S SHANKARAIAH THR. GPA HOLDER vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PEDDAPALI KARIMNAGAR DIST.

REPORTABLE      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6821 OF 2022 S. Shankaraiah Thr. GPA Holder & Ors.              …Appellants Versus The Land Acquisition Officer  and Revenue Divisional Officer Peddapali Karimnagar Dist. & Ors.           …Respondents with CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6823 OF 2022 with CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6824 OF 2022 with CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6825 OF 2022 J U D G M E N T Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2022.11.09 17:25:06 IST Reason: M.R. SHAH, J. 1 1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned common judgment and order dated 06.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in respective first appeals No. 1634 of 2001 and other allied appeals, the original land   owners/claimants   have   preferred   the   present   appeals seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation for the lands acquired. 2. Large extent of land in different survey number in Adrial Village of Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District came to be acquired by the State Government for the benefit of Singareni Collieries Company Limited.   The lands were acquired for the purposes of excavation of coal.  Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act,   1894’)   came   to   be   issued   on   13.05.1985.     Declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued on 31.07.1985. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the awards in the year 1987,   fixing   the   market   value   for   the   acquired   lands   at Rs.7,000/­   per   acre   for   Category   1   –   Dry   Lands   under 2 Cultivation and at Rs.6000/­ per acre for Category 2 – Dry Lands   Left   Fallow.     Not   satisfied   with   the   compensation awarded   by   the   Land   Acquisition   Officer,   the   land   owners sought references under Section 18 of the Act, 1894.  The land owners claimed the compensation at Rs.2 lakhs per acre.  The Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.30,000/­ per acre and Rs.50,000/­ per acre.  The Reference Court also awarded the   compensation   @   Rs.15,000/­   per   acre   towards   sub­soil mineral rights.  By the impugned common judgment and order the High Court has determined and awarded the compensation @ Rs.80,000/­ per acre considering the market value of the rd land   Rs.1,23,000/­  per   acre   and   thereafter   deducting   1/3 . The High Court has also in addition awarded Rs.10,000/­ per acre as part of the market value for sub­soil rights.   2.1 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned common   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court determining   and   awarding   the   compensation   at   Rs.80,000/­ per   acre   and   Rs.10,000/­   per   acre   for   sub­soil   rights   on 3 account   of   the   coal   deposits,   the   original   claimants   –   land owners have preferred the present appeals. 2.2 At the outset, it is required to be noted that against the very impugned common judgment and order the beneficiary – Singareni Collieries Company Limited approached this Court by way of special leave petitions which have been dismissed.  The review applications are also dismissed.   Therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration before this Court is whether the amount of compensation determined / awarded by the   High   Court   is   required   to   be   enhanced   in   the   appeals preferred by the original claimants/land owners? 3. Learned Counsel appearing  on  behalf of  the  appellants has   submitted   that   while   determining/awarding   the compensation the Hon’ble High Court has not appreciated that the petitioners were the absolute owners of the land including the sub­soil minerals and were not merely tenure holders.  It is submitted   that   therefore   while   determining   the   amount   of compensation for the land acquired claim for sub­soil minerals 4 rights was also required to be considered.  It is submitted that in the impugned judgment and order the Hon’ble High Court has   also   specifically   given   the   findings   that   the   nature   of deposits existing on the surface or the sub­soil of a land would play an important role and if there are any deposits of rare minerals   or   precious   stones,   that   would   add   to   the   market value of the land.  It is submitted that though the Hon’ble High Court   has   observed   that   it   is   not   proper   for   the   Land Acquisition Officer or the Civil Court to separately award the compensation towards sub­soil mineral rights, thereafter it is observed that it is permissible to take the fact or into account, while determining the market value. 3.1. It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the land owners/claimants that even otherwise the acquisition was solely for the purpose of excavation of the coal and there was no other purpose for the acquisition and the entire  acquired land   is  being  excavated  on the   basis  of  the estimates of the coal reserves identified therein, the Hon’ble 5 rd High   Court   has   erred   in   deducting   1/3   towards   the development.  