Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1136 of 2007
PETITIONER:
Nelson Fernandes and Ors
RESPONDENT:
Special Land Acquisition Officer,South Goa & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/03/2007
BENCH:
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16533-16534 OF 2005)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1137 OF 2007
(Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16503-16504 OF 2005)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2007
(Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16533-16534 OF 2005)
Leave granted.
The above appeal was filed against the final
judgment and order dated 01.03.2005 passed by the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa in First
Appeal Nos. 66 of 2002 and 75 of 2002 arising out of
Land Acquisition Case No. 58 of 1996 wherein the
Division Bench rejected the claim of compensation of the
appellants for acquisition of the land belonging to them of
Rs.750/- per sq. metre and reduced the rate of
compensation from Rs.192/- per sq. metre as awarded by
the District Judge to Rs.38/- per sq. metre after re-
appraising the evidence and substituting their own
finding of facts in place of the findings of the District
Judge.
In the above case, notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the
’Act’ for short) was published by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer South Goa for acquisition of land for
construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways.
The notification was published in the local dailies on 5th
and 6th August, 1994. Under Section 6 of the Act a
declaration stating the government’s intention to acquire
the land for the purpose of construction of new broad
gauge line of the Konkan Railways between Roha and
Mangalore was made on 09.11.1994. An award was
passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer granting
compensation to the appellant @ Rs.4/- per sq. metre
and Rs.59,192/- for trees standing on the said land. The
appellant on 06.12.1996 made an application before the
Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter for
determination of compensation under Section 18 of the
Act and claimed a sum of Rs.89,06,250/- for the
acquired land and Rs.71,000/- for the trees standing
thereon. Reference under Section 18 was made by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer to District and Sessions
Judge on 28.02.1996 and reference under Section 19 of
the Act was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
Margao. Evidence was adduced by the appellant - Mr.
Nelson Fernandes before the Addl. District Judge. Two
sale deeds dated 13.12.1993 are annexed and marked as
Annexure-P5. Evidence was adduced by Government
Approved Valuer - Pratima Kumar on the valuation report
submitted by her before the Addl. District Judge, Margao
on 15.12.2000. Evidence was adduced by Bartoleuma
Gama on the sale of land by him @ Rs. 449/- per sq.
metre by sale deed being Ex.AW1/B was annexed and
marked as Annexure-P7.
The Addl. District Judge passed an award
increasing the rate of compensation from Rs. 4/- per sq.
metre to Rs.192/- per sq. metre, but did not give any
compensation for the trees standing on the said land.
First Appeal Nos. 66 and 75 of 2002 were preferred by
both the appellants and the respondents before the High
Court against the judgment and award dated 29.08.2001
of the learned District Judge.
First Appeal Nos. 66 of 2002 and 75 of 2002 were
disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court by
rejecting the appeal of the appellants and allowing the
appeal of the respondents. The Division Bench rejected
the report of the valuer and the findings of the District
Judge and reduced the rate of compensation from Rs.
192/- per sq. metre as awarded by the District Judge to
Rs. 38/- per sq. metre. Hence the above appeal.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2007
(Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16503-16504 OF 2005)
Leave granted.
The above appeal was filed against the final
judgment and order dated 09.03.2005 passed by the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa in First
Appeal Nos. 63 and 67 of 2002 arising out of Land
Acquisition Case No. 391 of 1995 wherein the Division
Bench rejected the claim of compensation of the
appellants for acquisition of the land belonging to them of
Rs.470/- per sq. metre and reduced the rate of
compensation from Rs.108/- per sq. metre as awarded by
the District Judge to Rs.27/- per sq. metre after re-
appraising the evidence and substituting their own
finding of facts in place of the findings of the District
Judge.
In the above case, notification under Section 4 of
the Act was published by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, for acquisition of land for construction of new BG
line for the Konkan Railways. The notification was
published in the local dailies. Declaration was made on
16.06.1992 and award was passed on 24.01.1995
granting compensation to the appellant @ Rs. 4/- per sq.
metre and Rs.82,282/- for trees standing on the land.
