Nawal Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- interpretation of statutes. beneficial legislation: [dr. arijit pasayat & p. sathasivam, jj] held, the concept of liberal interpretation is relevant only when two views are possible. employee's provident funds & miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 [c.a. no. 19/1952] -- section 2(b): [dr. arijit pasayat & p. sathasivam, jj] basic wages held, the term basic wages in section 2 (b) does not include leave encashment. the term basic wage which includes all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave or on holidays with wages in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment can only mean weekly holidays, national holidays and festival holidays etc. in many cases the employee do not take leave and encash it at the time of retirement or same is encashed after his death which can be said to be uncertainties and contingencies. though provisions have been made for the employer for such contingencies unless the contingency of encashing the leave is there, the question of actual payment to the workman does not take place. the amount of contribution cannot be based on different contingencies and uncertainties. the test is one of universality. in the case of encashment of leave the option may be available to all the employees but some may avail and some may not avail. that does not satisfy the test of universality. - not being satisfied with the enhanced compensation awarded by the high court, the claimants have filed these appeals under section 54 of the act claiming enhanced compensation @rs.order1. notification under section 4(1) of the land acquisition act was published on november 13, 1959 acquiring 1876 bighas 19 biswas land situated in jwalahari for planned development of delhi. the land acquisition collector classified the lands as a,b, c blocks and awarded @ rs. 1600/-, rs. 1400/- and rs. 1000/- per bigha respectively. on reference under section 18 of the act, the additional district judge by his award and decree dated september 8, 1979 further enhanced the compensation to rs. 4250/-, 3200/- and 2150/- per bigha respectively. the high court, on appeal, further enhanced the compensation to rs. 5250/-, 4000/- and 3000/- respectively. not being satisfied with the enhanced compensation awarded by the high court, the claimants have filed these appeals under section 54 of the act claiming enhanced compensation @ rs. 9,000/- per bigha.2. the high court found that there are no sale transactions in the village jwalahari other than one sale transaction in village madipur which is said to be adjacent to the village jwalahari. that sale deed was dated april 20, 1959 just before the notification. an extent of 1472.22 sq. yards was sold in khasra no. 828 for a consideration of rs. 7726/- which worked out at rs. 5250/- per bigha. based thereon, the high court has enhanced the compensation. it is now a settled principle that the price of a small extent of land cannot form the sole basis for fixation of higher compensation when a large track of land is acquired. since the state did not file any appeal, we need not go into the correctness of the finding recorded by the high court. suffice it to state that there is no other evidence on record for us to further enhance the compensation.3. it is next contended that the high court having made a distinction between the owner and the mortgagee and enhanced 25% extra compensation to the owner, committed a grave error of law in not awarding the same to the appellants. we find no discernible principle made by the high court to further enhance 25% more to the owner while awarding the market value to the mortgagee. under these circumstances, we do not find any legal principle warranting further enhancement of 25% extra compensation. the appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.4. all applications for substitutions &consolidation; and reduction of security are allowed.c.a.nos. 2525, 2524, 2970, 2823,1895/80,1577, 3112, 1376/81, 3151/80, 3758/82, 1784/81, 1375/81 and c.a. no. 7048... of 1995 (arising out of slp (c) no. 2161/81).5. leave granted in s.l.p. no. 2161 of 1981.6. following the order made just now in c.a. no. 2130/80, these appeals shall stand dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on November 13, 1959 acquiring 1876 Bighas 19 Biswas land situated in Jwalahari for planned development of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Collector classified the lands as A,B, C blocks and awarded @ Rs. 1600/-, Rs. 1400/- and Rs. 1000/- per bigha respectively. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Additional District Judge by his Award and Decree dated September 8, 1979 further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4250/-, 3200/- and 2150/- per bigha respectively. The High Court, on appeal, further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5250/-, 4000/- and 3000/- respectively. Not being satisfied with the enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court, the claimants have filed these appeals under Section 54 of the Act claiming enhanced compensation @ Rs. 9,000/- per bigha.

2. The High Court found that there are no sale transactions in the village Jwalahari other than one sale transaction in Village Madipur which is said to be adjacent to the village Jwalahari. That sale deed was dated April 20, 1959 just before the Notification. An extent of 1472.22 sq. yards was sold in Khasra No. 828 for a consideration of Rs. 7726/- which worked out at Rs. 5250/- per bigha. Based thereon, the High Court has enhanced the compensation. It is now a settled principle that the price of a small extent of land cannot form the sole basis for fixation of higher compensation when a large track of land is acquired. Since the State did not file any appeal, we need not go into the correctness of the finding recorded by the High Court. Suffice it to state that there is no other evidence on record for us to further enhance the compensation.

3. It is next contended that the High Court having made a distinction between the owner and the mortgagee and enhanced 25% extra compensation to the owner, committed a grave error of law in not awarding the same to the appellants. We find no discernible principle made by the High Court to further enhance 25% more to the owner while awarding the market value to the mortgagee. Under these circumstances, we do not find any legal principle warranting further enhancement of 25% extra compensation. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.

4. All applications for substitutions &consolidation; and reduction of security are allowed.

C.A.Nos. 2525, 2524, 2970, 2823,1895/80,1577, 3112, 1376/81, 3151/80, 3758/82, 1784/81, 1375/81 and C.A. No. 7048... of 1995 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 2161/81).

5. Leave granted in S.L.P. No. 2161 of 1981.

6. Following the order made just now in C.A. No. 2130/80, these appeals shall stand dismissed. No costs.