Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.949 OF 2005

Premwati    …. Appellant  

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors.   ….Respondents  

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2443 OF 2005

Rajinder Singh (D) by Lrs. …. Appellants  

VERSUS

Delhi College of Engineering    ….Respondent  

J U D G M E N T

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1.  These two appeals arise out of a common judgment of the  

Division Bench of Delhi High Court dated 07.02.2003, passed in  

batch of first appeals commencing from RFA No.167 of 1991 etc.  

We are concerned with the judgments passed in RFA No.132 of  

1999,  wherein  the  appellant  in  C.A.No.949  of  2005,  was  the  

appellant before the High Court and RFA No.129 of 1999, wherein  

Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005                                                            1 of 11

Page 2

the appellant in C.A.No.2443 of 2005 was the appellant before  

the High Court.   The appellants  were husband and wife.   The  

appellant in C.A.No.2443 of 2005, died during the pendency of  

the appeal before the High Court and the appeal was pursued by  

his LRs.  

2. The question involved in these two appeals is about the value  

of the land to be determined under the provisions of the Land  

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).  There  

was  a  Notification  under  Section  4  of  the  Act,  issued  on  

26.03.1983, followed by a Notification issued under Section 17(1)  

of  the  Act,  in  respect  of  the  lands  situated  in  Shahibabad  

Daulatpur, Khera Kalan, Siraspur and Samaipur villages.  Under  

Section 6 of the Act a declaration was also made on the same  

date viz., 26.03.1983.  The lands of the appellants before us were  

all situated in the village Shahibabad Daulatpur.  The extent of  

land acquired from the appellants were 94 bighas and 2 biswas  

bearing different Khasra Nos. covered by LAC case Nos.27 of 93  

and 23 of 1993.  The other extent of land was 4 biswas in Khasra  

No.33/26, covered by LAC case Nos.28 of 1993 and 29 of 1993.  

The concerned Awards were Award Nos.26/83-84 and 57/83-84  

respectively.  The Awards were dated 01.08.1983 and 26.09.1983  

respectively.  As per the Award, the value of the lands were fixed  

Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005                                                            2 of 11

Page 3

by the Acquisition Officer in a sum of Rs.13,000/- per bigha, in  

respect  of  the  lands  falling  under  Block-A  and  Rs.6,000/-  per  

bigha, in respect of the lands falling under Block-B.  The same  

was  the  value  fixed in  Award No.57/83-84.   Aggrieved  by  the  

compensation fixed under  the Award,  the appellants  preferred  

LAC case Nos. 23, 27, 28 and 29 of 1993.  

3. The  reference  Court  by  its  judgment  dated  07.01.1998,  

determined the value in respect of both categories of land viz., A  

and B in a sum of Rs.17,500/- per bigha and in respect of the  

lands abutting the road in a sum of Rs.18,000/- per bigha.  Before  

the  reference  Court,  the  appellants  initially  claimed  

compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per bigha, but later on  

they amended their petition and claimed the market value in a  

sum of Rs.1,25,000/- per bigha. Aggrieved by the value fixed by  

the reference Court,  the appellants approached the High Court  

and  the  High  Court  by  the  impugned  judgment  enhanced  the  

value to a sum of Rs.42,000/- per bigha.  Aggrieved against the  

same, the appellants have come forward with these appeals.

4. We  have  heard  Mr.Sanjay  Sharawat,  learned  counsel  

appearing  for  the  appellants  and  Ms.Rekha  Pandey,  learned  

counsel for the respondent (s).  We have also perused the Award,  

Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005                                                            3 of 11

Page 4

the  judgment  of  the  Reference  Court,  as  well  as  that  of  the  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  and  other  material  papers  

placed before us.

5. Having  considered  the  respective  submissions  and  the  

judgment impugned, along with the other material papers, we are  

of the considered opinion that further enhancement to a marginal  

extent can be justifiably granted in favour of the appellants.

