grant compensation at the same rate.  In  doing so it took into account the fact that there was  no evidence showing any distinguishing feature of the  lands between these two villages.  We have also perused  the Map in question and we note that the two villages  are contiguous to each other, having common boundaries  and are almost at equal distance to village Madhavpara.  We may clarify that so far as the compensation payable  in respect of village Maljipara is concerned, that was  granted on the basis of a Sale Deed in Madhavpara.  We  also take note that there is no evidence to show that  any injustice or any illogical conclusion was arrived  at in  following the  compensation rate  applicable to

Page 3

3

village Maljipara for the village Bhuri also. Mr.  V.  Giri,  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  

for the Appellant has drawn out attention to  Kanwar  Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 136, and  especially to paragraph 9 therein.  This is for the  purpose  of  contending  that  merely  because  the  compensation stood settled so far as village Maljipara  was concerned, that was not sufficient ground to apply  that same rate to village Bhuri.  As has already been  noted by us above, this very question had been taken  into consideration in the Impugned Order and the High  Court recorded the finding that there was no evidence  to disclose that the challenged rate of compensation  was,  for  any  discernible  factors,  higher  than  what  should  have  ordinarily  been  determined  for  village  Bhuri.  Since the High Court has specifically entered  on a comparative analysis, this decision does not come  to the aid of the Appellant.

We  find  no  merit  in  these  Appeals,  which  are  dismissed accordingly.

The  amount  deposited  by  the  Appellant  be  released to the Respondents forthwith.  CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 8147-8160 OF 2011

Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition  Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) was published in respect of

Page 4

4

the  land  at  village  Rajpardi,  taluka  Jhagadia  for  the  purpose of a Lignite Project as far back on 24th February,  1994.   Declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed on  14th July,  1994.    The  Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer  awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.45 per Sq. Mtr. for  non agricultural land and Rs.6 per Sq.Mtr. for agricultural  land  as  per  the  Award  dated  09.02.1996.    Being  dissatisfied with the compensation computed by the Special  Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had raised dispute  before  the  Reference  Court  which,  after  hearing  the  parties, increased the compensation to Rs.26.70 Sq. Mtr.  for  agricultural  land  and  Rs.155  per  Sq.  Mtr.  for  Non  agricultural land together with interest and 30 per cent  solatium.   This was challenged in the High Court.   In the  Impugned Order the learned Division Bench has noted that  village  Rajpardi  and  village  Madhavpara  are  adjacent  to  each other and are also covered under the same Group Gram  Panchayat.   In doing so it also took into account the fact  that  there  was  no  evidence  showing  any  distinguishing  feature of the lands between these two villages.   We have  also perused the Map in question and we note that the two  villages  are  contiguous  to  each  other,  having  common  boundaries.   We may clarify that the compensation payable  was computed on the basis of the Sale Deed concerned with  the village Madhavpara.  We also take note that there is no  evidence  to  show  that  any  injustice  or  any  illogical  conclusion  was  arrived  at  in  following  the  compensation

Page 5

5

rate applicable to village Madhavpara. Mr. V.Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  

Appellant has drawn our attention to Kanwar Singh & Ors.  vs. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 136, and especially to  paragraph 9 therein.  However, this decision was rightly  not cited before the High Court for the simple reason that  village Rajpardi is adjoining to village Madhavpara, and is  further  away  from  village  Bhuri  as  well  as  village  

Maljipara.   The High Court recorded the finding that there  was  no  evidence  to  disclose  that  the  challenge  rate  of  compensation was, for any reason, higher than what should  have ordinarily been determined for village Madhavpara.

We  find  no  merit  in  these  Appeals,  which  are  dismissed accordingly.

The amount deposited by the Appellant be released to  the Respondents forthwith.    

…..............J (VIKRAMAJIT SEN)

…..............J       (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 26, 2015.