Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
K. KRISHNA REDDY AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION UNIT II,LMD KARIMNAG
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/09/1988
BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
OZA, G.L. (J)
CITATION:
1988 AIR 2123 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 853
1988 SCC (4) 163 JT 1988 (3) 590
1988 SCALE (2)577
ACT:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ss. 4(1) and 18--Award and
payment of compensation--To be made without delay--Appellate
power of remand--When to be exercised
HEADNOTE:
The appellants were awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer compensation ranging from Rs.1,320 to 4,000 per acre
depending upon the nature of the land acquired in 1977. The
District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.85,000 per
acre on the ground that compensation @ Rs.85,000 per acre
under Award Ex. A.4 and Rs.70,000 under Award Ex. A.5 had
already been awarded in respect of acquisition of certain
other similar lands situated in Karimnagar. However, the
High Court, in appeal, remanded the matter for fresh
disposal and also observed that the District Judge should
exclude Ex. A.4 and Ex. A. 5 from consideration as the land
concerned in those awards are not comparable lands.
In appeals to this Court by Special Leave, it was
contended on behalf of the appellants that the matter should
not be remanded to the District Judge, since the claimants
being small holders and agriculturists, are hard pressed and
unable to fight another round of litigation and that they
are prepared to accept any compensation which this Court may
think fit to award.
Allowing the appeals,
HELD: (1) The Judgments of the High Court and the
District Judge e are set aside. The compensation at the rate
of Rs.25,000 per acre regardless of categorisation would be
sufficient to meet the ends of justice. It is needless to
state that the claimants are entitled to mandatory solatium
at 30% and also statutory interest. [857G-H]
2(i) It is of utmost importance that the award should
be made without delay. The enhanced compensation must be
determined without 108s of time. [857C]
PG NO 853
PG NO 854
2(ii) The appellate power of remand at any rate ought
not to be exercised lightly. It shall not be resorted
to unless the award is wholly unintelligible. It shall not
be exercised unless there is total lack of evidence. If
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
remand is imperative, and if the claim for enhanced
compensation is tenable, it would be proper for the
appellate court to do modest best to mitigate hardships.
The appellate court may direct some interim payment to
claimants subject to adjustment in the eventual award.
[857C-D]
3. This is not a case of no evidence. This is a case of
both relevant and irrelevant evidence mixed up together.
Therefore irrelevant and exaggerated claim must be
excluded. [857F]
In the instant case, the location of lands will have to
be borne in mind while ascertaining the market value.
The Commissioner has stated that the lands are more
suitable for house sites than for agriculture. There
is, no reason to discard this evidence and reject Ex. A. 5
altogether. [856C-D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3159-
3170 of 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.1985 of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal No. 2578 to 2583 of
1985.
K. Rajendra Chowdhary and A. Subba Rao for the
Appellants.
P.A. Choudhary, T.V.S.N. Chari, Mrs. Sunita Rao,
Badrinath and K. Ram Kumar for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. We grant Special Leave and proceed
to dispose of these appeals.
These appeals are from a judgment dated 3() December,
1985 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a batch of
appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings. The
lands in question are situated in Hasanapur of Karimnagar
Taluk. The lands are acquired for the purpose of submergence
under Lower Manair Dam Reservoir project. SeCtion 4(1)
notification was issued on 24 March, 1977. The land
acquisition officer by his award dated 15 July, 1978 awarded
compensation ranging from Rs.1320 to 4,000 per acre
depending upon the nature of the land and the crop grown
PG NO 855
thereon. The District Judge on a reference under s. 18 of
the Act enhanced the compensation to Rs.85,000 per acre
regardless of categorisation. The High Court by the Judgment
under appeals herein has remanded the matter for fresh
disposal with liberty for both parties to adduce additional
evidence. The high Court has specifically observed that the
District Judge should exclude Ex. A. 4 and Ex. A. 5 from
consideration. Ex. A. 4 and Ex. A. 5 are the awards
pertaining to acquisition of certain lands situated in
Karimnagar. Thereunder, compensation at the rate of Rs.
85,000 per acre under Ex. A.4 and Rs.70,000 under Ex. A.5
were given. The High Court has observed that the lands
concerned in those awards are not comparable lands.
Hence these appeals.
The first question that arises for consideration is
whether Ex. A.5 should be altogether excluded or it should
be kept open for being considered by the District Judge on
merits. This is the specific question on which this Court
issued notice on the Special Leave petition. If first part
of the question is answered in the negative, then the second
question for consideration is whether the matter should go
back to District Judge for fresh disposal.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
We heard counsel on both sides on the merits of the
entire matter.
The claimants have alleged that the lands acquired are
fit for residential houses as they are adjacent to
industrial estate. MARKFED factory, Vanaspathi complex,
diary farm and Padmanagar colony. The lands have
potentiality of being used as house sites and the like of
which was sold for Rs.5,000 per gunta prior to the present
acquisition. The lands are near to Karimnagar town The town
is developing into a modern town in Andhra Pradesh, with a
lot of industrial, commercial, educational activities. They
have claimed compensation at Rs.1,60,000 per acre for dry
lands and a little more for wet lands.