The appellant on 27.03.1995 made an application before
the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter for
determination of compensation under Section 18 of the
Act and claimed a sum of Rs. 470/- per sq. metre for the
acquired land and in support of their contention relied on
3 sale deeds of adjoining plots, one award and a report of
a valuer. Reference under Section 18 was made by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer to the District and
Sessions Judge on 06.09.1995. Evidence was adduced
by the appellant before the District Judge on 30.02.1999
and 24.09.1999. Evidence was adduced by Government
Approved Valuer - Pratima Kumar on the valuation report
submitted by her before the Addl. District Judge, Margao
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
on 15.12.2000. Evidence was adduced by Antonio
Rosario Rodrigues on the purchase of land by him at Rs.
480/- per sq. metre by sale deed being Ex.AW1/F was
marked as Annexure-P7. Likewise, evidence adduced by
Maria Piea Carvalho on the purchase of land by her at
Rs.200/- per sq. metre by sale deed being AW1/E was
marked as Annexure-P8.
The Addl. District Judge passed an award
increasing the rate of compensation from Rs.4/- to
Rs.108/- per sq. metre but did not give any
compensation for the trees standing on the said land.
First Appeal No. 67 of 2002 was preferred by the
appellants and 63 of 2002 was preferred by the
respondents before the Bombay High Court at Goa
against the judgment and award dated 29.08.2001 of the
District Judge. Both the appeals were disposed of by the
Division Bench by rejecting the appeal of the appellants
and allowing the appeal of the respondents. The Division
Bench rejected the report of the valuer and the findings
of the District Judge and reduced the rate of
compensation from Rs. 108/- per sq. metre as awarded
by the District Judge to Rs. 27/- per sq. metre. Hence
the above appeal.
We heard Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned
counsel for the Konkan Railways.
Though notice was served on the first respondent -
Special Land Acquisition Officer South Goa and service of
notice is complete, there is no representation on behalf of
respondent No.1. However, Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned
counsel appeared and made his submissions.
Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel
appearing for the claimants submitted that the Division
Bench was under the obligation to satisfy the conditions
imposed under Section 23 of the Act for the purpose of
determining the amount of compensation to be awarded
to the appellants and that the Court is bound and obliged
to ensure that its judgment is in conformity with the
provisions of the statute. He further submitted that
Court cannot reject the opinion of an expert and
substitute its own opinion in place instead of the same.
Likewise, the Court has committed an error in regard to
the rate of compensation to be awarded for acquisition of
land after rejecting all the evidence on record including
the opinion of expert. It is also submitted that Court
cannot fix separate rate of compensation for similarly
placed lands and that the Court has to consider the sale
of land in the locality and the facilities available thereon.
Mr. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel took us
through the pleadings and the grounds alleged in the
grounds of appeal and submitted that while fixing the
rate of compensation, the District Judge did not consider
that the land in question was situated at a place which is
of high commercial value and is well connected to other
cities and that the High Court has failed to appreciate
that the compensation awarded by the Courts below has
no basis whatsoever and was not supported by cogent
reasons. Likewise, the Court did not consider the future
prospect of development of the land in question and also
failed to appreciate that the trees grown by the appellants
on the land in question were of high value at the time of
awarding the compensation. It is also submitted that the
High Court has failed to appreciate the documentary
evidence submitted in support of the claim made by the
appellants. According to the learned senior counsel, the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
High Court ought to have enhanced the compensation
awarded to the appellant in view of the evidence adduced
by it. The High Court also did not assess the damages
that the appellant is bound to sustain by such
acquisition. The High Court also erred in passing the
order impugned holding that the appellant was entitled to
compensation @ Rs.38/- per sq. metre and that the
Division Bench erred in passing the order impugned
thereby reducing the rate of compensation from Rs.192/-
to Rs.38/- without considering the prayer of the
appellant to fix the rate of compensation at Rs.750/-.
