# PADMA UPPAL r:rc v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 329
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-08-23
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/padma-uppal-r-rc-v-state-of-punjab-ors-6925
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Land acquisition-Fixing compensation-When the Sup,,me Court coufd
interfere.
Procedure-When a Court of appeal can interfere in the lower court's judgment.
In respect of a vast area of land, partly urban and partly rural,
adjoining
each other, acquired by the State Government the Collector classified a part of
it as potential building area and part as agricultural land and fixed a slightly
higher rate of compensation for the former and a lower rate for the latter.
Accepting the classification, the Senior Sub-Judge tq whom the determination of
compensation was referred enhanced the compensation in respect of both classes
of land. In appeal, the High C<;mrt further enhanced the compensation of both
classes of !Md. In further appeal to this Court, it was contended that since
the whole of the la.nd in question formed one consolidation block, the entire
area should have been treated as potential building area and compens,.tion fixed
on the basis of the market value.
DismiMi!li the appeals,
HELD : In an appeal from an award granting compensation, this Court
should npt interfere unless there is a wrong application of any well·settled principle or unless there is something to show not merely that on the balance of
evidence it is possible to reach a different conclusien but that the judgmant cannot be supported by reMOn of 11. wrong application of a. principle or because
some important point affecting valuation has bee11 overlooked or misapplied.
There is a prudent condition to which the appellate power, generally speaking
is subject, namely that a court of appeal interferes not when the judgment
under attack is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong. [333 Fl
The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore v. T. A.dinarayan Setty
[1959] Sopp. 1 S.C.R. 404. Dattatrayaya Shankarbhat A.mbalgi & Ors. v. The
Collector of Sho/apur & A.nr. [1971] 3 S.C.C. 43 and The Dollar Company,
· Madras v. Collector of Madras [1975] 2 S.C.C. 730 referred to.
In case of acquisition of several plots of land which constitute one block
comprising of agricultl,lral land and potenti~l building area, the principle of belting has no application.
As mch the erstwhile proprietors of the plots cannot
be granted compensation for the agricultural land at the same rate at which
compensation is determined in respect of potential building a.rea which is better
situate and possesses far greater advantages.
[332 G]
Mirza NMusherwan Khan & Anr. v. The Collector (L1Jnd Acquisition) Hyderabad [1975] 1 S.C.C. !38 applied.
CIVIL APPEALS Nos. 2694-2695, 2697-2700 and 2703-2704/72.
Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated 3-1-68 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Regular First Appeal Nos. 190-193, 195198/62. 233 and 234/64 and
CIVIL APPEALS Nos. 2694-2695, 2697-2700 and 2703-2704/72.
Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated 3-1-68 of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court in R.F.A.
Nos.
192-193
195-198 and
233-234/62.
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
.B
c
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 1 S.C.R.
S. T. Desai (In C. As. 2394-2397 of 1972), F. S. Nariman (In
C.As: 2398 to 2402/72, Naunitla/ and Miss Lalita Kohli for the Appellants Ill C.As. 2394-2403/72 and for Respondents in C.As. 2-094-2695
2697-2700. and 2703-2704/72.
.
'
0. P. Sharma for the Appellant in C.As. 2694-2695, 2697-2700
and 2703-2704/72 and for the Respondents in C.As. 2394-2403/72.
The Judgment of the Court w~s delivered by
]ASWANT SINGH, J.-This batch of 18 appeals Nos. 2394 to 2403
. of 1972 and 2694, 2695, 2697 to 2700, 2703 and 2704 pf 1972 by
certificates granted under Article 133(1) (a) of tbe Constitution which
arise out of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and
are directed against the common judgment dated January 3, 1969 of
tbe High Court of Punjab and Ha.ryana shall be disposed of by this
judgment. · While the first group of ten appeals Nos. 2394 to 2403 of
1972 are by the erstwhile proprietors of land claiming enha

## Text

329
PADMA UPPAL r:rc.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
August 23, 1976
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Land acquisition-Fixing compensation-When the Sup,,me Court coufd
interfere.