6. When we perused the judgments of the Reference Court, we  

find  that  on  behalf  of  the  appellants,  four  witnesses  were  

examined.   P.W.1  Shri  Jasbir  Rana,  is  the  son  of  the  original  

appellant  Rajinder  Singh,  P.W.2  Shri  Rehmat  Ilahi,  who  was  a  

Reader in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi at the  

relevant time, P.W.3 Halqa Patwari Rajinder Singh, was examined  

to show that Aks Sajra of village Shahibabad Daulatpur and P.W.4  

Shri  Jaswahar,  was  a  witness  from  the  Ministry  of  Urban  

Development,  Nirman Bhavan,  New Delhi.   On the side of  the  

respondents, no evidence was let in, while two documents were  

tendered  at  the  instance  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondents.  One  of  the  documents  was  the  judgment  of  the  

Additional  District  Judge  dated  30.03.1987,  pertaining  to  the  

same village, as well as the same notification dated 26.03.1983  

Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005                                                            4 of 11

Page 5

and  the  second  document  was  a  copy  of  the  Award  under  

Reference being Award No.26/83-84 which were marked as Exs.  

R1 and R2.  

7. On behalf of the appellants reliance was placed upon an earlier  

Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court.  While enhancing  

the compensation to a sum of Rs.42,000/- per bigha, the High  

Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Balbir Singh Vs. Union  

of India dated 30.10.1991, in RFA No.810 of 1988, which was  

reported  in  50  (1993)  DLT  40.   In  Balbir  Singh’s  case,  the  

question related to the value of the land in respect of the lands  

acquired in Siraspur village for planned development of Delhi, in  

particular for setting up an industrial estate.  Notification under  

Section 4 of the Act in that case was dated 27.07.1984 and the  

total extent of land acquired was 2123 bighas and 5 biswas.  The  

land value fixed by the Acquisition Officer was Rs.17,000/- per  

bigha for category A lands and Rs.13,000/- per bigha for category  

B  lands.   The  reference  Court  enhanced  it  to  Rs.25,000/-  per  

bigha for A category and Rs.21,000/- per bigha for B category.  In  

respect  of  some  of  the  lands  in  B  category,  it  was  fixed  at  

Rs.22,000/- per bigha.  The High Court enhanced it to a sum of  

Rs.50,000/- per bigha for leveled land and Rs.45,000/- per bigha  

for the lands in depression.   

Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005                                                            5 of 11

Page 6

8. While fixing the land value at Rs.50,000/- per bigha in Balbir  

Singh’s case,  the High Court took into consideration the sale  

deeds, which were executed between the periods 18.01.1982 to  

22.07.1983, which was in the range of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.96,000/-  

per bigha.  Certain other considerations also weighed with the  

High Court, while determining the land value in  Balbir Singh’s  

case, but we are not concerned with the same.

9. One other relevant factor which is required to be noted in the  

case on hand was that though in Balbir Singh’s case, the lands  

were actually situated in the revenue estate of Siraspur, the High  

Court chose to rely on the same.  In  the case on hand,  while  

enhancing the value to Rs.42,000/-, the High Court applied the  

rule of depreciated value, in as much as the acquisition in respect  

of  Siraspur  village  in  Balbir  Singh’s  case was  pursuant  to  

Section 4 Notification, dated 27.07.1984.  It is relevant to note  

that  the  present  acquisition  was  made  pursuant  to  Section  4  

Notifications of August 1983 and September 1983.  The Division  

Bench therefore, deducted the value by 12% per annum on the  

sum of Rs.50,000/- and arrived at Rs.42,000/- per bigha.   

10. For applying the said rate,  the Division Bench relied upon  

another decision of the Delhi High Court in Bedi Ram Vs. Union  

Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005                                                            6 of 11

Page 7

of India and another, reported in 93 (2001) DLT 150, where the  

lands situated in the estate of Samaipur, which was also one of  

the  villages  governed  by  the  present  acquisition  proceedings.  

One other relevant factor which is required to be noted is that  

P.W.3, who is Halqa Patwari, has deposed before the reference  

Court  and  confirmed  that  the  site  plan  marked  as  ‘E’  is  the  

correct  consolidated  site  plan  of  village  Samaipur  and  village  

Shahibabad  Daulatpur.   He  also  further  confirmed  that  the  

boundaries  of  village  Shahibabad  Daulatpur  and  of  village  

Samaipur  are  adjoining  and  continuous.   By  relying  upon  the  

testimony of P.W.1, the son of the appellant, as well as P.W.3 the  

Halqa Patwari, it was contended that the lands of the two villages  

viz., Shahhibabad Daulatpur and village Samaipur are adjoining  

villages and, therefore, the market value of the lands of these  

two villages cannot be different.

