Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
R.K. HANMANTANAWAR & ANR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/09/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, the ’Act’) was published on April 14,
1977 acquiring an extent of 3 acres 34 gunthas, 1 acre 2
gunthas for extension of Agricultural Produce Marketing
Committee, Gadag in Dharwad District of Karnataka State. The
Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) by his award dated January
23, 1982 determined the compensation at the rate of Re.
0.76 per sq. ft. On reference, the Civil Judge, Gadag in his
award dated November 29, 1982 enhanced the compensation to
Rs. 8.50 per sq. ft. On appeal under Section 54, in the
impugned judgment dated October 7, 1992 and November 4,
1992 in MFA No. 837/87 and MFA No.1962/87 respectively, the
High Court of Karnataka reduced the compensation to Rs. 7/-
per sq. ft. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
The reference Court and the High Court relied on three
sale instances of an extent of 38.4 sq. ft. and 87.35 sq.
ft. which worked out at the rate of Rs. 8/- and Rs. 19.98
per sq. ft; another sale deed of 78 sq. ft. was worked out
at the rate of Rs. 31.25 per sq. ft. The question is whether
the principle adopted by the courts below is correct in law?
It is now settled legal position by catena of decisions of
this Court that the civil Court has to sit in the arm chair
of a willing prudent purchaser and put a question to itself
and answer whether such a willing prudent purchaser would
offer to purchase in the open market at the rate Court
proposed to determine as compensation. When a total extent
of 7 acres and odd is sought to be acquired no prudent
purchaser in open market would offer to purchase the open
land on sq. ft. basis that too on the basis of few small
sale transactions and small extents would always fetch
higher market value and the same will never command such
price in respect of large extent. This Court had always
rejected such instances as being not comparable sales.
Therefore, the Civil Judge adopted feats of imagination and
determined the compensation on the basis thereof.
Unfortunately, the High Court also fell into the same grave
error in determining the compensation on the same basis but
deducted 1/3rd towards developmental charges. The principle
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
adopted by the courts below is obviously erroneous and,
therefore, it cannot be sustained on that basis. However,
when we asked the learned counsel for the parties to produce
the evidence, the appellant has produced certain documents
indicating therein that for the same purpose they appeared
to have negotiated and purchased the properties from others
at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per acre and registered sale deed
came to be executed. They are produced for the first time.
Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents,
contended that the documents were not places either in the
reference Court or in the High Court. He also says that
location of the lands are different. Under these
circumstances, we cannot decide for the first time the value
of the land on the basis thereof without giving an
opportunity to either of the parties for adducing evidence
and without consideration thereof by the reference Court.
Accordingly, the awards and decrees of the reference Court
and that of the High Court stand set aside. The cases are
remitted to the civil Court for decision afresh after giving
an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence afresh and
then decide the market value according to law. Pending these
appeals since the respondents have withdrawn the amount as
per the interim direction passed by this Court, the same
may not be disturbed and the amount withdraw will be
adjusted when the award was passed by the reference Court.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. The judgment
of the High Court to the extent of awarding additional
amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act stands set aside
since the LAO had made his award before the Amendment act
came into force. No costs.