Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
A.R. RANGAMANNAR NAIDU
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SUB COLLECTOR OF CHIDAMBARAM
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/08/1992
BENCH:
THOMMEN, T.K. (J)
BENCH:
THOMMEN, T.K. (J)
RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II
SINGH N.P. (J)
CITATION:
1992 SCR (3) 890 1992 SCC (4) 78
JT 1992 (4) 508 1992 SCALE (2)208
ACT:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Ss. 12, 18-Land with road and drainage-Developed
for building sites-Acquisition of Compensation-Proportionate
deduction towards roads and drainage-Whether permissible.
HEADNOTE:
On State’s appeal against enhancement of compensation
for a compact area of 10 acres of land laid out as building
sites with fully formed roads and drainage, and acquired
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the High Court reduced
the compensation holding that since the roads and drainage
occupied a part of the area acquired, proportionate
deduction in compensation ought to be made. The claimant
filed appeal by special leave to this Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
Held: 1.1. The High Court was wrong in principle in
reducing the compensation on account of roads and drainage.
The fact that these improvements had been made on the land
acquired shows that what was acquired was more valuable than
what it would have been without the improvements. [p. 891E-
F]
1.2. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court
is set aside and that of the Reference Court is restored.
[p.891F]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1210 of
1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.1980 of the
Madras High Court in Appeal No. 213 of 1978.
K. Ram kumar for the Appellant.
R. Mohan, T. Raja and R. Nedumaran for the Respondent.
891
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
Ten acres of land belonging to the appellant had been
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land
Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of one
rupee one paise per sq. ft. On a reference under section 18
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
of the Act, the Court enhanced the rate of compensation to
Rs. 2.25 per sq. ft. On appeal by the State, the High Court
by the impugned judgment reduced the compensation to Rs.
2.00 per sq. ft.
The reason stated by the High Court for so reducing the
rate of compensation was that the acquired area was a
compact plot of 10 acres which was laid out as building
sites with fully formed roads and drainage. The High Court
held that since the roads and drainage occupied a part of
the area acquired, proportionate deduction in compensation
ought to be made.
Counsel for the appellant submits that what was
acquired was a compact area of 10 acres. The fact that roads
and drainage had been laid out does not reduce the value of
the land acquired. In fact the appellant had incurred
expenditure in preparing the land as building sites, and the
High Court ought to have accepted his contention that he was
entitled to higher compensation.
We see no reason why the High Court should have reduced
the compensation awarded by the Reference Court on the
ground that roads and drainage had been laid out. The fact
that these improvements had been made on the land shows that
what was acquired was more valuable than what it would have
been without the improvements. The reason given by the High
Court for reducing the compensation awarded by the Reference
Court was wrong in principle. Accordingly, we set aside the
impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of the
Reference Court.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No Costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
892