Procedure-When a Court of appeal can interfere in the lower court's judgment.
In respect of a vast area of land, partly urban and partly rural,
adjoining
each other, acquired by the State Government the Collector classified a part of
it as potential building area and part as agricultural land and fixed a slightly
higher rate of compensation for the former and a lower rate for the latter.
Accepting the classification, the Senior Sub-Judge tq whom the determination of
compensation was referred enhanced the compensation in respect of both classes
of land. In appeal, the High C<;mrt further enhanced the compensation of both
classes of !Md. In further appeal to this Court, it was contended that since
the whole of the la.nd in question formed one consolidation block, the entire
area should have been treated as potential building area and compens,.tion fixed
on the basis of the market value.
DismiMi!li the appeals,
HELD : In an appeal from an award granting compensation, this Court
should npt interfere unless there is a wrong application of any well·settled principle or unless there is something to show not merely that on the balance of
evidence it is possible to reach a different conclusien but that the judgmant cannot be supported by reMOn of 11. wrong application of a. principle or because
some important point affecting valuation has bee11 overlooked or misapplied.
There is a prudent condition to which the appellate power, generally speaking
is subject, namely that a court of appeal interferes not when the judgment
under attack is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong. [333 Fl
The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore v. T. A.dinarayan Setty
[1959] Sopp. 1 S.C.R. 404. Dattatrayaya Shankarbhat A.mbalgi & Ors. v. The
Collector of Sho/apur & A.nr. [1971] 3 S.C.C. 43 and The Dollar Company,
· Madras v. Collector of Madras [1975] 2 S.C.C. 730 referred to.
In case of acquisition of several plots of land which constitute one block
comprising of agricultl,lral land and potenti~l building area, the principle of belting has no application.
As mch the erstwhile proprietors of the plots cannot
be granted compensation for the agricultural land at the same rate at which
compensation is determined in respect of potential building a.rea which is better
situate and possesses far greater advantages.
[332 G]
Mirza NMusherwan Khan & Anr. v. The Collector (L1Jnd Acquisition) Hyderabad [1975] 1 S.C.C. !38 applied.
CIVIL APPEALS Nos. 2694-2695, 2697-2700 and 2703-2704/72.
Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated 3-1-68 of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Regular First Appeal Nos. 190-193, 195198/62. 233 and 234/64 and
CIVIL APPEALS Nos. 2694-2695, 2697-2700 and 2703-2704/72.
Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated 3-1-68 of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court in R.F.A.
Nos.
192-193
195-198 and
233-234/62.
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
.B
c
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977) 1 S.C.R.
S. T. Desai (In C. As. 2394-2397 of 1972), F. S. Nariman (In
C.As: 2398 to 2402/72, Naunitla/ and Miss Lalita Kohli for the Appellants Ill C.As. 2394-2403/72 and for Respondents in C.As. 2-094-2695
2697-2700. and 2703-2704/72.
.
'
0. P. Sharma for the Appellant in C.As. 2694-2695, 2697-2700
and 2703-2704/72 and for the Respondents in C.As. 2394-2403/72.
The Judgment of the Court w~s delivered by
]ASWANT SINGH, J.-This batch of 18 appeals Nos. 2394 to 2403
. of 1972 and 2694, 2695, 2697 to 2700, 2703 and 2704 pf 1972 by
certificates granted under Article 133(1) (a) of tbe Constitution which
arise out of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and
are directed against the common judgment dated January 3, 1969 of
tbe High Court of Punjab and Ha.ryana shall be disposed of by this
judgment. · While the first group of ten appeals Nos. 2394 to 2403 of
1972 are by the erstwhile proprietors of land claiming enhancement of
·the compensation awarded to them by the High Court, the rest of !he
eight appeals are by tbe State of Punjab challenging the quantum of
compensation as enhanced by the High Court.