Thus, it is argued that the High Court has erred in
passing the order impugned in utter mis-interpretation of
the evidence on record and that the High Court by the
impugned order rejected the just and equitable claim of
the appellant and acted in a flagrant error of law and
facts which, according to the appellant, resulting in
manifest injustice being caused to the appellant. The
High Court also erred in holding that the appellant’s land
was hilly and deduction of 65% ought to have been made
by the learned Judge and not 33% as done by him.
Likewise, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have
also erred in holding that the acquired land had lost its
significance after construction of a bridge over the Zuari
River.
Similar argument was also advanced by the other
counsel in the other connected appeals. It was
submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate that
the land in question was well developed and the
construction thereon and the same was acquired and
that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the
compensation awarded by the Courts below had no basis
whatsoever and was not supported by cogent reasons. It
was further argued that the Court did not consider that
the land in question was substituted at a place which is
of high commercial value and well connected to other
cities. Concluding his arguments, learned senior counsel
submitted that the High Court at Goa has erred in
passing the order impugned thereby reducing the rate of
compensation from Rs.108/- as an order passed by the
learned District Judge to Rs. 27/- without considering
the prayer of the appellant to fix the rate of compensation
at Rs. 470 per sq. metre. It was also submitted that the
High Court has erred in passing the order impugned
without any application of mind and also by rejecting the
just and equitable claim of the appellant and acted in a
flagrant error of law and facts. Therefore, it was
submitted that the order passed by the High Court is
erroneous and resulting in manifest injustice being
caused to the appellant.
Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 - Konkan Railways submitted that the
land acquired by the State Government for KRCL project
in question is for public purpose and not for any
commercial exploitation and for construction of new
broad gauge line for Konkan Railway adjacent to the land
already acquired for the same purpose earlier. He further
submitted that the acquired land is 11,875 sq. metres,
hilly area, about 30 metres from the road level and is
undeveloped land as most of the area is a low lying area
and that the topography of the acquired land in question
are such that a major part of the land is of Bharad type
with fess paddy fields cultivated for both the seasons,
part of the land is under coconut cultivation and some
portion is under water and to develop the land would be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
expensive, as the land would require to be filled up and
then developed. According to learned counsel, the Land
Acquisition Officer, in his award, took into consideration
the following in fixing the rates:
1) prevailing conditions of the land;
2) rates awarded recently for such types of land and
approved by the Government and;
3) restrictions under Goa, Daman and Diu
Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964.
He further submitted that the Land Acquisition
Collector arrived at the valuation of the trees, after
considering the fact that the valuation had been done by
the technical staff of the Directorate of Agriculture and
Deputy Conservator of Forests and, therefore, the
appellant would be entitled to the market value of the
land as on the date of publication of the notification
under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 01.08.1994 and that
the rate of land approved by the Government under
Section 11(1) of the Act in respect of untenanted
Bharad/garden in orchard zone types of land in village
Cortalim as on 17.01.1995 was Rs. 4/- per sq. metre. He
then submitted that the valuation report of Mrs. Pratima
Kumar cannot be relied upon by the appellant as she is
not competent to value the land in question and that the
valuation of Rs.500/- per sq. metre arrived at by the
valuer is not based on any known method of valuation,
but is solely on the basis of the facility available. Further
no reasons have been given in support of the opinion
arrived at by the valuer.