It is submitted that since the entire land is to be mined,   there   is   no   wastage   of   land   on   account   of   any developmental activities, such as roads, sewage lines, parks etc. which   are   required   to   be   carved   out   in industrial/commercial/housing layouts.   It is submitted that therefore,   the   deduction   from   the   compensation   determined may not be permissible in absence of any justification for such deduction as the entire land is having coal reserves.  Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of   Nelson Fernandes & Ors. versus Special Land Acquisition Officer South Goa & Ors.  reported in (2007) 9 SCC 447. 4. Shri A. Mariarputham, learned Senior Advocate appearing on   behalf   of   the   respondents   while   opposing   the   present appeals   has   submitted   that   the   amount   determined   by   the Hon’ble   High   Court   which   includes   Rs.10,000/­   per   acre towards   the   coal   deposits,   the   same   is   not   required   to   be interfered with by this Hon’ble Court. 6 rd 4.1 Now so far as 1/3  deduction made by the Hon’ble High Court from Rs.1,23,000/­ per acre it is submitted that as per the   settled   position   of   law   there   shall   be   an   appropriate rd deduction   towards   the   development   and   therefore   1/3 deduction   can  be  said   to  be   just  and   reasonable   deduction towards the development, which is not required to be interfered with. Making above  submissions,  it is prayed  to  dismiss the present appeals by further submitting that as such the appeals preferred by the respondents ­ Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.   &   Ors.   have   been   dismissed   by   this   Court   and   the judgment and order passed by this Hon’ble High Court has been confirmed by this Court. 5. Heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the respective parties at length. 7 6. By the impugned common judgment and order the High Court has determined and awarded Rs.80,000/­ per acre.  The High Court has also granted/awarded Rs.10,000/­ for sub­soil rights   on   account   of   coal   deposits.     Feeling   aggrieved   and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original claimants/land owners have preferred the present appeals seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that so far as the appeals   preferred   by   the   respondents   ­   Singareni   Collieries Company Ltd. & Ors., the same have been dismissed by this Court. 6.2 While   determining   and   awarding   the   compensation   at Rs.80,000/­ per acre the High Court has considered the market value   of   the   land   in   question   at   Rs.1,23,000/­.     However, rd thereafter has deducted 1/3  towards the development charges etc.   and   thereafter   has   awarded   the   actual   amount   of compensation at Rs.80,000/­ per acre.  It is the case on behalf 8 of the claimants/land owners that the lands in question have been acquired for the benefit of the mining company/ Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. which is to be used for excavation of coal.  The coal is already existed in the lands acquired.  Since the entire land is to be mined and the coal is to be excavated, there is no wastage of land on account of any developmental activities such as roads, sewage lines, parks etc.  In that view of the   matter,   there   is   no   development   required   and   therefore rd 1/3   deduction   is   not   warranted   at   all.     Identical   question came to be considered by this Court in the case of   Nelson Fernandes   (supra)   and   after   taking   into   consideration   the earlier decision of this Court in the case of   Basavva vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer , (1996) 9 SCC 640, in which this Court has held that the purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value and the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration, thereafter in paragraph 29 it is observed and held as under: 9

10 6.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision   to   the   facts   of   the   case   on   hand   and   when   the acquisition is solely for the purpose of excavation of coal and the entire land is acquired on the basis of the estimates of the coal reserve identified and the entire land is to be mined and used and no further developmental activity is required, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, rd the   High   Court   has   erred   in   deducting   1/3   towards   the developmental activities.   The additional amount awarded by the  High Court  at  Rs.10,000/­  per   acre  on  account  of   coal deposits is not required to be interfered with more particularly when the same has been confirmed by this Court in as much as the appeals preferred by the respondents have been dismissed by this Court. 7. In   view  of   the   above   and   for   the   reason   stated   above, present appeals succeed in part.   It is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to the compensation for the lands acquired at Rs.1,23,000/­ per acre with other statutory benefits which may be available under the provisions of the Act, 1894. 11 In   addition,   the   original   claimants   shall   also   be   entitled   to Rs.10,000/­ per acre as awarded by the High Court on account of coal deposits. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent.   Present appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. …………………………..J.         (M. R. SHAH) …………………………...J.        (KRISHNA MURARI) New Delhi; November 9, 2022. 12