It appears that a vast area of land measuring 832 kanals and 2
marlas (i.e. 416050 sq. yds) situate in Amritsar (Urban) and village
Tungbala, Amritsar was acquired by the Government of Punjab for
a publis purpose viz. the expansion of the existing Medical College
and allied institutions in the city of Amritsar. Whereas the notification
under section 4 of the Act in respect of the aforesaid area was issued
on March 18, 1959, the notification under section 6 of the Act was
issued on July 4, 1959. The Collector, Amritsar, classified the aforesaid area for fixation of compensation into two categories viz. the
potential building area and the agricultural land. The Collector categorfaed 60 kanals and 18 marlas (i.e. 30450 sq. yds). which abutted
on the circular Road and Majitba Road as potential building area and
the remaining 771 kanals and 4 marlas as agricultural 1and aru1 by his
order dated December 2; 1959 awarded Re. 1/- per sq.·yd. as compensation for the potential building "area and Re. -/6/- per sq. yd. for
agricultural land.
Dissatisfied with the award, the erstwhile proprietors approached the Collector roquesting him to make reference• to
the Senior ·sub-Judge, :Amritsar under section 18 of the Act. The
Senior Sub-Judge made a spot inspection for the purpose of appraisal
of the evidence adduced before him and by his judgment and.award
dated June 9, 1962 accepted the classification made by the Collector
but enhanced the compensation of tbe agricultural land to Re. 11- per
sq. yd. and of the potential building :uea to Rs. 1.50 per sq. yd. On
appeal, the ·High Court after taking into consideration some transactions of sales in .tbe locality proximate in point of time to the date
of the publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Aot, the
opinion of the valuers regarding the trend of the prices of land in the
locality and tbe situation and potentialities of the land in question by
its aforesaid judgment and decree dated January 3, 196&
aW!l!ded
Rs. 3/- per sq. yd. for tbe agricultural land and Rs. 4.50 per sq. yd. for
ti
•
•
!
•
,
PADMA UPPAL v. PUNJAB (Jaswant Singh, J.)
331
the potential building area.
It is agaiill5t this judgment and
decree
A
that the present appeals, as already stated have been preferred.
At the htaring of these appeals, counsel for the appellants in the
fin.t set of ten appeals have, in the first instance, u!ged that. as the
plots of land in question formed one consoh?ated .bl?cK, the enttre area
thereof should have been treated as potential bu1ldi:ig area and compensation awarded
accordingly.
It has been ne'<t
contended by
counsel for the appellants particularly in ~ppeals No~. 24?2 an? 2Ll03
of 1972 that the High Court has erred m overlookmg tt1e evidential
value furnished by-(i) the award made by the
Colkcror, Amritsar
fixing Rs. 4/12/- per sq. yd. as compensation for the land measuring
28.75 acres in Amritsar (Urban) and 32.04 acres in village Tungbala,
Urban which was sought to be acquired in February, 194 7, and notification under section 4(1) of the Act in respect whereof was published
on February 22, 1947, (ii) the price paid by the appellants in purchasing some of the plots in question in October, 19,1-6 and January,
1047 and (iii) the transactions of sale of the land in the locality made
in 1958-59 which conclusively established that the market value of
the land in question was much higher than that awarded by the High
Court. On the other hand, it has been contended by counsel for the
State of Punjab and Collector, Amritsar that the material on record
did not warrant the enhencement by the High Court of the compensation awarded to the
erstwhile properties by the Senior Subordinate
Judge, Amritsar; that the High Court could not justifiably ignore the
fact that for 25 kanals and 10 marlas of land which Jay in close proximity to the plots of land in question and was acquired by the State in
May, 1956, the market value was assessed at Rs. 25/- per marla i.e.,
Re. 1/- per sq. yd.; and that in any event, the, High Court acted
ille~ally in awarding comp~nsation in excess of Rs. 4/- per sq. yd.
claimed by the respondents m the second set of six appeals Nos. 2694,
2695 and 2697 to 2700 of 1972.
Before dealing with the rival contentions adv:mc<:d by counsel for
the. parties, it will be appropriate to refer to the law -bearing on the
matter.
The measure of compensation to be awarded to the owners
of immovable property acquired by the State is enshrined in section
23(1) of the Act which is designed to award just and fair compensation for the acquisition.