Learned counsel also submitted that the
compensation payable to the appellant for the acquired
land cannot be based on the average price of the two sale
deeds dated 11.12.1993 relied upon by the appellant as
the sale deed dated 11.12.1993 pertain to plots that are
smaller in size i.e. Rs.365/- sq. metre and Rs.275/- sq.
metre. This apart, plots were not developed by making
roads, drainages etc. as required under the planning law
and sub-divisions made were also approved by the Town
and Country Planning Department as well as the village
panchayat. Hence, the price at which the plots were sold
i.e. at Rs.250 per sq. metre cannot be considered for the
purpose of valuation of the acquired land. Further, the
price fetched for smaller plots cannot be applied to lands
covering large area as held by this Court in various
judgments and, in particular, 1977 (1) SCC 684 Prithvi
raj Taneja (dead) by LRs Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Anr. It is further argued that the acquired
land in question is located at a distance of 15 kms. from
the airport, 20 kms. from Vasco city, 18 kms. from
Panaji, 3 kms. from Cortalim market and there is no
approach road to the location.
It was further submitted that the comparable sales
method of valuation of land can be adopted in case where
the acquired land in question is being compared to the
similar type of acquired land, made pursuant to the same
preliminary notification. But if any of the factors such as
location, shape, size potentiality or tenure of the acquired
land widely differs from the other plots then the market
value of the acquired land has to be determined
independently of the others as held by this Court in
Printer House Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mst. Saiyadan (deceased)
by LRs and Others, 1994 (2) SCC 133. It was also
submitted that while determining the amount to be
awarded for the acquired land in the year 1994, the LAO
while passing the award dated 25.08.1995, in terms of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
the provisions of the Act had considered:
a) the area and the nature of the acquired land,
b) the objects filed by the petitioner,
c) damages sustained by the petitioner,
d) inspected the land under acquisition to ascertain
the advantages and disadvantages from the valuation
point of view,
e) the market value of trees, structure etc.
f) the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu
Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 as applicable to the
Acquired land,
g) the rate of land approved by Government under
section 11(1) of the said Act in respect of various types of
land in the aforesaid villages which are as follows:
Letter of Dy.
Collector (L.A)
of Collectorate
of South Goa
No.
Date
Village
Type of Land
Rate per Sq.
Mtrs. Rs.
Ps.
2/4/94-
CVS/57-
LAR/418
19.09.1994
Sancoale
Tenanted
Double
Cropped
Paddy
9.00
Coconut
Bharad
Marshy/Under
Water
4.00 2.00
2/4/94-
CVS/90-
LAR/474
24.10.1994
Sancoale
(Addl.)
Tenanted
Double
Cropped
Paddy
9.00
2/4/94-
CVS/65-
LAR/12
17.01.1995
Cortalim
Untenanted
Bharad/
Garden in
Orchard Zone
4.00
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
According to the learned counsel, the High Court,
after considering all the above-mentioned facts, had
correctly made the deduction, that the land in question is
an undeveloped stretch of land which is held by the
tenants and has no marketable title and cannot be used
for any other purpose other than what it was being used
for now and that no approvals to develop the land has
been taken from the appropriate authority. It is also
submitted that for laying of the track, respondent No.2
had to carry out the filling of the acquired land up to 6
metre of height. Concluding his argument, learned
counsel for the Konkan Railways submitted that the High
Court, after hearing both the parties and after
considering the evidence on record had correctly reduced
the compensation awarded by the ADJ from Rs. 192/-
per sq. metre to Rs. 38/- per sq. metre for the acquired
land by a well-reasoned judgment and order and that in
view of the above, this Court should dismiss the civil
appeal filed by the appellants with costs.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions
with reference to the pleadings, documents and
annexures filed in the instant case. In the instant case,
no document whatsoever was filed by both the
respondents.
In determining the amount of compensation to be
awarded, the LAO shall be guided by the provisions of
Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. As per Section 22 of the
Act, the market value of the land has to be determined at
the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the
Act i.e. 25.08.1994. As per Section 24, the LAO shall
also exclude any increase in the value of land likely to
accrue from use to which it will be put once acquired.
The market value of the land means the price of the land
which a willing seller is reasonably expected to fetch in
the open market from a willing purchaser. In other
words, it is a price of the land in hypothetical market.
During the site inspection, it has been observed that the
land under acquisition is situated in Sancoale and
Cortalim village adjacent to the land already acquired for
the same purpose earlier.
