Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERDHARWARD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. TAJAR HANIFABI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11388 OF 1996
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 200_23 of 1994]
O R D E R
Impleadment allowed.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
These appeals by special leave arises from the judgment
and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated June 16, 1993
made in MFA No. 1395 of 1995. The admitted facts are that
notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 [for short, the "Act"] was published on March 7,
1985 acquiring six acres of land near Chikodi municipality
for industrial development. The Land Acquisition Officer
[LAD] granted compensation on acrage basis. On
reference,relying upon the sale deed Ex.P-8 in respect of
land of an extent of 40’ x 40’ situated one and a half kms.
away from the acquired lands which worked out to Rs.12/- per
square foot, the Civil Judge enhanced the compensation to
Rs.6/- per square foot which worked out to Rs.2,66,360/- per
acre. On appeal, the High Court reduced the compensation to
Rs.4.50 per square foot which worked out to Rs.1,96,020/-
per acre.
The only question for consideration is: whether the
compensation determined by the High Court and the reference
Court is in accordance with law? It is seen that the sole
basis worked out by both the reference Court and the High
Court was Ex.P-8 spoken to by the vendor PW-2 in respect of
land of an extent of 40’ x 40’ in the developed area in
which case the compensation worked out to Rs.12/- square
foot. Since six acres of land was sought to be acquired in
two survey numbers, admeasuring 1.15 gunthas in RS No.407/2
and 4.25 gunthas in RS No.417/1, no prudent and willing
vendee would offer that rate for purchase of land on square
foot basis. The High Court and the reference Court,
therefore, committed obvious error of law in determining the
compensation on square foot basis relying solely on Ex.P-8.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
It is seen that Ex.P-8 is in respect of a small extent of
land admeasuring 40’ x 40’ situated at a distance of 1.5
kms. within the developed municipal area. Under those
circumstances, PW-8 offered no comparable sale.
The question then is: what would be the reasonable
compensation for the acquired lands? Though the reference
Court has noted that it has a potential value, obviously it
is a wrong finding given by it. On going through the award
of the Collector we find, as specifically stated by him,
that he had inspected the lands on August 11, 1986 before
determination of the compensation; he found that the lands
were cultivated and certificate to that effect was also
obtained from the Sub-Tehsildar. Under those circumstances,
the finding that the lands are possessed of potential value
is obviously illegal. It is seen that the respondents
themselves had sold plots of land admeasuring 60’ x 40’
which were part of the acquired lands, in the year 1985 for
a sum of Rs,6,000/- per plot, It would be obvious that this
document was brought in existence to inflate the market
value which worked out to Rs.1,89,000/-. From the totality
of the facts, particularly that the lands are agricultural
lands, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.45,000/- per acre
would be reasonable compensation for the acquired lands.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. The claimants are
entitled to solatium under Section 23 [2] @ 30% of the
enhanced compensation and interest under Section 28 @ 9% of
the enhanced compensation from the date taking possession of
the land for one year and thereafter @ 15% till date of
deposit into Court. They are also entitled to additional
amount under Section 23 [1-A] @ 12% per annum from the date
of notification under Section 4 [1] till date of award under
Section 11 or of taking possession, whichever is earlier. No
costs.