Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9688 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.22163 OF 2010)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9689-9690 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.25939-25940 OF 2010)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9691 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.3568 OF 2011)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9692 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.3570 OF 2011)
WITH
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9693 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.3969 OF 2011)
K.R. SUNDRAM @ SUNDARARAJAN & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
& SPC. TAHIS ..... RESPONDENTS
Page 1
2
J U D G M E N T
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been preferred against common
st
judgment dated 21 December, 2009 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras arising out of the proceedings for
determination of compensation for the land acquired by the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore Housing Unit in
th
pursuance of Notification dated 18 August, 1983 under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”). In the group
of cases heard by the High Court, in some of the cases
th
Notifications under Section 4 of the Act are dated 25 February,
th th
1983, 7 March, 1983 and 7 September, 1983.
th
3. The Collector, vide Award dated 25 November, 1988,
JUDGMENT
determined the compensation @ Rs.200/- per cent. The
Reference Court gave six separate awards. In four of the
awards, compensation was determined @ 6,000/- per cent. In
fifth award, the rate fixed was Rs.400/- per cent while in the
sixth award, the rate fixed was Rs.7,000/- per cent. High Court
determined market value to be Rs.2,000/- per cent, apart from
other statutory benefits.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. From the impugned judgment of the High Court, we find
Page 2
3
that in A.S. No.780 of 2004, the Reference Court relied upon
th
sale instance at Serial No.123 in Exhibit R 2 dated 30
September, 1981. At Serial No.124 sale of 50 cents of land was
for Rs.1,21,212/- @ Rs.6,06,060/- per acre. The High Court
pointed out that an error was committed in treating the value to
be Rs.1,71,211/- instead of Rs.1,21,212/-. On that ground, the
High Court left out the said sale instance from consideration and
by excluding the said material, determined compensation @
Rs.2,000/- per cent.
6. It is pointed out that the mere mistake was no ground to
exclude the sale instances from consideration and after
correction of the said mistake the transaction should have been
considered. Since undisputed value disclosed in the said
instance was Rs.6,06,060/- per acre, the compensation should
be held to be Rs.6,000/- per cent as determined in the four of
JUDGMENT
the six awards of the Reference Court.
6. It has also been pointed out that the acquired land was of
prime location and was easily accessible to facilities like railway
station, bus stand, market etc. There were lot of industries and
other educational institutions in the vicinity. The land was
acquired for the housing colony. These aspects ought to be
given due consideration.
7. We notice the following finding in the impugned order of
the High Court :
Page 3
4
“However, it has to be noted that having regard to the
location of the lands, which is easily accessible to
various other facilities, like railway station, bus stand,
market etc., it cannot be held that there is a total lack
of facilities or amenities relating to the land. In fact,
the evidence let in before the Court below disclose that
in the vicinity of the acquired land there were lot of
industries and other educational institutions.”
8. We have also noticed the discussion in the impugned
judgment excluding the crucial evidence which has been relied
upon on behalf of the land owners, which is as follows :
“Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent in A.S. No.780/2004, in
his submissions, pointed out that the court below
relied upon Serial No.123 in Ex. R.2. Learned senior
counsel pointed out that the said sale was in respect of
the land in S.No.59 and the sale was also on
30.09.1981 conveying 20 cents of lands for a sum of
Rs.1,71,211/-. Learned senior counsel therefore
contended that when in a part of the acquired land
viz., the land in S.No.59, there was a sale more than
one year prior to the acquisition and with reference to
the said sale when there was no dispute, there was
every justification in the court below having adopted
the value of the said sale for the purpose of arriving at
the market value to pay the compensation. We
examined Ex. R.2. As against Serial No.123, we find
that while the document number is 219/28, the sale
was on 28.01.1981 and the Survey number was 58.
The sale value was Rs.20,000/- and the value per acre
was Rs.8,000/-. The total extent of land was 2 acres
and 50 cents. On further examination, we find that in
Serial No.124, there was a sale of land in S.No.226 on
30.09.1981 by Document No.256. That was a sale of
50 cents of land for a value of Rs.1,21,212/-, which
works out to Rs.6,06,060/- per acre. In fact, there
appears to have been an obvious mistake committed
by the court below while referring to the details of the
sale mentioned in Serial No.123. Though Serial No.123
related to S. No.58, which is part of the acquired lands,
which has been correctly noted by the court below, the
court below seems to have recorded the sale
mentioned in Serial No.124 and even while recording
JUDGMENT
Page 4
5
the purchase value, the court below seem to have
committed an error in that, instead of mentioning
Rs.1,21,212/-, it has mentioned Rs.1,71,211/-. We are
therefore convinced that the reference to Ex.R.2 and
the details mentioned in Serial No.123 were obvious
mistakes and therefore we are not inclined to accept
any conclusion reached by the court below on that
basis.”
9. We are of the opinion that even if mistake pointed out by
the High Court that value of transaction at Sr. No.124 was
wrongly mentioned as Rs.1,71,211/- instead of Rs.1,21,212/-
which worked out to Rs.6,06,060/- per acre was correct, the view
taken by the Reference Court in determining compensation @
Rs.6,000/- per cent did not call for any interference.
10. Accordingly, we allow these appeals and enhance the
compensation for the acquired land to Rs.6,000/- per cent in
addition to statutory benefits.
11. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT
……..…………………………….J.
[ V. GOPALA GOWDA ]
.….………………………………..J.
NEW DELHI [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
October 14, 2014
Page 5