In the instant case, two sale deeds were relied upon
dated 13.12.1993 which is 8 months before Section 4(1)
notification. The property was sold at Rs. 250 per sq.
metre. We have perused the sale deed and the recitals in
the document. The property is an extent of Rs. 385/- sq.
metre as shown in the plan attached. Thereafter, the
owners as recited in the partition deed developed the said
property by making roads, drainage etc. as required
under the planning laws which were approved by the
town and country planning authorities on 22.10.1993
and by the village panchayat by their license VPC/4 93-
94/754 dated 15.11.1993. The land in question is more
particularly described in the second schedule. An extent
admeasuring 385 sq. metre was sold for a total price of
Rs. 96,250/- which was the then market value. Another
sale deed was sold on the same date admeasuring
around 257 sq. metres as shown in the plan attached. It
is stated in the deed that all the co-owners have
developed the property by making roads, drainage etc. as
required under the standing laws. The total sale
consideration is Rs.64,250/- The Government registered
valuer Mrs. Pratiba Kumar was examined as witness AW
2. She is also a panel valuer for LIC, GIC and Bank of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
India. She has prepared the valuation report at the
request of the appellants. According to the report, the
acquired land admeasures 11,875/- sq. metres and the
said property is a joint property of the applicants which
is situated close to the ferry point at Cortalim and it is
abutting the public road and that the acquired land
aborts the acquired land of LAC 391/95 which touches
the public road which was acquired for Konkan Railways
broad gauge line. The acquired land is situated in
settlement zone S2 police station, petrol pump,
salgaonkar ship yard, government warehouse within a
range of about 200 metres and market, school, bank etc.
are within a range of 1 km and in the year 1994 and even
prior to a point when electricity, telephone and water
facility were available to the acquired land. After taking
into consideration all the factors mentioned in her report,
she has arrived at the market value of Rs. 500/- per sq.
metre. Nothing has been elicited from her in the cross-
examination in regard to her statements made in the
chief examination. It is thus seen from the above report
that the approved valuer, taking into consideration the
location of the property amenities available and also the
cost of similar properties in the locality, has arrived at
the present fair market rate of the land which was fixed
at Rs. 500 per sq. metre.
The Addl. District Judge South Goa considered the
2 sale deeds relied upon by the appellants. Both the sale
deeds are dated 13.12.1993 Ex AW1/B and Ex AW1/C.
The executants of the sale deed was examined as AW3
and AW1. According to them, the land was sold @ Rs.
250/- per sq. metre which is situated about 3 kms away
from the acquired land and that the second sale deed is
in respect of Rs. 257 sq. metres and also situated at a
distance of about 3 kms. Both the sale deeds are about 8
months prior to the acquisition of the land. Both the
lands were sold @ Rs. 250/- per sq. metre.
It was argued that small extent of land sold cannot
be taken into account. According to the District Judge
deduction has to be made where there is larger area of
undeveloped land under acquisition provision has to be
made for providing the minimum amenities of town line
such as water connections, well laid out roads, drainage
facility, electricity connections etc and that the process
necessarily involves deduction of the cost of factors
required to bring the undeveloped lands on par with the
developed lands.
In the instant case, taking the average of both the
sale deeds Ex. AW 1/B and AW 1/C the District Judge
made a deduction @ 33% for the development charges
and on deduction of 33% from Rs. 250/- per sq. metre
the actual price of the acquired land would be
approximately Rs. 192/- per sq. metre which, according
to the opinion of the District Judge would be reasonable
for the acquired land. By holding so, he passed the
following Award.
