Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
M.V.K. GUNDARAO
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,(L.A.O.), NARASARAOPET
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/01/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (3) 129 JT 1996 (1) 670
1996 SCALE (1)627
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides. Notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published
on January 3, 1980 acquiring 5108-2/3 sq. yds. in Survey
Nos.248/2, 249/2, 300/1 and 26767 sq. ft. or 2974-1/4
sq.yds. in temporary Survey No.249/3 and 300/2 situated in
the middle of Narasaraopet Town, Guntur District, Andhra
Pradesh for construction of Telephone Exchange building,
Microwave Building and Microwave Tower. The appellant has
laid his claim for a sum of Rs. 80/- per sq.yd. The Land
Acquisition Officer in his award under Section 9 determined
the compensation @ Rs.40/- per sq. yd. on March 30, 1980. On
reference under Section 18, the subordinate Judge,
Narasaraopet in his award and decree dated December 15, 1982
enhanced the compensation at Rs.75/- per sq. yd. The High
Court on appeal by the State as well as by the claimants
reduced the compensation to Rs.56/- per sq. yd. Thus these
appeals by special leave. The State did not file any appeal.
The Subordinate Judge relied on Ex.A-1 to A-4, sale
deeds dated September 16, 1978 executed in respect of 43 sq.
yds. 69 sq. yds., 104 sq.yds., 149 sq yds. respectively,
which worked out at the rates between Rs. 71/- to Rs. 75/-
per sq. yd. Based thereon, the Subordinate Judge enhanced
the compensation to Rs. 75/- per sq. yd. The High Court
concluded that since the lands covered in the sale
transactions relate to the small pieces of land, they did
not commend the same price for the total extent of the land
to the acquisition covering 5,000 and odd sq. yds.
Accordingly, reduced the compensation in the impugned
judgment made in A.S.No.2629/86 and 1183/84 dated February
21, 1992.
Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel for the appellant,
contended that the sale deeds between A-1 to A-4 relied on
by the reference Court relates to same acquired lands. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
validity had not been questioned. Their genuineness was not
questioned. The consideration passed thereunder was not
questioned and the Subordinate Judge recorded a finding that
in view of these undisputed facts, they form reasonable
basis to determine the compensation since they pertain to
the very same land under acquisition. Therefore, it would
form the best basis for determination of the compensation.
We find that it is difficult to accept that contention. It
is settled law that the burden is on the claimant to prove
the prevailing market value as on the date of the Section
4(1) Notification and it is the duty of the Court to assess
the prevailing market value applying pragmatic tests. The
Court has to consider the evidence in the proper perspective
whether a willing vendee would prepare to purchase at the
rates offered by the willing vendor in an open market when
the lands are put to sale. It is the duty of the Court to
sit on the arm chair of a prudent purchaser acting under
normal market conditions and to decide the prevailing prices
as on the date of the notification. The land Acquisition
Officer in his award has specifically referred to all these
sale transactions and stated thus:
"Sale Nos.9, 10, 11, 16 and 22 : In all
these cases the vendor is the same. The
land of the same vendor in the same
survey numbers is now under acquisition.
The land holder is aware of this
acquisition since he orally consented
for the same and it is suspected that he
might have got these sale registered for
a higher value with the idea getting
higher rate of compensation. Hence these
sales are discarded."
It would thus be seen that the appellant having had the
knowledge of the proposed acquisition for the public
purposes obviously brought these documents to inflate the
market value and that, therefore, these sale transactions
cannot be pressed into service. The learned subordinate
Judge has committed palpable error of law in accepting ipso
facto those documents without subjecting the evidence to
closer and critical scrutiny, whether these documents are
genuine documents executed between willing vendor and
willing vendee. The answer would be obviously "No". The High
Court, therefore, was right in not relying upon those
documents. If these documents are excluded from
consideration, there is no other evidence on record to
consider for enhancement of the compensation. The High
Court, therefore, was right in reducing the compensation
from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 56/- with consequential benefit of
solatium and interest. The appeals are accordingly dismissed
but, in the circumstances, without costs.