Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KHEDA & ANR. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
VASUDEV CHANDRASHANKAR & ANR. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act was published on August 14, 1986 acquiring 12 Hectares,
95 are 88 sq, metres of the land for the construction of
Ahmedabad-Baroda Express Highway. The land are situated in
village Marida, Tal. Nadiad, District Kheda. Land
Acquisition officer awarded compensation in his award dated
1.4.1987 at the rate of Rs. 250/- per Are. Dissatisfied
therewith, the respondents sought for enhancement and
reference was made under section 18. The learned Assistant
District Judge, by his award and decree dated August 26,
1992, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,500/- per Are which
was affirmed by the High Court in the impugned judgment
dated July 4, 1995 in First Appeal Nos. 1125-1150/95. Thus,
these appeals by special leave.
We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is
not necessary to go into all other documents. Suffice it to
state that in another award of the Reference court under
ex.43, relating to the same village, the land was acquired
by notification dated may 3, 1979. The reference Court
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,100/- per Are. The
appellants did not carry in appeal against the award. Thus,
the award become final. The lands in question also situated
in the same village but on different survey numbers. some of
the claimants also are the claimants in the earlier
acquisition as well, as stated in the note appended to the
time lag of 8 years, the reference Court awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per Are.
The question, therefore, is: whether the assessment of
the compensation made by the reference court is vitiated by
any error of principle of law warranting interference. It is
now settled legal position that the award of the reference
court relating to the same village of the similar land
possessed of same quality of land and potential offer a
comparable base for determination of the compensation. The
reference Court also noted in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the
similarities of the lands under acquisition and that they
were covered by EX. 43. No doubt, the lands under
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
acquisition are situated at the outskirts of the village. In
the absence of any tangible material brought on record, as
regards the distinctive features of differentiation between
the quality of the land situated, The land , subject matter
of Ex.43 and the lands under acquisition Ex.48, it is
difficult to find out whether the reference Court has
applied any wrong principle of law in determination of the
compensation. In the light of the findings recorded by the
reference Court in paragraphs 18 and 19 , we think that, in
the absence of any distinct material brought on record, even
in cross-examination of the witnesses, we cannot hazard to
conclude that they offered no comparable value, in
particular, when the award earlier has already attained
finality. Under these circumstance, we think that there are
no circumstances warranting interference.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.