"Award
This compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer is enhanced to Rs. 192/- per sq.mt. The
respondents shall pay to the applicants the said
compensation in addition to proportionate solatium
charges on the amount thereof and the interest at the
rate of 9% during the period of one year from the date
of possession of the land delivered to the respondents
in terms of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
thereafter at the rate of 15% per year under section 28
of the said Act from the date of expiry of the period of
one year till the actual payment of the whole amount
of compensation plus 12% interest over and above the
market value of the land from the date of notification
under section 4 of the Act up to the date of the award
or taking possession whichever is earlier in terms of
section 1A of section 23 of the LA Act. The amount
already paid shall be adjusted against the
compensation awarded and the applicants shall be
entitled to the refund of the court fee paid by them and
the costs of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the respondents."
The High Court, in para 10 of its judgment,
however, held that the District Judge was not justified in
principle to take an average of the price of two sale deeds
and apply the same for fixing the compensation payable
to the claimants. The High Court held that the two sale
deeds could be used as a guide for the purpose of fixing
the compensation to the acquired land and the same
could be used but by making further deductions.
According to them, to carry out the development of such
land which was not at one level the applicant would have
to spend a considerable amount towards the
development, namely, level terracing roads etc. and,
therefore, considering the nature of the land which was
hilly at least a deduction of 65% ought to have been
taken by the Addl. District Judge and not 33% as done
by him. Again, the High Court was of the view that the
District Judge ought to have made a further deduction of
at least 10% since the distance between the acquired
land and the plots was about 3 kms. Further, the High
Court held that the prices fetched from small plots
cannot be applied to the lands covering large area and,
therefore, a further deduction ought to have been made
on this ground of at least of 10%. The High Court,
therefore, held that considering the location of the
acquired land vis-‘-vis its nature and the plot of the sale
deeds, the District Judge ought to have made a
deduction of at least 85% and in view of the said
deduction, the price of the acquired land works out to Rs.
37.50 which is rounded of to Rs.38/- per sq. metre. A
further direction was issued that the compensation paid
towards the trees must be adjusted from the
compensation fixed for the lands.
In our opinion, the High Court has adopted a rough
and ready method for making deductions which is
impermissible in law. We have already noticed the
valuers report. No reason whatsoever was given by the
Reference Court or by the High Court as to why the
report of the valuer and her evidence cannot be relied on.
In our opinion, the compensation awarded by the High
Court had no basis whatsoever and was not supported by
cogent reasons and that it did not consider the future
prospect of the development of the land in question. The
High Court also did not assess the injury that the
appellant is likely to sustain due to loss of his future
earnings from the said land and also did not assess the
damage already suffered due to diminution of the profits
of the land between the time of publication of the notice
and time of the collector taking possession. The Division
Bench of the High Court has miserably erred in passing
the order impugned thereby reducing the rate of
compensation from Rs. 192/- to Rs. 38/- and in utter
mis-reading of the evidence on record and acted in a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
flagrant error of law and facts. In our view, the orders
passed by the Division Bench resulted in manifest
injustice being caused to the appellants. The High Court
also erred in passing the order by holding that the
opinion of the government approved valuer was not based
on any opinion method of valuation but solely on the
basis of facilities available to the land. In our view, the
High Court ought to have appreciated that the
government approved valuer is an expert in her field and
the opinion of such an expert ought not to have been
rejected shabbily.
Both the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the
District Judge and of the High Court have failed to notice
that the purpose of acquisition is for Railways and that
the purpose is a relevant factor to be taken into
consideration for fixing the compensation. In this
context, we may usefully refer the judgment of this Court
of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by Lrs. Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in JT 2005 (4) SC 282. This Court held
that the purpose for which the land is acquired must also
be taken into consideration in fixing the market value
and the deduction of development charges. In the above
case, the lands were acquired because they were
submerged under water of a dam. Owners claimed
compensation of Rs. 40/- per sq. ft. LAO awarded
compensation ranging from Rs. 35/- to Rs. 60/- per sq.
