Shri Lok Chand And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi)
2005 Latest Caselaw 591 Del

JUDGMENT

B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) against the award made by the reference court in LAC No. 293/90. The notification for acquisition of land situated at village Holambi Khurd was issued on 3-6-1987 which was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 9-6-1987. After following the procedure laid down in the Act the Land Acquisition Collector made an award No. 21/88-89 dated 8-6-1989. The Land Acquisition Collector on appreciation of material placed before him determined the market price of the land @ Rs. 8620/- per bigha. The claimant moved an application under Section 18 of the Act and the reference court in the aforesaid reference determined the market price @ Rs. 27000 - per bigha as on 3-6-1987. It is against this award the present appeal is preferred.

2. It is required to be noted that 140 bighas 4 biswas of land of village Holambi Khurd was acquired by the impugned award. The Land Acquisition Collector while determining the market price took into consideration several sale deeds executed by the parties and registered with the Registrar from 17-9-1984 to 31-1-1987 and taking out the mean of all these years in so far as market value per bigha is concerned determined the market price.

3. The claimants relied upon a judgment Exhibit C-1 in LAC No. 296/90 titled Raj Pal v. Union of India decided on 4-4-1995 for the acquisition of land situated in village Holambi Khurd. The court in that case considered the Apex Court decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 943 as also the award made by the reference court in LAC 413/93 titled Ramkala v. Union of India decided on 1.2.1995 for the land situated at village Naya Bans which came to be acquired vide notification issued of the same date and the market price was determined @ 27000/-

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that as the Division Bench hearing the appeal enhanced the amount of compensation of the land situated at village Naya Bans, hence in the instant case also the compensation should be awarded accordingly. In the case of the land situated in village Naya Bans in Kanwal Singh v. Union of India RFA No. 978/95, the court has pointed out that the sale deed which was relied upon formed the basis of the judgment and that was a developed piece of land or was in any other way in an advantageous position than the acquired land. It is also required to be noted that the land of the claimants was undeveloped but it was in the area adjoining to his land which was a developed area and claimed the price of his land at par with the developed land. In that village there was sale deed at an average price of Rs. 32,400/- per bigha which was duly established. Therefore it is very clear from the tenor of the judgment that the land situated at village Naya Bans on account of development had higher value. It is also required to be noted that peculiarity of land persuaded the Bench to make a lesser deduction in the value of the land on account of large scale acquisition. So far as village Holambi Khurd is concerned there is nothing on the record about development that had taken place in village Holambi Khurd. There is nothing to indicate that there is similar peculiarity which existed in the case of Kanwal Singh v. Union of India.

5. Learned counsel also contends that the Land Acquisition Collector has recorded that the land is same. It is required to be noted that the agricultural land in the village and nearby villages would be the same. However it does not mean that the potentiality is the same as that of nearby villages. In the absence of any material on account of so called peculiarity it cannot be said that the same amount of compensation should be granted.

6. In view of what is stated hereinabove when the Land Acquisition Collector after taking into consideration the documents, several in number, has arrived at a market price and reference court had enhanced the same, we are of the opinion that the same requires no interference and the appeal is dismissed.