Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
P. RAJAN & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/10/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act was published on October 13, 1979 acquiring large extent
of land admeasuring 7 acres, 8 cents together with a
building situated in 1600 sq. mtrs, of the land. The Land
Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 1432.50 per
cent, Rs. 2,35,233/- for the building and Rs. 24,033/- for
the trees as well as wells and Rs. 4,19,006/- The reference
Court enhanced the compensation for the land to Rs. 3,000/-
per cent and awarded an additional amount of Rs. 1,83,783.60
per cent and awarded an additional amount of Rs. 1,83,783.60
towards building and Rs. 17,958/- as value of improvement.
The respondents filed an appeal before the High Court. The
High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent, reducing
the land value to Rs. 2,000/- per cent. This appeal by
special lave has been filed by the appellants-claimants
challenging the reduction of the compensation by the High
Court.
The question for consideration is: whether the view
taken by the High Court is correct in law? It is seen that
the courts below have relied upon Exs. A-1, A-2, A-7 and A-
9. The respondents have relied upon Exs. R-1 and R-6. Ex.A-1
is the sale deed dated July 31, 1978 pertaining to sale of
an extent of 2-1/2 cents of land whose value was worked out
@ Rs. 3,000/- per cent spoken to by AW-4. It is an admitted
position that the lands covered by the said sale transaction
are situated within the municipal limits in a developed
area. The distance between the acquired land and the land
covered by the Sale deed is 2-1/2 kms. Under these
circumstances, the said sale deed does not furnish ay
reasonable basis to determine the market value and
compensation. Equally, Ex.A-2 is dated November 15, 1978
spoken to by AW-2. It is a small extent of land situated
within the municipal limits which worked out at Rs. 4,000/-
per cent. Ex.A-7 is dated August 1, 1979 and the extent of
the land has not been mentioned; but is an admitted position
that it is a small piece of land purchased by AW-3 which
worked out to Rs. 26,000/- per cent. Ex.A-9 is a post-
notification sale deed dated October 9,1980 pertaining to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
sale of an extent of three cents of land purchased by AW-5
which worked to Rs. 5,000/- per cent. This also being post-
notification and being in respect of a small extent of land,
does not furnish any reasonable basis of land, does not
furnish any reasonable basis for determination of the market
value and compensation.
It is well settled legal position that when large
extent of land is acquired, determination of compensation on
the fort of a cent, square yard of square foot is wrong
principle. This Court repeatedly emphasised that the
principle is fixation on acrage basis. The other principle
is developed area and acquired land was converted as
building plots as colony or land itself is well developed
area like heart of the commercial centres.
It is seen that Ex.R-1 is dated October 27, 1979
involving 15 cents of land sold by RS-1 which worked out to
Rs. 2,800/- per cent. In view of the large extent of land in
view of the fact that the sale deeds are in respect of small
extents of land, they do not offer any reasonable basis to
determine the market vale and compensation higher than that
was granted by the High Court which had become final.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any
compelling evidence or the application of any wrong
principle of law to conclude that the High Court has ignored
any material evidence in determining the compensation. No
error of law has been committed by the High Court for
warranting interference with the valuation of the market
value of the land.
As regards the building, it is not is dispute that the
Executive Engineer of the Department of Government assessed
the value of the building. Though the Commissioner Engineer
appointed by the reference Court had valued the building and
the material at Rs. 1,85,026/- consisting of the valuation
and appreciation of 15 per cent etc, the High Court found
that three is reliable evidence placed on record in awarding
15% more as was assessed by the Engineer. This also being on
appreciation of evidence, we do not find any unimpeachable
material to find that the view taken by the High Court is
warranted for interference on the facts of this case.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any
compelling reason warranting interference.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.