Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  6993   OF 2013  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.19985 of 2008)

Land Acquisition Collector, Mohali and another                        …Appellants

Versus

Surinder Kaur                          …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2.  Having failed to  convince the learned Single Judge of  the Punjab and  

Haryana High Court to entertain the revision filed by them against order dated  

7.5.2008  passed  by  Additional  District  Judge,  Ropar  in  Civil  Miscellaneous  

No.RT-22/10.3.1999/24.12.1999 refusing to tinker with judgment dated 9.4.2001  

whereby he held that the respondent herein is entitled to compensation at the rate  

of Rs.24,200/- per marla, which is equivalent to 30 sq. yards, i.e., at the rate of  

Rs.806.67 per sq. yard,  the appellants have filed this appeal.

3. By Notification dated 12.11.1997 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land  

1

Page 2

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the Government of  Punjab proposed  

the acquisition of land measuring 68 kanals 3 marlas for setting up an Urban  

Estate at Anandpur Sahib.  After considering the report submitted by the Land  

Acquisition  Collector  under  Section   5-A(2),  the  State  Government  issued  

declaration dated 8.5.1998.  The Land Acquisition Collector determined market  

value of the acquired land as follows:

1. Abadi  land  within  municipal  limits or Lal Dora  

Rs.4,55,000/- per acre

2. Gair Mumkin Pahar/Choe/khad Rs.65,000/- per acre 3. Barani/Banjar Zadid/Kadim Rs.1,95,000/- per acre 4. Chahi/Nehri Rs.3,00,000/- per acre

4. Dissatisfied  with  the  award  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector,  the  

respondent filed an application under  Section 18 of the Act.   Thereupon,  the  

Collector  made  a  reference  to  the  Court  for  determination of  the  amount  of  

compensation.  Additional  District  Judge,  Ropar  decided  the  reference  vide  

judgment dated 9.4.2001, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:

“I find that the applicant is entitled to compensation at  least at the rate mentioned in sale deed Ex P/7, which is  prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act.  I do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for  the claimant that the compensation in terms of sale deed  Ex. P5 should be given, which is much higher than the  rate mentioned in sale deed Ex.P-7 as such I find that the  claimant  is  entitled  to  compensation  at  the  rate  of  Rs.24,200/-  per  marla  which  comes  to  Rs.806.67  per  square  yards   since   one   marla is equivalent to 30 sq.  yards  for  the  acquired  land.  Accordingly,  this  issue  is  decided  in  favour  of  the  applicant  holding that  she  is  entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.  24,200/- per  marla.”   

2

Page 3

5. After about two years, the respondent filed Execution Petition No.402 of  

2003 and prayed for issue of a direction to the appellants to pay the amount of  

compensation. The appellants filed objections dated 9.12.2004 under Section 47  

CPC  and  pleaded  that  the  determination  made  by  the  Reference  Court  was  

erroneous. The same were rejected by the learned Additional District Judge vide  

order dated 18.4.2007 in the following terms:

“It is also not disputed that the claimant invoked section 18 of  the Land Acquisition Act, and the Land Acquisition Collector re- ferred  the  matter  to  this  Court.  It  is  also  agreed  that  my  learned  predecessor  was  pleased  to  pass  an  award  dt.  9.4.2001 and to order that the compensation be given to the  claimant  of  her acquired land at the rate of  Rs.24,200/-  per  marla.  The dispute between the parties,  at  present  is  as  to  whether my learned predecessor,  has awarded compensation  by holding that the marla should be treated to be measuring  25 sq. yds or as to whether the marla should be treated to be  that of 30 sq. yards. The controversy above said, has been an- swered by my learned predecessor, in the award itself, that in  para no. 11 of the award dated 9.4.2001 Herein my learned  predecessor, has clearly asserted that the claimants are enti- tled to compensation at  the rate  of  Rs.806.67 per sq.  yard.  Hence by way of clarification, it is ordered that the compensa- tion be computed at the rate of Rs.806.67 per sq yard. Accord- ingly, both the parties, are directed to furnish their respective  statement of account by computing the compensation of the  award at the said rate. The statement of account be furnished  by 1.5.2007 and if any amount as per the state is still payable  to the claimant, the said amount also disbursed to the claimant  by the next date.”  

