Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 8483-8484 of 1995
PETITIONER:
R. SUNDARSEKAR AND OTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE SPL. TEHSILDAR (LA)
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/02/2002
BENCH:
V.N. Khare & Ashok Bhan
JUDGMENT:
(with CA Nos. 8485-8487/95, 8489-8491/1995 & 8492/1995)
O R D E R
This group of appeals raises common question of facts and law. We,
therefore, proceed to decide these appeals by a common judgment by
noticing facts which have given rise to Civil Appeal Nos. 8483-8484/1995.
In the said appeals, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
(hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) was issued on 7.2.1973 which was
followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Subsequently, the Land
Acquisition Officer, on 10.8.1977, gave an award. The compensation
offered to the appellants was 1,07,437/- + 15% solatium. The claimants
were not satisfied with the amount offered to them, therefore, they sought
reference before the Civil Court. The reference Court enhanced the
compensation to Rs. 8,19,000/- + 15 % solatium + 4% interest. Aggrieved,
the State of Tamil Nadu filed Regular First Appeals before the High Court.
The High Court on the basis of the evidence led before the Reference Court
came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to compensation only
to the extent of Rs. 1,34,742.50 + 30% solatium and interest. Aggrieved, the
claimants have come up before this Court by way of separate special leave
petitions.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the
compensation awarded to the claimants in respect of the coconut and mango
trees standing on the acquired land were not adequate and, therefore,
compensation is liable to be enhanced. Before the Reference Court, the
State filed reports of Shri S. Murugesan, and Shri J. S. Sunderrrajan, Joint
Director of Agriculture in respect of the value of the crop of coconut and
mango each year from the trees standing on the land which was acquired.
The said reports of Shri S. Murugesan and Shri J.S. Sunderrajan were proved
by Thiru Seetharaman, RW-1. The claimants examined Shri VN Madhava
Rao, Professor and Head of the Department of Horticulture, Tamilnadu
Agricultural University, Coimbatore. The claimants’ said witness
substantially agreed with the reports of Shri S. Murugesan and Shri J.S.
Sunderrajan. In view of the said reports, the High Court reduced the
compensation. However, in concluding part of the judgment, the High
Court stated that after all an estimate is an estimate for all practical purposes
and it cannot be accurate, and considering the fact that there may be some
fluctuations in the matter of estimating the yields from the trees and the
value thereof, the claimants are entitled to 25% increase in the value over
and above the said report. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
and also the fact that the State’s own witness stated that groves and orchards
owned by the claimants are the finest in the State of Tamil Nadu, we feel
that the appellants are entitled to further 10% of the compensation awarded
towards coconut and mango trees by the High Court.
With this modification of the judgment under challenge, we affirm the
judgment of the High Court. The appeals are decided in the aforesaid terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.
..J.
(V. N. Khare)
..J.
(Ashok Bhan)
February 06, 2002