NAWAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notification under Section 4 (1 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 13/11/1959 acquiring 1876 bighas 19 biswas of land situated in Jwalaheri for planned development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition collector classified the lands as A. B and C blocks and awarded Rs. 1,600. 00. Rs. 1,400. 00 and Rs. 1,000. 00 per bigha respectively. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated 8/9/1979 further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,250. 00, Rs 3,200. 00 and Rs 2,150. 00 per bigha respectively, The High court, on appeal, further enhanced the compensation tors. 5,250. 00, Rs 4,000. 00 and Rs 3,000. 00 respectively. Not being satisfied with the enhanced compensation awarded by the High court, the claimants have filed these appeals under Section 54 of the Act claiming enhanced compensation Rs. 9,000. 00 per bigha.

(2.) The High court found that there are no sale transactions in Village Jwalaheri other than one sale transaction in Village Madipur which is said to be adjacent to Village Jwalaheri. That sale deed was dated 20/4/1959 just before the notification. An extent of 1472.22 sq. yards was sold in Khasra No. 828 for a consideration of Rs. 7,726. 00 which worked out at Rs. 5,250. 00 per bigha. Based thereon, the High court has enhanced the compensation. It is now a settled principle that the price of a small extent of land cannot form the sole basis for fixation of higher compensation when a large track of land is acquired. Since the State did not file any appeal, we need not go into the correctness of the finding recorded by the High Court. Suffice it to state that there is no other evidence on record for us to further enhance the compensation.

(3.) It is next contended that the High court having made a distinction between the owner and the mortgagee and enhanced 25% extra compensation to the owner, committed a grave error of law in not awarding the same to the appellants. We find no discernible principle made by the High court to further enhance 25% more to the owner while awarding the market value to the mortgagee. Under these circumstances, we do not find any legal principle warranting further enhancement of 25% extra compensation. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.