mtr. Reference Court fixed the market value of the land
at Rs. 200/- per sq. mtr. and after deduction of
development charges, determined the compensation @
Rs. 134/- per sq. mtr. In arriving at the compensation,
Reference court placed reliance on the comparative sale
of a piece of land measuring 46.30 sq. metre @ Rs. 270
per sq. mtr. On appeal, the High Court awarded
compensation of Rs. 180/- per sq. mtr. in respect of large
plots and Rs. 200/- per sq. mtr. in respect of smaller
plots. On further appeal, this Court held that since the
lands were acquired for being submerged in water of dam
and had no potential value and the sale instance relied
was a small plot measuring 46.30 sq. mtr. whereas the
acquisition in the present case was in respect of large
area, interest of justice would be subserved by awarding
compensation of Rs. 160/- per sq. mtr. in respect of
larger plots and Rs.175/- per sq. mtr. for smaller plots.
In Basavva (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Spl. LAO and Ors.
reported in JT 1996 5 SC 580, this Court held that the
purpose by which acquisition is made is also a relevant
factor for determining the market value.
We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that
normally 1/3 deduction of further amount of
compensation has been directed in some cases.
However, the purpose for which the land acquired must
also be taken into consideration. In the instant case, the
land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for
the Konkan Railways. This Court in Hasanali
Khanbhai & Sons & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 2
SCC 422 and L.A.O. vs. Nookala Rajamallu, 2003 (10)
Scale 307 had noticed that where lands are acquired for
specific purposes deduction by way of development
charges is permissible. In the instant case, acquisition is
for laying a railway line. Therefore, the question of
development thereof would not arise. Therefore, the
order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside
and in view of the availability of basic civic amenities
such as school, bank, police station, water supply,
electricity, high way, transport, post, petrol pump,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
industry, telecommunication and other businesses, the
claim of compensation should reasonably be fixed @ Rs.
250/- per sq. mtr. with the deduction of 20%. The
appellant shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits
such as solatium, interest etc. etc. The appellants also
will be entitled to compensation for the trees standing on
the said land in a sum of Rs. 59,192 as fixed. I.A. No. 1
of 2006 for substitution is ordered as prayed for.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2007
(Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16503-16504 OF 2005)
In this case, the LAO awarded compensation to the
appellant @ Rs 4/- per sq. mtr. and Rs.82,282/- for trees
standing on the said land. The appellants claimed a sum
of Rs. 470/- per sq. mtr. for the acquired land and in
support of their contention relied on 3 sale deeds of
adjoining plots, one award and a report of a valuer. The
District Judge in accordance with the rate of
compensation from Rs.4/- to Rs.108/- but did not give
any compensation for the trees standing on the land. In
the first appeal preferred by the appellant and the appeal
preferred by the respondents, the High Court against the
judgment and award dated 29.08.2001 of the District
Judge rejected the appeal of the appellants and allowed
the appeal of the respondents. The Division Bench
rejected the report of the valuer and findings of the
District Judge and reduced the rate of compensation
from Rs. 108/- as awarded by the learned District Judge
to Rs. 27/-. This case also stands on the same footing as
that of the other appellant in SLP (C) Nos. 16533-16534
of 2005. Therefore, they are also entitled to
compensation on par with the other appeal. In this case,
the appellant adduced two sale deeds AW1F and AW1E
on the purchase of land by him at Rs. 480 per sq. mtr.
and Rs. 200 per sq. mtr. respectively. The Government
valued approver also submitted his report and also
deposed before the Court. The land in question is also
acquired for the same purpose. Therefore, the appellant
in this case is also entitled to the same compensation at
Rs. 250/- per sq. mtr. with deduction of 20%. The
appellant will be entitled to compensation for the trees
standing thereon at Rs. 82,232/- as justified by the
L.A.O. The appellant will also entitled to all the other
statutory benefits such as solatium, interest etc. Both
the appeals are ordered accordingly. Since the
acquisition was made under Section 4(1) notification and
the matter was pending from the year 1996 the appellant
shall be entitled for payment of compensation now fixed
by this Court together with solatium, interest and other
statutory benefits as permissible under law and that the
compensation and other payment shall be made within 3
months from today after adjusting the payments which
have already been made. No costs.