According to this provision, compensation
has to be awarded on the basis of the market value prevalent on the
date of the publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the
Act.
The connotation of the expression 'market value' bias been explained time and again by this Court.
In Khaja Mizuddin v. State of
A ndhra Pradesh('), it was laid down as follows : -
"Under section 2? (1) of the Act, in
determining the
amount of compensat10n, the court shall take into consideration the n:arke~ value of the_ land at the date of publication
of the nottficat1on under sect10n 4( 1) thereof. Decided cases
have laid down that the said market rate must be determined
1) C.A. 176 of 1962 decided on April 10, 1963.
B.
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
J32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19'f7) 1 S.C.R.
by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. For 36certaining the market rate the court can rely upon such transactions which would afford a guide to fix the price.
Price
paid for a land acquired within a reasonable time from the
date of acquisition of the land in question would ce.rtainly
be the best piece of evidence. Price paid for a land possessing advantages similar to those of the land acquired in or
about the time of notification will also supply the data for
assessment of compensation."
Bearing in mind the above principles, let us now deal with the
contentions raised by counsel for the erstwhile owners of the plots of
land in question.
The contention of counsel for the appenants that
compensation should have been awarded treating the entire laI'ld as
potential building area is devoid of substance.
It is true that the
land in question constitutes one block but it cannot be overlooked
that the entire area thereof is not similarly situate and doei not
possess the same or similar advantages and benefits.
The Senior
Subordinate Judge (who had the advantage of spot inspection) as also
the High Court have after careful analysis of the evid@nce observed
that it is only the portion of the area which adjoins the Majitha Road
opposite to which is situate the Sacred Heart Convent which lies close
to Gopalnagar and a portion of the land on the Circular Road opposite
to which there are buildings that can reasonably be regarded as a
potential building area and the remaining area which extends far beyond the alignment of the Sacred Heart Convent and does not possess
the same advantages cannot be treated at par with the former category
of the land. It has also been concurrently found by the Courts below
that apart frnm the fact that the land which falls within the second
category is situate in the rear away from habitation, it suffers from
two other drawbacks in that it is not accessible from either side of
the two roads and there are no roads therein.
The erstwhile proprietors cannot, therefore, be justifiably granted compensation for the
agricultural land at the rate determined in respect of the potential
building area which possesses far greater advantages. We are fortified
in this view by a decision of this Court in Mirza Nausherwan
Khan
& Anr. v. The Collector (Land Acquisition) Hydera1.11!td(') where
Krishna Iyer, J who spoke for the Bench said :-
"It is true that the Court has adopted a higher value for
a strip 50 feet wide adjoining the road, based on the principle
of belting. There is no doubt that when we deal with value
of an extensive plot of land in a city the strip that adioins an
important road will have a higher value than what i~ in the
rear, for obvious masons of potential user or commercial
exploitation."
Wa cannot also accede to the contention of :;:ounsel for the appellants in appeals Nos. 2402 and 2403 of 1972 that they should have at
least been granted compensation for the potential buildings area at
Rs. 4/12/- the rate fixed by the Collector, Amritsar for 28.75 acres
in Amritsar (Urban) and 32.04 acres in village Tungbala, Amritsar
(1) [1975] l s.c.c. 238.
.~·
PADMA UPPAL v. PUNJAB (Jaswant Singh, J.)
333
:sought to be acquired by the State in February, 1947 as the pro~e~d
ings for acoiuisition of the said area were d~opped and the proxnn.1ty
in point of time to the notification under section 4 ( 1) of the Act which
is a material factor is lacking.
The contention advanced on behalf of the appellants in the aforesaid
A-,
two appeals that the compensation awarded to them could not be
fixed below the price paid by them for some of the plots in question
B
in 1943, 1946 and 1947 has also no force. It cannot be ignored that
Amritsar having come near the border as a result of the partition of
the sub-continent, the prices of land situate therein fell considerably
soon after the partition and kept on maintaining a low level for more
than a decade.
