Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
R.R. HANMANTANAWAR & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/09/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
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’) was published
on April 14,1977 acquiring an extent of 3 acres 34 gunthas,
1 acre 2 gunthas for extension of agricultural Produce
Marketing Committee, Gadag in Dharwad district of Karnataka
state. The land Acquisition Officer (lad) by his award dated
January 23 ,1982 determined the compensation at the rate of
Re.0.76 per sq,ft. On reference, the Civil Judge Gadag in
his award dated November 29, 1982 enhanced the compensation
to Rs.8.50 per sq. ft. On appeal under Section 54; in the
impugned judgment dated October 7,1992 and November 4.1992
in MFA No.837/87 and MFA No.1962/87 respectively, the High
Court of Karnataka reduced the compensation to Rs.7/- per
sq. ft. Thus these appeal by special leave.
The reference Court and High Court relied on three sale
instances of an extent of 38.4 sq. ft. and 87.35 sq. ft.
which worked out at the rate of Rs,8/- and Rs.19.98 per
sq.ft.; another sale deed of 78 sq. ft. was worked out at
the rate of Rs.31.25 per sq. ft. The question is whether the
principal adopted by the courts below is correct in law? It
is now settled legal position by catena of decisions of this
court that the civil Court has to sit in the arm chair of a
willing prudent purchaser and put question to itself and
answer whether such a willing prudent purchaser would offer
to purchase in the open market at the rate Court proposes to
determine as compensation. When a total extent of 7 acres
and odd is sought to be acquired no prudent purchaser in
open market would offer to purchase the open land on sq. ft.
basis that too on the basis of few small sale transactions
and small extents would always fetch higher market value and
the same will never command such price in rsepct of large
extent. This Court had always rejected such instances as
being not comparable sales. Therefore the Civil Judge
adopted feats of imagination and of imagination and
determined compensation on the basis thereof. Unfortunately
the High Court also fell into the same grave error in
determination the compensation on the same basis but
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
deducted 1/3rd toward development charges, the principle
adopted by the court below is abviously erroneous and,
therefore, it cannot be substained on that basis. However
where we asked the learned counsel for the parties to
produced the evidence, the appellant has produced certain
documents indicating therein that for the same purpose they
appeared to have negotiated and purchased the properties
from other at the rate of Rs.9,000/- per acre and
registered sale deed came to be executed. They are produced
for the first time. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for
the respondents, contended that the documents were not
placed either in the reference Court or in the High Court.
He also says that location of the lands are different. Under
these circumstances, we cannot; decide for the first time
the value of the land on the basis thereof without giving an
opportunity to either of the parties for adducing evidence
and without consideration thereof by the reference Court.
Accordingly, the awards and decrees of the reference Court
and that of the High Court stand set aside. The cases are
remitted to the civil Court for decision afresh after giving
an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence afresh and
then decide the market value according to law. Pending these
appeals since the respondents have withdrawn the amount as
per the interim direction passed by this Court, the same
may not be disturbed and the amount withdrawn will be
adjusted when the award was passed by the reference Court.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. The judgment
of High Court to the extent of awarding additional amount
under Section 23(1-A) of the Act stands set aside since the
LAO had made his award before the Amendment Act came into
Force. no costs.