1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.3713 OF 2007

Kale (Dead) Rep. Thr. LRs. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Union of India            …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and  order  dated  27.04.2004  passed  by  the  High

Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Revision Petition

No. 794 of 1990 whereby the High Court dismissed

the  revision  petition  filed  by  the  appellant  herein

against the order dated 18.04.1990 of the Additional

District  Judge  in  Reference  proceedings  under

Section  18  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  (in  short,

“the Act”).

2

2) Facts  of  the  case  lie  in  a  narrow  compass.

They, however,  need mention infra.

3) The short dispute, which is carried upto this

Court by the landowners is how much of their land

was acquired by the State in the land acquisition

proceedings and how much compensation was paid

to them.

4)  According to the appellants (landowners), the

State  acquired  total  45  Bigha  3  Biswas  of

appellants’   land  situated  in  Gajipur  (Delhi)

pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 4

of  the  Act  on  13.11.1958 followed by  Notification

under Section 6 on 20.06.1966 but the appellants

were paid compensation only for land measuring 36

Bigha 12 Biswas.  

5) Therefore,  the  grievance  of  the  appellants  in

these proceedings is that they are entitled to claim

compensation  for  45  Bigha  and  3  Biswas  of  the

land, which according to them, was acquired in the

3

land acquisition proceedings.  It  is  contended that

since the appellants were paid compensation only

for 36 Bigha 12 Biswas of land and hence direction

be issued to the State to pay compensation to the

appellants for the balanced land, i.e., 9 Bigha. This,

in substance, is the grievance.

6) The  Reference  Court  by  order  dated

18.04.1990 rejected the  appellants’  claim and the

High Court upheld the order of the Reference Court

by the impugned order and dismissed the appellants’

revision which has given rise to filing of this appeal

by way of special leave by the landowners.

7) Having heard learned counsel  for  the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no

merit in the appeal.

8)  We have perused the record, the order of the

Reference Court and the impugned order and find

no fault  therein.  The Reference Court  so also the

High Court after examining the entire record of the

4

case  recorded  a  categorical  finding  that  the  total

land,  which  was  acquired  pursuant  to  the

aforementioned  Notification,  was  36  Bigha  12

Biswas and not 45 Bigha 3 Biswas as contended by

the  appellants.  It  was  held  and  rightly  that  the

appellants were accordingly paid compensation for

36 Bigha 12 Biswas.

9) We  agree  with  the  view  taken  by  the  High

Court because we also find that the appellants were

not able to file any document to prove in support of

their  case  that  the  State  had  acquired  land

measuring 45 Bigha 3 Biswas. On the other hand,

we find that it was proved from the records that the

land measuring 36 Bigha 12 Biswas was acquired

and  accordingly  compensation  was  paid  by  the

State for 36 Bigha 12 Biswas to the appellants.

10) Though  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants

(landowners) made attempt to contend by reiterating

the  same  submission  which  was  unsuccessfully

5

urged  before  the  two  Courts,  namely,  what  was

acquired  by  the  State  was  the  extent  of  land

measuring 45 Bigha 12 Biswas,  we are afraid we

can  accept  this  submission  for  want  of  any

documentary evidence filed by the appellants.

11) As mentioned above, the Government records

relating  to  the  case  at  hand  also  mention  at  all

places that the land measuring 36 Bigha 3 Biswas

was acquired by the State. In reference proceedings,

it was noticed that due to typographical mistake, in

place of figure "36", "26" was typed in the order of

reference. This was later corrected at the instance of

the appellants and in place of figure "26", the figure

"36" was typed. At that time also the question as to

how much land was acquired was examined and it

was found that only 36 Bigha 3 Biswas of land was

acquired.  It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  appellants

have  received  the  compensation  for  the  land

acquired, i.e., 36 Bigha 3 Biswas.

6

12) In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no

merit  in  the  appeal.  It  fails  and  is  accordingly

dismissed.        

               ………...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]             

        ……..................................J.          [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; July 11, 2017