Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
K. PERIASAMI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SUB-TEHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION)
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1994
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC (4) 180 1994 SCALE (2)996
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. By a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on
7-3-1973 a large extent of lands including Survey No. 11/4
and 49/7 in Thathanai Village, near Madurai were proposed to
be acquired for a Housing Scheme. The Land Acquisition
Officer determined the market value of that land @ Rs 92 per
cent. On reference under Section 18, the civil court, by
its award, enhanced the market value of that land to Rs 800
per cent as against the claim of the appellant at the rate
of Rs 1500 per cent. The High Court, by its judgment and
decree dated 25-10-1989 confirmed the award of the civil
court and dismissed the appeal in Civil Appeal No. 763 of
1987 of the State. It also dismissed the cross-objections
of the appellant. Hence, this claimant’s appeal by special
leave.
2. It is not disputed that the market value of lands
acquired pursuant to ’he said notification has been
determined by different Benches of the High Court such as
Appeal Nos. 538 of 1987 and 1226 of 1986 titled Special
Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. Lakshmi Ammall. The lands
for which the and Acquisition. Officer had awarded at the
rate of Rs 70 per cent and the civil court on reference, had
enhanced such rate to Rs 850 per cent, the High Court on
appeal had enhanced the rate in two cases to Rs 1000 per
cent and in two other cases to Rs 1050 per cent. Since the
lands under consideration in the present appeals are
situated in the same area and were acquired under ,he same
acquisition and the Land Acquisition Officer himself had
treated the lands to be in a better advantageous position
than the lands covered in the other appeals, it would be
clear that the lands in these appeals are possessed of
better advantageous features than the lands covered by the
judgment in other appeals by fixing their value at the rate
of Rs 92 per cent. This fact was not noticed by the learned
Judge, while disposing of the appeals, as it is observed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
that there is no evidence as to parity of the advantageous
position of the lands to award the same compensation. The
observation appears to be incorrect. The treatment of the
lands by the Land Acquisition Officer himself by awarding to
them a rate of Rs 92 per cent in these appeals while he had
awarded the rate of Rs 70 per cent of lands in the other
appeals furnishes the intrinsic evidence that the lands in
question are situated in a better advantageous position than
the lands concerned in the other appeals. When such is the
situation the appellant also is entitled to parity of market
value for the acquired lands.
3. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The appellant is
entitled to 30% solatium and 9% interest on the enhanced
compensation for the first year from the date of taking
possession and thereafter 15% interest till date of payment
or deposit, whichever is earlier. No costs.
1 Appeal Nos. 538 of 1987 and 1226 of 1986
182