Full Judgment Text
1
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 398 of 2010
MUNUSAMY …Appellant
Versus
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in AS No.1222 of 2001 by which the High
Court has partly allowed the said appeal and has enhanced the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.09.29
17:02:51 IST
Reason:
amount of compensation to Rs.232.45 per cent for the land
2
acquired, original land owner – claimant has preferred the present
appeal.
1.1 The land admeasuring 0.73.0 hectare (1.80 acres) of land
situated in village Anniyalam, Denkanikottai Taluk, District
Dharamapuri, Tamil Nadu came to be acquired for the public
purpose. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was published on
27.09.1990/11.01.1991. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act
was published on 12.12.1991. The Collector, Land Acquisition vide
his award dated 16.03.1993 assessed the compensation of the
land acquired at Rs.39,506/- per hectare i.e. Rs.16000/- per acre.
At the instance of the land owner a reference was made under
Section 18 of the Act to the District Court - Reference Court. The
Learned Sub Judge, Hosur by its judgment and order dated
10.11.1997 assessed the market value at Rs.2,18,333/- per acre.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order passed by the Learned Reference Court assessing the
compensation of the land acquired at Rs.2,18,333/- per acre – the
Land Acquisition Officer preferred the appeal before the High Court
and by impugned judgment and order the High Court has partly
3
allowed the said appeal and assessed/determined the
compensation at Rs.232.45 per cent.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court
assessing/determining the compensation for the land acquired at
Rs.232.45 per cent, the original owner/claimant has preferred the
present appeal.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
case the High Court has committed a grave error in reducing the
amount of compensation awarded by the Learned Reference
Court.
4.1 It is submitted that as such the Learned Reference Court has
rightly awarded the enhanced compensation for the land acquired
at Rs.2183.33 per cent relying upon document/sale deed dated
11.01.1990 executed by the land owner himself by which the land
suitable for construction of the houses and situated very close to
the Village Anniyalam came to be sold at Rs.2977 per cent.
4
4.2 It is further submitted that as such the High Court has
wrongly discarded the document/sale deed Ex.C1 which otherwise
was reflecting the correct market value and it was a genuine and
bona fide transaction. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant that as such no cogent reasons have
been given by the High Court while reducing the compensation to
Rs.232.45 per cent.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –
State has vehemently submitted that as such in the facts and
circumstances of the case the High Court has rightly discarded the
sale deed Ex.C1 executed by the land owner himself very near to
the land acquired and the same was executed in favour of his own
relative.
5.1 It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the
High Court has rightly relied upon the sale instance produced as
Ex.R2 – Item No.9 which as such was for the land admeasuring 1
acre in Survey No.359 which was also executed in the month of
January, 1990.
5
5.2 It is submitted that even otherwise the document/sale deed
produced as Ex.C1 dated 11.01.1990 upon which the reliance has
been placed by the land owner cannot be relied upon, firstly on the
ground that the same was for a small parcel of land i.e. 5 ½ cent
only. It is submitted that against which the document relied upon
by the Land Acquisition Officer and the High Court at Ex.R2 Item
No.9 is the best sale deed available to assess/determine the
market value of the land acquired.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the respective parties at
length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present
case the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on
27.09.1990/11.01.1991 totaling an extent of 0.73 hectares i.e. 1.80
acre. The Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded the
compensation at Rs.160 per cent relying upon and considering the
sale instances – sale deed dated 11.01.1990 wherein extent of 1
acre out of survey no.359 was sold for Rs.16,000/- i.e. Rs.160 per
cent. However, the Learned Reference Court enhanced the
compensation to Rs.2183.33 per cent relying upon and considering
the sale instance Ex.C1 dated 11.01.1990 executed by the land
owners himself by which land to the extent of 5 ½ cent was sold at
6
rd.
16,375/- i.e. Rs.2977 per cent and after deducting 1/3 The
Learned Reference Court awarded the compensation at
Rs.2183.33 per cent. However, in the appeal preferred by the
State the High Court has reduced the amount of compensation at
Rs.232.45 per cent.
7. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties
the question which is posed for consideration before this Court is
whether the land owners are entitled to the enhanced amount of
compensation relying upon the document at Ex.C1 dated
11.01.1990 executed by the land owner himself by which the land
admeasuring 5 ½ cent was sold for Rs.2977 per cent or the
amount as determined by the High Court i.e. Rs.232.45 per cent?
7.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that having gone
through the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court as
well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, we are not at all satisfied with the manner in which both, the
Reference Court as well as the High Court have dealt with and
decided the matters. However, instead of remanding the matter to
the Reference Court/High Court for fresh consideration, we have
7
considered the appeals on merits on the basis of material/evidence
on record.
7.2 Now so far as the reliance placed on the document Ex.C1
sale deed dated 11.01.1990 – executed by the land owner himself
in favour of his relative by which 5 ½ cent was sold at Rs.2977 per
cent is concerned the same cannot be said to be a comparable
sale instance for the reason that it was with respect to the small
parcel of the land i.e. 5 ½ cent only. It is true that Ex.C1 cannot be
discarded solely on the ground that it was executed by the land
owner in favour of his relative as nothing is on record that at the
time when the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was executed
the parties were aware that the land in question is going to be
acquired in the nearby future. As observed hereinabove in the
present case Section 4 Notification issued and published for the
first time on 27.09.1990. It is also required to be noted that in the
present case both, the Reference Court as well as the High Court
relied upon Ex.C1 sale deed dated 11.01.1990, relied upon by the
appellant. However, there are no justification for the High Court to
determine/arrive at the market value at Rs.232.45 per cent. As
observed hereinabove as such in absence of any comparable sale
8
instances one has to consider the sale deed dated 11.01.1990
Ex.C1. Even otherwise Ex.C1 the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 can
be said to be comparable instance having regard to the proximity
from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. It is also
required to be noted that even the land in question acquired for the
housing project. However, at the same time one cannot lose sight
of the fact that the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was for the
small parcel of the land i.e. 5 ½ cent only. In given case even a
sale deed of comparable sales of small areas also can be
considered by giving suitable deductions while fixing market value.
Therefore, having regard to the peculiar features, facts and
circumstances of the case and interest of justice, we are of the
opinion that date of compensation can be fixed considering the
sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 by giving suitable deductions
i.e. 60 per cent deduction. Therefore, considering the fact that the
sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was executed for a sale
consideration of Rs.16,375/- for 5 ½ cent which will come to
Rs.2977 per cent and after deducting 60 per cent (in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case) the market value can be
determined/assessed at Rs.1191 per cent.
9
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal is partly allowed, it is held that the appellant -
original claimant - land owner shall be entitled compensation for
the land acquired at Rs.1191 per cent with all other statutory
benefits which may be available under the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act. Impugned Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2008
in AS No.1222 of 2001 passed by the High Court is modified to the
aforesaid extent. Hence, present appeal is partly allowed to the
aforesaid extent.
However, no order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi;
September 29, 2021