Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NOS.      7800-7802     OF      2012   

Jasarvinder Singh and others         …Appellants

versus

President, Land Acquisition Tribunal and others   …Respondents

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

G.     S.     Singhvi,     J.   

1. Feeling dissatisfied with the market rate fixed by the Division  

Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in respect of their land  

acquired by Ludhiana Improvement Trust (for short, ‘the Trust’), the  

appellants have filed these appeals.   

2. The appellants’ land was part of big chunk of land acquired by the  

Trust for implementing “100 Acres Development Scheme”. Notification  

under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short,  

‘the 1922 Act’) was issued on 11.8.1972 and objections were invited  

against the scheme.   The State Government accorded sanction vide  

1

Page 2

Notification dated 18.9.1973 issued under Section 42 of the Act.  The  

Land Acquisition Collector divided the acquired land into two Blocks, i.e.  

`Block A’  and `Block B’  and fixed market value of land comprised in  

`Block A’ at the rate of Rs.113 per biswansi (Rs.15 per sq. yard).   For  

the land comprised in Block `B’, he fixed market value at the rate of  

Rs.75 per biswansi (Rs.10 per sq. yard).

3. The Land Acquisition Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, ‘the  

Tribunal’) to which the Collector made reference under Section 18 of the  

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) relied upon sale deed  

dated 24.12.1970 (Exhibit A-12) by which 400 sq. yards land was sold  

for a sum or Rs.11,600 and award Exhibit AA-1 passed in the case of N.  

S. Sodhi v. Land Acquisition Collector and determined the amount of  

compensation at the rate of Rs.39 per sq. yard for the land falling in  

`Block A’ and Rs.31 per sq. yard for the land falling in `Block B’.

4. The appellants challenged the award of the Tribunal in Writ  

Petition Nos. 1599/1986, 14072/1989 and 14075/1989.  The Trust also  

filed writ petitions questioning the award of the Tribunal.

5. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions  

filed by the Trust and partly allowed those filed by the appellants and  

other land owners.  The Division Bench also relied upon Exhibits A-12  

and AA-1 and held that the landowners are entitled to compensation at a  

2

Page 3

flat rate of Rs.39 per sq. yard.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that while fixing market  

value of the acquired land by relying upon the award passed in the case of  

N. S. Sodhi, the High Court committed an error by not granting adequate  

increase in the value of land.  He pointed out that the land which was  

subject matter of the award passed in the case of N. S. Sodhi was  

acquired in 1970 whereas the appellants’  land was acquired vide  

Notification dated 11.8.1972 and argued that market rate of the  

appellants’ land should have been increased by 12%.  Learned counsel for  

the Trust fairly conceded that the determination made by the High Court  

has not been challenged by the Trust and that the land, which was subject  

matter of the award passed in the case of N. S. Sodhi had been acquired  

in 1970.

7. We have considered the respective submissions.  It is not in dispute  

that the appellants’  land is similar to that of N.S. Sodhi, who was  

awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.39/- per sq. yard.  It is also not in  

dispute that N.S. Sodhi’s land was acquired sometime in 1970.  

Therefore, the High Court should have, keeping in view the law laid  

down by this Court in Ranjit Singh v. U.T. of Chandigarh (1992) 4 SCC  

659,  Land  Acquisition  Officer v.  Ramanjulu  (2005)  9  SCC  594  and  

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Bipin Kumar (2004) 2 SCC 283 granted  

3

Page 4

the  benefit  of  notional  increase  in  market  value  of  the  acquired land.  

Similar view has been expressed in Sardar Jogendra Singh v.  State of  

U.P. (2008) 17 SCC 133, Revenue Divl. Officer-cum-LAO v. Sk. Azam  

Saheb (2009) 4 SCC 395, ONGC Ltd. v.  Rameshbhai  Jivanbhai Patel  

(2008)  14  SCC  745  and  Valliyammal  v.  Special  Tahsildar  (Land  

Acquisition) (2011) 8 SCC 91.

8. By applying the ratio of the above referred judgments, we hold that  

the appellants are entitled to the benefit of increase at the rate of 12% per  

annum.  In other words, they are entitled to compensation at the rate of  

Rs.48.36 per sq. yard which deserves to be rounded off to Rs.49.

9. In the result, the appeals are allowed and it is declared that the  

appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.49 per sq. yard.  

The Trust is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation with  

other statutory benefits including solatium and interest to the appellants  

and/or their representatives within a period of four months by getting  

demand drafts prepared in their names.                  

…..……….....……..….………………….…J.     [G.S. SINGHVI]

…………..………..….………………….…J.      [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

New Delhi,

4

Page 5

November 09, 2012.  

5