Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
HOOKIYAR SINGH ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,MORABADBAD & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BHARUCHA S.P. (J)
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (3) 766 JT 1996 (4) 251
1996 SCALE (3)516
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
C.A.Nos. 6823-25, 6864, 6835, 6836-63, 6867, 6866, 6865,
6822, 6826, 6868, 6827, 6828_34, AND 6869-6875 OF 1996
(Arising out of SLP Nos. 14335, 14340, 14391, 17714, 17435,
17478-17505, 19742, 19714, 19671, 14309, 16104, 19814,
17363, 17366-17372 of 1995 and 4637-4643/96).
O R D E R
Substitution allowed.
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both
sides.
Notification under Section 4 [1] of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the ’Act’] acquiring an
extent of 171.46 acres of land situated in village Tigarea
Bhoor, Tehsil Hansanpur, District Mordabad for public
purpose, viz., UPSIDC, was published on September 28, 1981.
The Land Acquisition Officer [LAO] classified the lands into
several categories and accepting the sale deed, item 51,
determined compensation at the highest rate of Rs.15,500/-
and gradually reduced the market value basing upon the
classification. On reference under Section 18, the District
Judge by his award and decree dated May 22, 1989 increased
the compensation to Rs.40,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with
the determination of the compensation, the claimants as well
as the State filed appeals in the High Court.
As seen, the High Court proceeded on the premise that
the classification of the lands was not warranted, the
entire land commands same value and that, therefore, uniform
rate of market value is required to be adopted in
determining the compensation. The High Court had accepted
the sale deed relied on by the LAO and on that basis it
increased the market value by five times, holding that in
the oral evidence of the claimants they had stated that they
paid much more than what was reflected as consideration in
the sale deed and that there was no cross-examination in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
that behalf. It fixed the market value at Rs.62,500/- and
ultimately determined the compensation in respect of all
lands at Rs.50,000/- per acre. Thus these appeals by
claimants and the State as well as the UPSIDC.
The question for consideration is: what is the just and
adequate compensation to which the lands would command
determination? We accept the finding of the High Court as
the State did not seriously dispute in the High Court that
all the lands are of equal value and, therefore,
compensation should be determined uniformly in respect of
all lands. It is seen that the market value of the lands
varies from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.49,500/- per acre. But the
sale deeds are of small extents of land. Only one sale deed
in which large extent of land, i.e., one acre and odd was
sold, appears to be related to one of the claimants and part
of the transfer was in favour of his wife. The civil Court
also pointed out that those lands are abutting the national
highway and that they do not command the same market value
as the lands under acquisition. In view of those facts, we
cannot accept the sale deed to be reflective of the true and
genuine market value. But the fact remains that the LAO
himself had adopted the highest rate of Rs.15,500/- and the
High Court accepting the sale deed relied on by the LAO had
enhanced the market value five times accepting the oral
evidence.
It is settled law that the burden of proof of market
value prevailing as on the date of publication of Section 4
[1] notification is always on the claimants. Though this
Court has time and again pointed out the apathy and blatant
lapse on the part of the acquiring officer to adduce
evidence and also improper or ineffective or lack of
interest on the part of the counsel for the State to cross-
examine the witnesses on material facts, it is the duty of
the Court to carefully scrutinize the evidence and determine
just and adequate compensation. If the sale deeds are found
to be genuine, the market value mentioned therein must be
presumed to be correct. If the genuineness is doubted, it
cannot be relied upon. Proper tests and principles laid down
by this Court must be applied to determine compensation.
Since the LAO as well as the High Court placed reliance on
the sale deed which commanded market value of a maximum of
Rs.15,000 and odd, the question is: what would be the just
and adequate compensation to be paid in respect of the
lands? The Court must not indulge in feats of imagination
but, sit in the arm-chair of a prudent purchaser in open
market and to put a question to itself whether as a prudent
purchaser it would offer the same price in the open market
as is to be determined? This should be the acid test. The
District Court was not right in holding that the lands are
possessed of future-potentiality as public purpose is
industrial development. Section 24 clause fifthly prohibits
taking into consideration future user to which the land will
put when acquired. Considered from the fluctuation in the
prices placed on record and large area involved in the
acquisition, situation of the lands, actual user of the
lands as agricultural lands and on the totality of the facts
in this case, treating all the lands as agricultural lands,
we are of the considered view that the market value of the
land per acre would be Rs.35,000/-. The claimants are
accordingly entitled to this amount. It is no ground for the
claimants to contend that as they are required to refund the
difference of the Compensation amount, the amount determined
by the High Court or reference Court should be confirmed. If
that contention is given acceptance in no case proper
compensation can be fixed by the appellate Court.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
It is stated by Shri Manoj Swarup, learned counsel that
the lands have been sold to the beneficiaries at the lesser
rates than what was determined. It would be obvious that if
higher compensation was paid in respect of the lands, UPSIDC
is entitled to recover the proportionate increase in the
compensation from the allotees.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.