NARBADA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the appellants seek to modify the amount of their claim of market value of the land in their grounds of appeal. The appellants have moved under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and say that they be permitted to modify the memorandum of appeal so that when this Court pronounces its judgment after hearing the appellants, true market value of the land can be awarded to them.

(2.) In support of their contention, the Counsel for the appellants refer to AIR 1983 SC 43, Harcharan v. State of Haryana. In this case, six years after filing the memorandum of appeal, the appellants had sought to amend the grounds of appeal' by claiming a higher market value. The Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal held that the best evidence of market value is the judgment of the Court and upon determination of market value of similarly situate land, the petitioner having asked for less than the market value determined by Court, they are entitled to seek an amendment of the appeal. As the appellants had approached the Supreme Court prior to disposal of their appeal, the amendments were allowed.

(3.) The appellants also rely upon AIR 1985 SC 1576, Bhag Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, which is a three-Judge Bench judgment of Justice P.N.Bhagwati, Justice A.N. Sen and Justice D.P. Madon. The Supreme Court held there that Here was a claim made by the appellants against the State Government for compensation for acquisition of their land and under the law, the State was bound to pay to the appellants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired and if according to the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, the market value of the land acquired was higher than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional District Judge, there is no reason why the appellants should have been denied the benefit of payment of the market value so determined. To deny this benefit to the appellants would be tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire the land. of the appellants on payment of less than the true market value,