The contention of counsel for the appellants in the aforesaid two
C
appeals that they should have at least been awarded compensation for
the potential building area at the rate prevalent in Gopalnagar in. ~~5859 cannot also be acceded to. A glance at the chart of the acqms1tions
which appears at page 85 of the Paper Book shows that the sales were
of very small plots of land. In seven transactions out of eight to which
our attention has been invited, the land acquired was below 200 sq.
yds. and in the eighth transaction, it was 250 sq. yds. It is also well
D
settted that iR determining compensation the value fetched for small
plots of !and cannot be apylied to the lands covering a very large
extent and that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at
the same rate at which small plots
are sold.
(See- Collector of
Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta(').
All the three contentions
advanced on ~half of the claimants of compensation, therefore, fail.
Let us now deal with the second set of the aforesaid t:ight appeals
preferred by the State of Punjab.
While doing so, it would be well
to recall that it is well established that in an appeal from an award
granting compensation, this Court should not interfere unle~s there is
a wrong application of any well settled principle or unless there js
something to show not merely that on the balance of evidence it is
possible to reach a different conclusion but that the judgment cannot
F
be supported by reason of a wrong application of a principle or becau5e
some imp0rtant point affecting valuation has been overlooked or misapplied.
Moreover, there is a prudent condition to which the appellate power, generally speaking, is subject.
A court of_ appeal inter-
!eres not when the judgment under attack is not right but only when it
1s shown to be wrong.
(See The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore v. T.
Adinarayan Setty( 2 )
Dattatrayaya
Shankarbhat
G
Ambalgi & Ors. v. The Collector of Sholapur & Anr.(3 ) and The
Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of Madras(').
_The first contention advanced on behalf of the State that the erstw_hile owners of the land in question could not be given compensatioR
higher than !hat asses~~ for the acquisition made by the State for
the construction of Hygiene and Vaccine Institute is devoid of force.
·(l) A.l.R. 1971 S.C. 2015
(3) 119711 3 s.c.c. 43.
(2) [1959] Supp. l S.C.R. 404.
(4) [1975] 2 s.c.c. 730.
H
A
B
c
D
334
8UPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 S.C.R.
Whereas the notification under section 4(1) of the Act with regard to·
th.at acquisition was published on May 17, 1956, the notification..
under the said provision or the Act in respect of the instant acquisition
was published on March 18, 1959 when the market value of the land
in the locality had risen very high. The ratio of compensation assessed
for the former acquisition cannot, therefore, serve as a safe guide
for determination of compensation for the acquisition in
question.
Similarly, the consideration
paid by Smt.
Balwant Kaur to
Shri
Girdhari Lal in March, 1957 for the purchase of land cannot also
serve as a safe guide as this transaction also took place in March,
1957 i.e., nearly two yeai;s before the publication of the aforesaid
notification in respect of the present acquisition. The High Court was,
in our opinion, perfectly justified on the basis of the material before
it in fixing compensation at Rs. 4.50 per sq. yd. for the potential
building area and Rs. 3.00 for the agricultural area in respect of the
plots of land involved in appeals Nos. 2402 and 2403 o[ 1972. The
High Court, however, was wrong in overlooking an important point
affecting compensation payable to the erstwhile owners of the potentia1
building area involved in appeals Nos. 2694, 2695 and 2697 to 2700
of 1972.
The said claimants having claimed compensation only at
the rate of Rs. 4.00 per sq. yd. in the first appeals filed by them in
the High Court, they could not have been awarded
compensation
exceeding that rate.
Tlius the said appeals filed by the State cannot
but be allowed to the extent to which the compensntion awarded to
the claimants in respect of the· potential building area acquired exceeds
Rs. 4.00 per sq. yd.
In the result, appeals Nos. 2394 to 2403 of 1972 and 2703 and
E
2704 of 1972 fail and are hereby dismissed with costs (limited to ooe
hearin~ fee) and appeals Nos. 2694, 2695 and 2697 to 2700 of 1972
are allowed with costs (limited to one hearing fee) to the extent
indicated above.
P.B.R.
Appeals partly allowed~
A...
.1-