Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
GURLINGAPPA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LANDACQUISITION OFFICER, GULBARG
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/01/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Notification under Section under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in October 1977 for
construction of Amerja Project. The land Acquisition
officer in hes award under Section 11 awarded compensation @
Rs. 3,000/- per acre. On reference, the District Court
enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,300/- per acre for dry
lands and Rs. 9,820/- per acre for Bgayat Lands (cultivable
lands). On Appeal, the High Court dismissed the same and
confirmed the award of the reference Court. Thus , this
special leave petition.
It is contended for the petitioners that in similar
circumstances, the Additional Civil Judge has enhanced the
compensation to Rs.12,000/- per acre for the irrigated land
and Rs.8,000/- per acre for the dry lands and confirmed by
the judgment of the High Court in RFA Nos.1160 and 1825/92
and, therefore, the petitioners also are entitled to the
same compensation. We find no force in the contention. It is
now Well settled legal position that in compulsory of a
willing purchaser and would ask whether as a reasonable
prudent vendee, he would offer in the open market the rate
of market value proposed by him in respect of the land under
acquisition. The Court requires to consider the relative
values of the lands in the neighbourhood, the soil condition
and same or similar advantageous features on comparable
prices, The High Court has pointed out in its judgement that
there is no evidence to show that the lands referred to in
those judgements bear any similarity to the lands in
question. on the other hand, it is pointed out that for the
same project and for the lands situated in the same village
another award for a sum of Rs.6,320/-per acre was passed by
the Additional Civil Judge and the same has been upheld by
the High Court.
Under these circumstances, we do not find any
Illegality in the determination of the compensation
warranting interference.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2