Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHRI TOPANDAS KUNDANMAL, SINCEDECEASED THEREAFTER BY HISHEIR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE THROUGH THE LANDACQUISITION OFFICER, JAMNAGAR ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT25/07/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 2396 1995 SCC (5) 336
1995 SCALE (4)701
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEL NOS. 399-400 OF 1973
ORDER
These appeals are by certificate of fitness granted by
the High Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution of
India. Notification under s.4(1) of Land Acquisition Act.
1894(for short, "the Act") was published on October 15, 1959
acquiring 10 acres and 12 gunthas of land situated in
Jamnagar for the establishment under development of T.B.
Hospital. The appellants laid a claim pursuant to the rate
of Rs. 1,08,898/- per acre. The Land Acquisition officer in
his award dated July 18, 1962 under s.11 awarded a sum of
Rs.2,500/- per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, a Reference to
the Civil Judge senior division was made under s.18 of the
Act. The appellants restricted their claim to Rs.2.00 per
sq. ft. The Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.
1.25 per sq. ft. The High Court in the impugned judgment in
the First Appeal Nos. 521 and 519 of 1963 dated 28.7.72 set
aside the award and decree of the Reference Court and
confirmed that of the Collector. Since the value involved is
more than 20,000/- the High Court granted a certificate.
Thus these appeals.
The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously
contended that Ex.39 dated August 8, 1959 to an extent of
5016 sq. ft. land was sold by Jaisukhlal Devji who was
examined under Ex. 32, for a sum worked out at the rate of
Rs. 2.25 per sq. ft. and the High Court was not justified in
rejecting that sale deed. In addition, he also placed
reliance on Ex. 38 dated December 6, 1959 of Rs. 2,700/-
which worked out at the rate of Rs. 2.88 per sq. ft. proved
through Lawshankar Monucha Manilal examined under Ex. 28 who
is the son of the vendee. It would also establish, according
to the counsel, that there is a further increase in the
value of the land. He also buttressed his argument by
reference to Ex. 41 dated July 12, 1990 under which 1200 sq.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
ft. was sold by Vijaykunvarba who was examined as Ex. 176 a
neighbouring land. The High Court therefore, was not
justified in reversing the award and decree of the Civil
Court . We find no force in the contention.
It is settled law that the claimants like plaintiffs
are entitled to succeed for higher compensation only on
proof of value prevailing as on the date of notification.
What is the prevailing market value as on the date of
notification is a question of fact to be proved by adducing
evidence. Burden is always on him to prove the same. It is
seen that the appellant himself purchased the land in 1957
at the rate of Rs.190 per acre. The land adjacent to the
land under acquisition in s.No. 225-I admeasuring 8 acres 39
gunthas was purchased by one Umiyashankar Damodar Vyas under
Ex. 55 on August 25, 1960 at the rate of 568 per acre. Ex.39
strongly relied upon by the claimants was executed just two
months prior to the date of the Notification. It is common
knowledge that issuance of Notification under s.4(1) to
intiate acquisition would take considerable time and the
publecation of the NOtification under s.4(1) of the Act
would be made much later on. Having had knowledge, it would
be obvious that documents would be brought into existence to
inflate the market value. Ex. 39 was sought to be pressed
into service to inflate the market value. The conclusion of
the High Court is that no attempt was made by the claimant
or the vendor or vendee who were examined, to prove Ex.p.39
to prove the distance of the land covered in Ex.p-39 and the
land under acquisition or as a comparable sale. We have seen
the award of the Collector. All the sales referred in the
award would only show the sales on acrage basis. Obviously
the documents have been brought into existence on the basis
of the sq. ft. to inflate higher market value. The property
of 10 acres and 12 gunthas , when offered for sale in the
open market, no prudent purchaser would be willing to
purchase the same on sq. ft. basis. If the small extent of
land in a commercial area, like Nariman point in Bombay or
Connaught Place in Delhi is sought to be acquired, perhaps,
determination of the compensation on the basis of the sq.
ft. may be justified. But when the claimant himself assessed
the market value at Rs. 190/- per acre and purchased in 1957
and when in 1960 the 8 acres and 39 gunthas of nighbouring
land was sold for Rs. 568/- per acre, no prudent purchaser
would offer to purchase on square foot basis. This Court in
a catena of decisions deprecated the practice of the
reference courts or High Court to determine market value of
the lands on sq.ft. basis unless it is established as a fact
that the acquired lands are situated in already highly
developed residential and industrial area where regular
sales are on sq.ft. basis. The High Court also has given
cogent and well considered reasons in not accepting the
award and decree of the Reference Court. We have carefully
gone through the judgment and we find no compelling reasons
to differ from the cogent reasons given by the High Court.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed but in the
circumstances without costs.