Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. SHANTABHAI & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (2) 28 JT 1995 (2) 537
1995 SCALE (1)850
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, (for short, ’the Act’) was published in the State
gazette on September 6, 1974 acquiring 22 acres 63 decimals
of the land situated in Village Rasoolpur of Devdas Distt.
of M.P. for industrial purpose. The Land Acquisition
Officer in his award dated June 1975 determined the market
value at Rs. 1,500/per acre and given the compensation with
statutory benefits. On reference, the Civil Court by its
award and decree dated October 22, 1980 enhanced the
compensation to Rs.4,900/- per acre which worked out to Rs.
1,08,000/- in all. At this stage it is relevant to mention
that the respondent herself purchased the entire acquired
land under registered sale deed dated September 4, 1974,
just two days earlier to the date of publication of
preliminary notification for a total sum of Rs.1,08,000/-.
The respondent not being satisfied, carried the matter in
appeal to the High Court under s.54 of the Act. The High
Court, by its impugned judgment in Transfer Appeal No.323/82
dated November 1, 1983, enhanced the compensation to Rs.
10,000/per acre. In other words, the High Court awarded a
total compensation of Rs.2,27,000/- with statutory benefits
thereon. Feeling aggrieved against enhanced compensation
awarded by the High Court, this appeal by special leave has
been filed.
2. The High Court in our considered view, committed palpable
and manifest error of law in ignoring the sale deed of the
respondent herself dated September 4, 1974 wherein she had
paid total consideration of a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- for the
acquired land. It is contended by learned senior counsel
for the respondent that this is an industrial area and the
very purpose for which acquisition is sought to be made is
for industrial purpose. The respondent herself purchased
the property for industrial purpose. The High Court had
rightly taken into consideration those -facts and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
circumstances and enhanced the compensation. We find no
force in the contention- When the respondent herself had
purchased the property for the purpose of establishing an
industry and got the sale deed registered on September 4,
1974, it would furnish ipso facto the sole basis for deter-
mination of market value of the self same land. For the
property purchased by paying a consideration of of Rs.
1,08,000/-, no reasonable and prudent buyer, within two days
thereafter, would purchase the land by paying a sum of
Rs.2,27,000/- as determined by the High Court. It is quite
unreasonable and credulous to believe that a prudent buyer
in normal market conditions would agree to pay Rs.1,19,000/-
more within two days for the self same land. The High
Court, therefore, totally ignored these relevant
considerations while enhancing the compensation without ap-
Plication of mind on the basis of sale transactions of small
bits of other lands. In V. Salgoacar & Pvt. Ltd. v. Union
of India (C.A. No.3800/89) dated January 11, 1995 on similar
facts, this Court affirmed the judgment of High Court of
Bombay reversing the award of the reference court and
awarded at the rate purchased by the claimants itself The
judgment and decree of the High Court is, therefore, set
aside
539
and that of the Dist. Judge is affirmed. appeal is
accordingly allowed with costs.
3. The cross objections are consequently dismissed with
costs.