The evidence in support of their claim consists of the
testimony of one of the claimants (PW 1). He has given a
rosy picture of the location and value of the lands. Another
witness (PW 2) has corroborated the version of PW 1. Besides
we have the evidence of a Commissioner. Mr. G. Santosh Reddy
Advocate was appointed as Commissioner in this case. He has
filed his report Ex. A.7 and Plan.
PG NO 856
The High Court appears to have brushed aside all that
evidence. The High Court compared the combined map of
karimnagar and Hasnapur village (Ex. A.3) with the sketch
map (Ex. A.8) prepared by the Commissioner. The High Court
was of opinion that the lands concerned in Ex.A.5 are
abutting Karimnagar town. They are close to MARKFED and
other industrial institutions and buildings, but not the
lands in question. The High Court said: "whereas admittedly
the lands in question are 3 kms from Karimnagar town". This
statement has been seriously disputed before us. It is said
that the claimants or their counsel did not admit, and
indeed could not have made that admission suicidal to
their case.
Be that as it may, the distance determined by the High
Court whether on admission or by comparison of village maps
makes little difference. The distance from Karimnagar town
should not be a ground to reject Ex. A.5. If the lands are
suitable for house sites, Ex. A.5 would still be relevant.
The location of lands will have to be borne in mind while
ascertaining the market value.
As to the nature of lands we have the evidence of the
Commissioner. He is an Advocate of the local Bar. He had
gone to the spot. He had a topographic surveying. According
to his evidence, the lands in question are similar in nature
and of value as the lands covered under the Award Ex. A.5.
The lands are nearer to collectorate complex, RTC Bus stand
and other housing complex. He has stated that the lands are
more suitable for house sites than for agriculture. There
is no reason to discard this evidence. We cannot therefore,
reject Ex. A.5 altogether.
The next question for consideration is whether it is now
necessary to keep the remand order undisturbed. Counsel for
the claimants ’ is totally against the matter being sent
back to the District Judge. He urged that the claimants
are small holders and agriculturists. they are hard pressed
and unable to fight another round of litigation. I hey are
prepared to accept any compensation which this Court may
think fit to award. This plea of the counsel has an
appealing simplicity. It reflects the facts of life and
problems of litigation.
We can very well appreciate the anxiety and need of
claimants to get compensation here and now. No matter what
it is. The lands were acquired as far back in 1977. One
decade has already passed. Now the remand means another
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
round of litigation. There would be further delay in
getting the compensation. After all money is what money
PG NO 857
buys. What the claimants could have bought with the
compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988. Perhaps, not even
one half of it. It is a common experience that the
purchasing power of rupee is dwindling. With rising
inflation, the delayed payment may, lose all charm and
utility of the compensation. In some cases, the delay may be
detrimental to the interests of claimants. The Indian
agriculturists generally have no avocation. They totally
depend upon land. If uprooted, they will find themselves
nowhere. They are left high and dry. They have no savings to
draw. They have nothing to fall back upon. They know no
other work. They may even face starvation unless
rehabilitated. In all such cases, it is of utmost importance
that the award should be made without delay. The enhanced
compensation must be determined with-out loss of time. The
appellate power of remand, at any rate ought not to be
exercised lightly. It shall not be resorted to unless the
award is wholly unintelligible. It shall not be exercised
unless there is total lack of evidence. If remand is
imperative, and if the claim for enhance I compensation is
tenable, it would be proper for the appellate court to do
modest best to mitigate hardships. The appellate court may
direct some interim payment to claimants subject t o
adjustment in the eventual award.
Counsel for the State argued that there is no material
on record for this Court to determine compensation and the
remand may be useful for the claimants themselves. He
however. reluctantly indicated his own estimate of the
market value in the event of this Court giving a quietus to
the litigation.
It seems to us that this is not a case ot no
evidence. This is a case of both relevant and irrelevant
evidence mixed up together. We must exclude the irrelevant
and exaggerated claim. The claimants have not justified the
award generously given by the District Judge. Rs. 85,000 per
acre appears to be on the high side as against the award Ex.
A.5. In the first place, Section 4 notification concerned in
that Award was dated 16 February l978. It was almost a year
after the notification in these cases. Secondly, the lands
therein were close to the town of Karimrtagar. The situation
is not similar in this case. Here the lands are 3 kms awy
from Karimnagar town. It is in this background I we have
carefully considered the rough estimates given by counsel on
both sides. We have also examined the relevant material. A
distance of 3 kms from a growing town of District
headquarters should not however. make a world of difference.
We are of opinion that the compensation at the rate of
Rs.25,000 per acre regardless of categorisation would be
sufficient to meet the ends of justice. It is needless to
state that the claimants are entitled to mandatory solatium
PG NO 858
at 30 per cent and also statutory interest.
In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the
judgments of the High Court and District Judge. There shall
be an award in terms as indicated above. In the
circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
M.L.A. Appeals allowed.