11. The  High  Court  has  in  fact  accepted  the  submission  by  

referring  to  village  Siraspur  with  reference  to  the  lands,  

pertaining to the said village in Balbir Singh’s case, in which a  

year later, the value of the land was fixed to a sum of Rs.50,000/-  

per bigha.

Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005                                                            7 of 11

Page 8

12. Keeping the above factors in mind, when we consider the  

submissions of  the learned counsel  for the appellants,  we find  

that  the reasoning of  the Division Bench of  the High Court  in  

having relied upon Balbir Singh’s case and Bedi Ram’s case  

was perfectly justified.  We would, however, hasten to add that  

when  once  the  Division  Bench  rightly  felt  that  whatever  was  

decided in Balbir Singh’s case, so far as it related to the value  

of the land fixed therein, can be applied even in respect of the  

land  situated  in  Shahibabad  Daulatpur,  which  is  an  adjacent  

village and the  acquisition  in  respect  of  the  lands  in  the  said  

village was made simultaneously along with the lands situated in  

Samaipur  and  Siraspur  villages,  are  of  the  considered  opinion  

that the same value, which was applied in Balbir Singh’s case  

should have been applied even in respect of the lands belonging  

to the appellants.  We say so because, we find in Balbir Singh’s  

case, while  fixing  the land value  in  a  sum of  Rs.50,000/-  per  

bigha, the High Court considered the various sale deeds of the  

period between 18.01.1982 and 22.07.1983.

13. In the case on hand, we are concerned with the land situated  

in  Shahibabad Daulatpur  village and  the  extent  of  land  which  

were acquired from the appellants  was 94 bighas 2 biswas of  

different  Khasra  Nos.  covered  by  Award  No.26/83-84  and  4  

Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005                                                            8 of 11

Page 9

biswas in Khasra No.33/26, covered by Award No.57/83-84.  Thus,  

the  extent  of  land  acquired  from  the  appellants  were  also  

considerably large.  The total extent of land thus, acquired in all  

the four villages were around 785 bighas of continuous lands and  

the  acquisition  was  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  the  Delhi  

Technological University.  

14. We  are,  therefore,  of  the  view  that  while  every  other  

reasoning of the Division Bench in adopting the value, which was  

fixed in  Balbir Singh’s case was justified, there is no need to  

deduct  any  amount  from  the  said  value,  in  as  much  as  the  

exemplar relied upon by the Division Bench in  Balbir Singh’s  

case, were all sale deeds pertaining to the period 18.01.1982 to  

22.07.1983  i.e.,  prior  to  the  very  first  notification  issued  in  

respect  of  the  present  acquisition  of  all  the  four  villages  viz.,  

01.08.1983, which notification pertains to the lands belonging to  

the  appellants  which  were  situated  in  Sahibabad  Daulatpur  

village.  

15. Therefore,  even  while  confirming  the  reasoning  of  the  

Division  Bench  in  relying  upon  Balbir  Singh’s  case for  

enhancing  the  value,  we  only  modify  the  rate  fixed  by  the  

Division  Bench  to  a  sum  of  Rs.50,000/-  per  bigha  instead  of  

Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005                                                            9 of 11

Page 10

Rs.42,000/- per bigha. With the modification only in respect to  

the  rate  per  bigha,  in  all  other  respects  the  Division  Bench  

decision deserves to be confirmed.  We however, do not find any  

merit  in  the  claim  of  the  appellants  for  claiming  any  further  

enhancement  beyond the  sum of  Rs.50,000/-  per  bigha,  in  as  

much as there was absolutely no legally acceptable material in  

support of any such claim.   

16.  The  appeals  stand  partly  allowed  by  enhancing  the  

compensation from Rs.42,000/- per bigha as determined by the  

Division Bench of  the High Court  to  a  sum of  Rs.50,000/-  per  

bigha,  in  respect  of  both  categories  of  land.   With  the  above  

modification in the rate of land value, the appeals stand partly  

allowed.  Needless to add that appellants would be entitled for  

consequential benefits as per the law, if any.

………….……….…………………………..J.                          [Dr. B.S.Chauhan]

   ...……….…….………………………………J.

               [Fakkir  Mohamed Ibrahim  Kalifulla]

Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005                                                            10 of  11

Page 11

New Delhi;  July 02, 2013.

Civil Appeal Nos.949 & 2443 of 2005                                                            11 of  11