Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
MIRZA NAUSHERWAN KHAN & ANR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION), HYDERABAD
DATE OF JUDGMENT26/09/1974
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
CITATION:
1974 AIR 2247 1975 SCR (2) 184
1975 SCC (1) 238
CITATOR INFO :
F 1977 SC 580 (5)
R 1988 SC 943 (6)
ACT:
Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act (9 of 1309 Fasli)-
Compensation for large area of land and buildings acquired-
Principles.
HEADNOTE:
The State Government acquired a large area with some
buildings thereon in the city of Hyderabad, belonging to the
appellant and the Collector awarded compensation under the
Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act. The compensation was made
up of sums awarded for buildings, for standing trees, for a
belt of land 50 ft. deep adjoining the road at a particular
rate, and for the remaining area at a lesser rate. On
reference, the City Civil Court increased the value of the
buildings on the basis of by a multiple of 25 times the rent
fetched. On appeal, the High Court further enhanced the
value of the buildings by using a multiple of 27 instead of
25, in fixing the compensation for the buildings.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended (1) that there was
a potential value of the land which was not taken into
account by the High Court; (2) that the land and buildings
should have been taken together; and that the land should
not have been sub-divided on the principle of belting; and
(3) that the multiple for capitalisation of the value of
buildings should have been 33-1/3 and not 27.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : There is no substantial question of law of general
importance meriting consideration by this Court. [185H]
(1)The potential value of the land was taken into account
by the High Court. On a consideration of the totality of
factors, the physical feature of the terrain, and the
evidence placed on record, the High Court was justified in
holding that the appellant had not substantiated the big
potential value claimed by him on the basis of any unique
features of the land. [186 D-F]
(2)The higher value for a strip of 50 feet adjoining the
land was given by the courts below on the principles of
belting. This Principle was adopted at the instance of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
appellant himself and such an approach had operated to his
benefit and not detriment. The Court had also taken note of
the fact that the value of a tiny plot is not a proper
measure when a large area is acquired. [187 A-C]
Mohini; Mohan v. Province of Bengal A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 246;
Kunjukrishna V. State A.I.R. 1953 T.C 177; refer-red to.
(3)The rate of interest allowed on government securities
at the relevant time (1957) ranged between 3-3/4% and 4% and
the High Court, when accepting the multiple of 27, accepted
3-3/4%. There is no warrant for the appellant’s contention
that the interest on government bonds at the relevant time
was only 3%. [187 D-E]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2025 of
1968.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated the 18th
October,1967 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C. C. C.
Appeal No. 46 of 1963.
R. V. Pillai and P. M. Pillai, for the appellant
185
P. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-This appeal, by certificate, arises out of
land acquisition proceedings under the Hyderabad Land
Acquisition Act (Hyderabad Act IX of 1309 Fasli)
(hereinafter called the Act, for short) which substantially
resembles the provisions of the Central Land Acquisition
Act.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired a large open area
with some buildings thereon by Notification, dated January
3, 1957 with a view to construct Income-tax add Central
Excise Offices at Hyderabad. The contest before us is
confined to the quantum of compensation and, although Shri
Vasudeva Pillai, counsel for the appellants’ has pressed his
points with persistence, we are unable to disturb the High
Court’s award.
The land, vast in extent, had a building with a plinth area
of 3,300 sq. yds. The area in which the acquired plot is
situate is perhaps an important one in the City. After
getting expert valuation made of the buildings by the
Central Public Works Department engineers, the Collector
awarded a sum of Rs. 41,674/- for the buildings, Rs. 1,440/-
for the standing trees and a sum of Rs. 30,630/for a belt of
land 50 ft. deep at Rs. 15/- per square yard and Rs.
99,435/- for the remaining area of 13,258 sq. yds. The,
total figure together with statutory solarium granted by the
Collector was Rs. 1,99,155.85. This figure fell far short of
the ambitious claim of the appellant and, when the case came
before the City Civil Court on a reference, there was an
enhancement of compensation. Although the learned
Additional Chief Judge held that the area was a little less
than had been determined by the Collector, the market value
of the building was increased nearly four fold on the basis
of a multiple of 25 times the rent fetched. On the other
items also some changes were made and, consequentially, the
total amount was raised to Rs. 3,31,092/-. The appellant
arrived in the High Court asking for more (and the State
also appears to have appealed, but its appeal was dismissed
and we are not therefore concerned with it).
Some measure of good fortune attended the appeal since the
High Court altered the multiple from 25 to 27 in fixing the
compensation for the building. Otherwise, it substantially
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
affirmed the findings of the trial Court, except that to the
advantage of the appellant it restored the area acquired.
The net result was the appellant obtained a total sum of Rs.
3,52,326.65 as compensation.