6. The learned Additional District Judge passed another order dated 7.5.2008  

and rejected the argument of the appellants that the marla measures only 22.37 sq.  

yards.  He observed that while deciding the execution petition, the Court cannot  

go behind the award proposed to be executed.   He further observed that the marla  

is either treated equivalent to 25 sq. yards or 30 sq. yards and that in view of  

award dated 9.4.2001, the issue cannot be allowed to be re-agitated.  For the sake  

3

Page 4

of reference, paragraphs 3 and 4 of order dated 7.5.2008 are reproduced below:

“3. The learned counsel Shri Hargobind Singh submits that the  State has acquired 4027.68 square yards of land only and that as  per the same, the marla measures 22.37 square yards only. As  per him, as  per  practice in the area in question,  the marla is  treated to be equivalent of 22.37 sq. yds only. The contention  cannot be considered. The reason is that this court in execution  petition cannot go beyond the award which is proposed to be  executed through these proceedings. Furthermore, it is common  knowledge that the marla is either treated to be equivalent to 25  sq yards or it is treated to be equivalent to 30 sq. yards and it has  never been heard before that  the marla can be  treated  to  be  equivalent to 22.37 sq. yards. In any case, this court cannot go  beyond the award above said. As the above said award state that  the marla at the given place is to be treated to be equivalent to  30 sq yards, therefore, the court has to merely execute the said  award in letter and spirit by believing that the marla means 30  sq. yards.

4. Shri Hargobind Singh agrees that if the marla is to be treated  to be equivalent to 30 sq. yds then the calculations furnished by  the decree holder are correct. In support of his above said claim,  Sh Hargobind Singh has placed on file the comparative details of  the calculations. The above said calculations placed on file by Sh  Hargobind Singh today,  reveal  that  the JDs  agree  that  if the  marla is  to  be  treated to  be equivalent to  30 yards,  then the  calculations  furnished  by  the  Decree  Holder  are  correct.  Accordingly,  the  remaining amount  disclosed  by  the  Decree  Holder in their calculation, be disbursed to the decree holder by  11.6.2008.”

7. The  appellants  challenged  the  last  mentioned  order  in  Civil  Revision  

No.3005/2008, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground  

that the appellants had not challenged award dated 9.4.2001.  In the opinion of the  

learned  Single  Judge,  the  award  passed  by  the  Reference  Court  cannot  be  

modified in the execution proceedings.

8. Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the  

4

Page 5

provisions contained in the Punjab Land Records Manual and argued that the unit  

of measurement of land in Anandpur Sahib is 57 inches per karam as against the  

standard karam of 66 inches and argued that the learned Additional District Judge  

committed serious error by awarding compensation on the assumption that one  

marla is equivalent to 30 sq. yards whereas in the area of Anandpur Sahib one  

marla is equivalent to  22.37 sq.  yards.   She argued that  the Reference Court  

committed serious illegality by awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.806.67  

per sq. yard by treating measure of one marla as 30 sq. yards.   

9. Shri P. S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent  

supported  the  impugned  order  and  argued  that  the  appellants  cannot  seek  

modification  of  the  award  because  they  had  not  challenged  judgment  dated  

9.4.2001 by filing an appeal.  Learned senior counsel submitted that even though  

the  appellants  had  an  option  to  challenge  the  determination  made  by  the  

Additional District Judge, they did not file appeal under Section 54 of the Act  

and, therefore, they do not have the locus to contend that the measure of marla is  

less than 30 sq. yards.

10. We have considered the respective arguments. In our view, while deciding  

the objections filed under Section 47 CPC, the Additional District Judge did not  

have the jurisdiction to  go into the legality or  correctness  of judgment dated  

9.4.2001 by which compensation was awarded to the respondent on the premise  

that one marla is equivalent to 30 sq. yards.  If the appellants felt aggrieved by  

judgment dated 9.4.2001 then they should have filed appeal under Section 54 of  

5

Page 6

the Act.  Having failed to do that, the appellants cannot seek modification of the  

judgment by relying upon alleged measurement of the land for Anandpur Sahib  

which according to the appellants is different than the measurement of land in  

other areas.

11. In the result,  the appeal  is dismissed.  The interim order passed by this  

Court on 13.8.2008 stands automatically vacated.  The appellants shall pay the  

balance  amount  of  compensation  to  the  respondent  within a  period  of  three  

months by getting prepared a demand draft in her name from a nationalized bank.

…………………………..J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

………………………….J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA)

New Delhi; August 22, 2013.    

6

Page 7