Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 11733-11734 of 1995
PETITIONER:
Ravinder Narain and Anr.
RESPONDENT:
Union of India
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/02/2003
BENCH:
DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
[With C.A. No. 11735 of 1995]
ARIJIT PASAYAT,J
In these three appeals, the controversy lies within a
very narrow compass relating to the valuation of lands
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ’the
Act’).
As the points in issue are common they are dealt with
together. Notifications under Section 4 of the Act were
issued on 13.11.1959 and 15.7.1960 in the two cases. The
acquired lands according to the appellants are situated on
the main road known as the Mall or Delhi Karnal Road near to
National Highway No.1. They claimed Rs.60 per sq. yard along
with interest and solatium. So far as the acquisitions
covered by the Notification dated 13.11.1959 is concerned,
the Land Acquisition Collector divided the acquired land
into two blocks and fixed the market value of land in these
blocks separately. As regards Bagh Nehri land, the rate was
fixed at Rs.4,000/- per bigha and Gair Mumkin land
@Rs.3,500/- per bigha in respect of block A. In respect of
Block B, he fixed the market value of garden land
@Rs,3,500/- per bigha and for other land @Rs.3,000/- per
bigha. So far as the acquisition relating to Notification
dated 15.7.1980 is concerned, the Land Acquisition Collector
fixed the compensation at the flat rate of Rs.3,400/- per
bigha.
References were made under Section 18 of the Act. In
the first case, the reference Court fixed the compensation
at Rs.26,000/- per bigha and in the second case also similar
rate was fixed. Matter was carried in appeals before the
Delhi High Court which by the impugned judgment fixed the
compensation @Rs.30,000/- per bigha. While fixing the value,
references were made to several instances of sale
contemporaneous to the period. The High Court felt that the
residential plots and the shop plots had to be sold at
different rates and their average was worked out to fix the
compensation. The High Court made reference to the instances
cited by the appellants to hold that they related to smaller
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
plots and do not provide a reasonable comparison. High
Court also made reference to various data provided by way of
evidence and came to conclude that the total plotable areas
cannot be taken into account and only the plotted areas have
to be reckoned. It was hypothetically noted that if the
total plotable area was 1000 sq.yds, plotted area on the
basis of materials on record, would come to 637 sq. yds. It
also took note of the development charges, miscellaneous
charges on account of brokerage, administration, interest on
investment etc. and worked out the net price to fix the
market value.
Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellants submitted that the High court erred in not
taking note of comparable cases and placed reliance on
instances of sale which cannot be termed to be
contemporaneous. With reference to the location of the
acquired land, it was submitted that the market value as
fixed is certainly on the lower side. Judicial notice can be
taken note of rapid upward trend in prices and, therefore,
for the subsequent notification, higher rates were fixed.
Per contra, Mr. H.L. Agrawala, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent submitted that the High Court
made detailed analysis of the factual position and has
rightly fixed the market value. There is no material to
substantiate the plea of upward trend in prices.
Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition,
rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a
safe criteria. Reference in this context may be made to
three decisions of this Court in The Collector of Lakhimpur
v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta (AIR 1971 SC 2015), Prithvi Raj
Taneja (dead) by Lrs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
Anr. (AIR 1977 SC 1560) and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and
Ors. etc. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr.
(AIR 1984 SC 892).
It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute
proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot
be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where
there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be
open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the
prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases
necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while
determining the prices.
In the case of Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust,
Bhopal (1989 (1) SVLR (C) 399) in a case under the Madhya
Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 this Court held
that the rates paid for small parcels of land do not provide
a useful guide for determining the market value of the land
acquired. While determining the market value of the land
acquired it has to be correctly determined and paid so that
there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the
acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. It
is an accepted principle as laid down in the case of
Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional
Officer, Vizagapatam (AIR 1939 P.C. 98) that the
compensation must be determined by reference to the price
which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive
from the willing purchaser. While considering the market
value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and
the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike
be disregarded. Neither must be considered as acting under
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated
as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not
mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might
desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The
wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion
may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth.
Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be
considered in determining compensation. The first criteria
to be taken into consideration is the market value of the
land on the date of the publication of the notification
under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act
enumerates the matters which the Court shall not take into
consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard
is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the amount of
compensation to be awarded by the Court shall not be less
than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.
Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such
materials as are available and without indulgence in any
fits of imagination. Impracticability of determining the
potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is
bound to be some amount of guess work involved while
determining the potentiality.
It can be broadly stated that the element of
speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying
principles of fixation of market value with reference to
comparable sales are made:
(i) when sale is within a reasonable time
of the date of notification under Section
4(1);
(ii) it should be a bona fide transaction;
(iii)it should be of the land acquired or of
the land adjacent to the land acquired; and
(iv) it should possess similar advantages.
It is only when these factors are present, it can merit
a consideration as a comparable case (See The Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan Setty (AIR
1959 SC 429).
Keeping the aforesaid principles in view we feel that
on the basis of the instances pressed into service by the
acquiring authority and the land owner-appellants, the
average can be fixed @ Rs.61.50/- for both the
notifications in question by adopting the extent of plotted
area as done by the High Court which appears to be
appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the
rate per sq. yard can be fixed @Rs.40/-. Though it was
contended that there was marked variation in price relating
to the instances of sale, vis--vis second notification, it
does not appear, on the basis of evidence on record, that
the fluctuation was of very high magnitude. The marginal
differences noticed do not warrant any higher fixation of
price. The entitlements of the appellants be accordingly
worked out in addition to statutory entitlements, if any.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4