PAINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notification under Section 4 (1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') acquiring a large extent of land for development of Delhi city was published on 6/4/1964. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 5,000. 00 and Rs. 4,500. 00 per bigha by his award No. 87 of 1980-81. On reference, the civil court, viz. , the Additional District Judge, enhanced it by his award and decree dated 30/8/1983 to Rs. 7,260. 00 and Rs. 7,000. 00 per bigha respectively. On appeal, the High court by the impugned judgment dated 22/8/1989 made in RFA No. 52 of 1989 and batch uniformlyenhanced the market value to Rs. 12,000. 00 per bigha. Feeling aggrieved, this petition has been filed for further enhancement to Rs. 25,000. 00 per bigha.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners states that these lands relate to Village Madanpur Khadar. He contends that for the adjacent lands in Village Badarpur and Molarband, the reference court and the High court enhanced the compensation to Rs 43,000. 00 per bigha etc. Therefore, the High court was not justified in confining the market value to Rs. 12,000. 00 per bigha.

(3.) We have gone through the judgments in those cases. Reliance was placed on the circular, issued obviously under Section 48 of the Stamp Act, by the central government fixing the market value for the purpose of registration at Rs. 60. 00 per sq. yard. This court has considered the entire gamut of the operation of the relevant provisions of Stamp Act and Section 23 (1 of the Act and held that the fixation by the government of the amount under Stamp Act for fiscal purpose bears no relevance to determine the market value under Section 23 (1 of the Act. The claimant need to establish the prevailing market value as on the date of the notification under Section 4 (1 by adduction of evidence to prove the acquired land and the land covered by sale transactions bear similar or same potentialities or advantageous features. The courts below have relied only on the circular issued by the government for fiscal purpose, viz. , for stamp duty. The contra view taken by the High court in that behalf is clearly illegal and the same cannot form basis for further enhancement. Dehors the above judgment, there is no other evidence to enhance further compensation.