Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the acquisition of 70 Canals 48 Marlas of land in Punjab for establishing a Mandi (Market) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State of Punjab acquired the land through a notification under Section 4(1) published on 26 October 1971. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 18 February 1972 classifying the land into three categories and determining compensation at Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- per acre respectively. The landowners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, and the Additional District Judge, by award and decree dated 3 June 1976, classified the land into five categories and awarded compensation at rates of Rs.65,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, and Rs.15,000/- per acre respectively. Dissatisfied with this enhancement, the claimants filed an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A learned single Judge, by judgment and decree dated 31 August 1979, determined compensation at a flat rate of Rs.70,000/- per acre for the entire land. The single Judge noted that counsel for both the State and the claimants had agreed that the issue was squarely covered by the decision of the same court in State of Punjab v. Chand Singh, R.F.A. No. 1413/77 dated 23 August 1979. Consequently, the State's appeal and the claimants' cross-objections were disposed of accordingly. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the State's appeal, leading to the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's adoption of a flat rate of Rs.70,000 per acre, without any material or basis on record, was proper and sustainable. The Supreme Court observed that it was unfortunate that nothing had been placed on record to show whether the State had carried the Division Bench decision in Chand Singh's case in appeal to the Supreme Court and, if so, what its result was. Further, even that judgment had not been made part of the record. Therefore, the Court was not in a position to know on what principle the learned Judge had granted a flat rate to the entire land. The Supreme Court noted that since both the claimants and the State had relied upon the said judgment and requested the Court to dispose of the matter in terms thereof, and without any material on record, it was difficult for the Court to find whether the determination of Rs.70,000/- per acre at a flat rate was proper compensation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court was constrained to dismiss the appeal. No costs were awarded. Additionally, since the record had not been printed, the Registry was directed to refund the printing charges.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation Determination - Requirement of Basis for Flat Rate - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4(1), 18 - The High Court determined compensation at a flat rate of Rs.70,000 per acre for the entire acquired land following State of Punjab v. Chand Singh, but that judgment was not placed on record. Held that without material on record showing the principle adopted for granting a flat rate, the Supreme Court could not determine whether the compensation was proper and accordingly dismissed the appeal. B) Civil Procedure - Appeals - Special Leave Petition - Non-production of Precedent and Record - The State and claimants relied on a previous decision in State of Punjab v. Chand Singh but neither its fate in higher court nor its text was produced. Held that in the absence of such material, the court was constrained to dismiss the appeal; no costs were awarded and printing charges were directed to be refunded.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's fixation of compensation at a flat rate of Rs.70,000 per acre for the acquired land was proper in the absence of any material or basis on record.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by special leave, holding that without any material on record showing the principle for the flat rate of Rs.70,000 per acre, it was difficult to determine whether the compensation was proper. No order as to costs. The Registry was directed to refund printing charges because the record had not been printed.
Law Points
- A court cannot determine the correctness of a flat rate compensation award without the basis or material on record
- when both parties rely on a previous judgment not made part of record the appellate court is constrained to dismiss the appeal
- the burden lies on the appellant to produce necessary record to enable review
