Supreme Court of India
PEHLAD SINGH AND ANR. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA
- Decided
- 21 November 1995
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 532 · 1995 INSC 764
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 notification under section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published on March 8, 1957 for planned development of Delhi. The lands acquired for the development are 8.40 acres out of which the land of appellants are small in extent. In Justice A.S. Bhandmi v. Union of India, LPA No. 81 of (1979) decided on May 1, i980, the Division Bench of the High Court determined the market-value at Rs. 10 per square yard, i.e., Rs. 10,000 per bigha. The appellant, aggrieved by that, filed this appeal. The only question is whether it is a fit case to enhance the compensation to Rs. 12 per square yard, i.e., Rs. 12,000 per bigha as claimed by the appellant. Shri Juneja, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the lands in Justice Bhandari' case are brick-kiln land while the lands of appellant are agricultural lands. The~efore, the appellants are entitled to higher compensation. It is further contended that the notification under section 4(1) was quashed in subsequent proceedings which was ultimately upheld on November 8, 1968. No further notification under section 4(1) was published. Had it been so published, further increase of the compensation at Rs.12 per square yard would be just and fair compensation. Having given consideration to the contention of Shri Juneja, we find it difficult to accept the same. One the facts, evidence relied in Justice Bhandari's case is a sale deed of 560 square yards in which admittedly the market-value was fixed at Rs. 12 per square yard. Since it is a small extent of land, which formed the basis of the case to determine compensation at Rs. 10 per square yard, the same price would not commend when large extent of land is offered for sale to a willing purchaser. Keeping that yard- stick in view, we think that it is not a fit case for further mcrease.
p. 533, margin A
The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without costs. T.N.A Appeal dismissed.
p. 533, margin E