Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)Section 54 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Anr vs Balbir Singh & Anr on 5 May, 1998
In this connection, a reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. BALBIR SINGH, 2000 AIR SCW Page 4935(2) and in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. DHYAN SINGH, 2000 AIR SCW Page 4936(1). The Hon'bie Supreme Court in both these cases adopted the same value for the lands covered by the same notification. Grant of uniform rate of compensation for all the acquired lands, which are similarly situated and acquired under the same notifications and for the very same purpose cannot be faulted with. There is no reason not to adopt the same value for all the acquired lands, which are similarly situated and acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose. It has to be pointed out that the other lands acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose being similar to the acquired lands of the respondents-claimants, they were certainly entitled for the same compensation and accordingly, the enhancement made by the First Appellate Court for the acquired lands of the respondents-claimants in order to maintain uniform rate of compensation for all the acquired lands which are similarly situated to the adjoining villages cannot be faulted and on the other hand, it is liable to be confirmed. I have perused the judgment of the First Appellate Court and I find that on a detailed discussion of the evidence on record and for cogent reasons given in the Judgment the Court has assessed the compensation of Rs. 11,500/- per acre for the acquired lands of the respondents-claimants. Neither the reasons stated can be found fault with nor on an overall assessment of the materials, can it be said that the compensation awarded is highly exorbitant and warrants interference by this Court in the second appeal. It is not possible to determine the compensation amount with mathematical precision. Assessment in such matters is bound to involve a certain degree of guesswork. Having carefully perused the entire case records including the impugned Judgment made by the First Appellate Court, I do not find that the same suffers from any serious illegality, the approach of the First Appellate Court in awarding the uniform rate of compensation in respect of the acquired lands, which are similarly situated, is fair and reasonable. Hence, no interference with the impugned Judgment of the First Appellate Court is called for. Therefore, having given my anxious consideration to the entire matter in issue, I find that no substantial question of law will arise for consideration in all these Miscellaneous Second Appeals filed by the Appellant LAO. Hence, they are liable to be dismissed.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1