It is thus clear that from the Collector to the Civil Court
and on, to the High Court. there has been an escalation in
the amount of compensation and, hopefully, the owner has
reached this Court with his appeal, under a certificate
which he secured under Art. 133(1)(a) before the recent
amendment. We mention this because we are unable to discern
any substantial question of law of general importance in
counsel’s submissions or the points outlined in the
memorandum of appeal which merits the consideration of this
Court.
186
Merely because the claim is large the judgment need not be
long :and, although the appellant tried to spread the,
canvas wide, we regard the points deserving of
consideration-as falling within a narrow compass. The
burden of the song has been that Hyderabad has, for his-
torical reasons, become a great city and that the land
acquired has precious potential value which has not entered
the judicial computation at the lesser levels. (By way of
aside one, may say that society economic development of a
City- may enhance the value of space without any the
littlest contribution by its owner and it is, in one sense,
unfair that society should pay to an individual a higher
price not because he has-earned it but because of other
developmental factors. Of course, we are concerned with the
Land Acquisition Act as it is and this thought therefore
need not be pursued). Counsel has also urged that the land
and the building taken together had a personality of its own
and therefore a special value, missed by the courts below,
should be ascribed and the methodology of breaking up the
totality into buildings and lands separately and sub-
dividing the land into two portions on the principle of.
belting was all wrong. It was also urged before us that the
multiple of 27 for purposes of capitalisation, adopted by
the High Court, was inadequate and that the owner was en-
titled to capitalisation by multiplication 33-1/2 times.
We find that the High Court has carefully considered ill
available points, indeed stretching them in favour of the
appellant, where that was warranted by the facts. The
potential value of the land was quite within the keen of the
Judge who heard the appeal and weighed with the Court in the
assessment made. However, the High Court noted that no
evidence whatever was placed on record in substantiation of
any big potential value based on the unique features of the
land. On the other hand, the totality of factors was duly
considered by the High Court when it observed :
"Having regard to the physical features of the
property, its situation in an important
locality and the price paid for a small extent
of level ground acquired for the Telephone
Exchange which is at a distance of about half
a mile from the property acquired, we hold
that the compensation awarded by the Court
below at Rs. 20/- per square yard for the 2042
square yards constituting the 50 wide belt and
at Rs. 10/- per square yard for the rest is
fair and reasonable."
We see no error in this evaluation.
It is true that the Court has adopted a higher value for a
strip 50 feet wide adjoining the road, based on the
principle of belting. There is no doubt that when we deal
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
with value of an extensive plot of land in a City the strip
that adjoins an important road will have a higher value than
what is in the rear. for obvious reasons of potential user
or commercial exploitation. While no general principle can
be laid down in these matters, local circumstances guide the
Courts. The ruling in Mohini Mohan v. Province of Bengal(1)
and the principle,
(1) A. I. R. 1951 Cal. 246.
187
with its limitations, set out in Kunjukrishna v. State(1)
are sufficient to bring out our point. Indeed, the
objection to divide the plot for purposes of differential
valuation has not been taken at the proper level. On the
contrary, it has been adopted originally at the instance of
the appellant himself, before the Collector and we are
satisfied that such an approach has operated to his benefit
and not detriment. The Court has taken note of the well-
established distinction between the value of a tiny plot as
being no measure when a large area is acquired. The
terrain, in this case, appears to have been uneven with
difference in levels to the extent of 27 feet and boulders
here and there making building operations expensive in the
initial preparation of the site. We conclude by saying that
practically every relevant factor placed on record has
received fair consideration before the High Court.
The next question is whether the multiple adopted for
capitalisation has been prejudicially low, Exhibit A-7, the
notification produced by the appellant, itself shows that
around the middle of 1957 the rate of interest allowed on
Government Securities at the relevant time ranged between 31
and 4%. The Curt accepted 3-3/4 % as interest on giltedged
securities instead of 4%, thus giving Some advantage to the
appellant and there is no warrant for the contention that
the interest on Government bonds was 3% at the relevant
time. The appellant apparently has sought to misread Ex.A-
7. We are satisfied with the valuation of the rented portion
of the house adopted by the High Court is correct.
Shri Pillai argued in vain for an augmentation of the value
on the potential user of the plot for a Cinema House. This
story has been factually disbelieved by the Courts below and
we cannot reopen the matter. We must also remember that the
Court below has been indulgent enough to adopt a multiple of
27 despite the fact that the buildings acquired are over 30
years old. Nor does it come with grace from the appellant
to contend against the belting method since he himself had
asked for its application before the Collector and the trial
Court.
We are thus satisfied that there is no law, no fact, which
comes to the rescue of the appellant and his appeal,
virtually against concurrent findings of fact, therefore
deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
(1) A. I. R. 1953 P.C. 177
Appeal dismissed.
188