Supreme Court of India
SHRI JAGDISH SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 1 November 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, B.N. KIRPAL
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 715 · 1995 INSC 672
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
The Land Acquisition Officer divided the land into two Blocks, i.e., Block 'A' and Block 'B' and awarded Rs. 25,000 per acre for Block 'A' and Rs. 15,000 per acre for Block 'B'. The Reference Court made four blocks and awarded compensation @ Rs. 10 per sq. yard for first Block and proportionately decreased the value for the other blocks. On appeal, the High Court made the uniform rate of Rs. 10 per sq. yard for entire land and disposed of the appeals accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal from that batch by special leave.
p. 716, margin E
Mr. Rohtagi, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that the value of the land is much more than what was given and it is a matter where the appellant is entitled to get higher compensation. We do not find· any force in this contention. Whether the land is capable of fetching higher market value than @ Rs. 10 per sq. yard depends on pure appreciation of evidence on record. The reference court and learned Single Judge have gone into the question and held that the land can fetch the maximum price of Rs. 10 per sq. yard for the enti.rc zone to the extent of 19 Bighas and 3 Biswas. The State Government did not file any appeal in this Court or High Court. It being a pure question of fact on appreciation of evidence, we cannot re-appreciate the evidence and· come to our conclusion in the absence of application of any wrong principle of law.
pp. 716–717, margin F
It is next contended that the appellant had constructed a house at a cost of Rs. 20,000 but only a sum of Rs. 6,000 was awarded and, therefore, he is entitled for higher compensation. This also is based on factual matrix and ·appreciation of evidence by all the Courts. We do not think that we would be justified to interfere with the value fixed at Rs. 6,000 for the construction of house.
p. 717, margin A
The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but, m the circumstances, without costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.
p. 717, margin C