Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. L. KAMALAMMA (DEED) BY TRS. & ORS., K. KRISHNAMACHARI A
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/01/1998
BENCH:
G.T. NANAVATI, S. RJENDRA BABU
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
Rajendra Babu, J.
Leave granted.
An extent of land measuring 10 acres 1 cent comprised
in different survey numbers situated at Puttur adjoining
Govindapalem of Chittoor District was notified for
acquisition under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in the Gazette on
28th April, 1977. After issuing final notification under
Section 6 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an
award on 28.2.1981 determining the compensation payable in
respect of the lands in question. He grouped the lands into
five categories and paid at different rates of compensation.
So far as lands which were classified by him as non
agricultural, he fixed a compensation of Rs. 50/- per sq.
yard to the rest of the groups depending upon their
locations. He also classified certain lands as agricultural
lands and awarded a compensation of Rs. 9375/- per acre and
Rs. 13,334 /- per acre depending upon their locations. On a
reference made under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil
Court, the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer was
modified having found that classification into agricultural
and non-agricultural lands or into four groups in non-
agricultural lands was not sustainable and entire land had a
potentiality of being used for building purposes and,
therefore, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 100/- per sq.
yard. The matter was carried by the Land Acquisition Officer
in appeal to the High court Under Section 54 of the Act and
certain claimants also filed cross appeals. The High Court
took into consideration that in puttur town, the trend of
price was on the rise at a fast pace and bearing in mind the
future potentiality of the land in question in comparison to
sales of similar lands accepted the rate fixed by the
Reference Court, however by reducing by 25 per cent thereof
inasmuch as 1/4 the of the land will have to be reserved for
drains. sewers, roads and such other amenities to be
provided in the lay out that may be formed subsequently.
Another piece of land measuring about a 1 acre 55 cents
was also acquired under a Notification under section 4 (1)
of the Land Acquisition Act published in gazette on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
15.3.1974 for the same purpose and the Land Acquisition
Officer determined compensation payable at Rs. 10,526/- per
acre while on Reference, the Civil Court enhanced the same
to Rs. 100/- per sq. Yard and the High court on appeal fixed
the market value at Rs. 125/- per sq. The Compensation was
reduced by Rs. 30/- per sq. yard following its decision to
which we have referred to now. These two appeals are
preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer.
In challenging this order made by the High Court Shri
Nageshwar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the High Court and the Reference Court relied upon Ex.
B- 30 which is a sale deed dated 9.8.1976 under which 100
sq. feet of land had been sold. neither the High Court nor
the Reference Court ought to have relied upon this document
since the land situated was far away from the lands in
question. Apart form the fact that it was only a small piece
of land which had been sold whereas a vast tract of land
measuring over 10 acres was acquired under the Notification
in question, he also pointed out that even assuming that the
rate mentioned in Ex. B-30 could be taken into consideration
in determining the market value of the land, sufficient
deductions had not been given towards development and other
relevant matters. He also submitted that the compensation
paid should be drastically reduced.
Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted
that the High Court and the Reference Court had been all
relevant factors into consideration in determinant the
market value and compensation awarded by them is
unassailable.
The general trend in the prices of land is on the rise
ad the judicial notice of the same had been taken by the
High Court correctly and therefore, cannot be challenged.
Puttur is an urban area and the Lands in question are
abutting the main road leading from Tirupathi to Ankonam via
Puttur and the acquired land was in the heart of Puttur
town. To the north of the land was in the heart of puttur
town. To the north of the land in question there is a famous
Venkateswaraswamy Temple and to the immediate south, the
famous Tiruthani, one of the abodes of Lord
Subrahamanyaswamy. Therefore taking into consideration, the
topography of the land we may safely proceed on the basis
that the High Court had correctly noted the Situation of the
land in question which has the potentiality of being
developed as urban land. Exb. B-30 is a sale deed dated 9th
August, 1976, the transaction having taken place prior to
eight months from the issue of preliminary Notification for
acquisition of land in the present case. Having found that
that piece of land refereed in Ex. B- 30 is situated very
close to the lands that are acquired under the Notification
in question the Reference Court and the High Court relied
upon the said document and, in our view, rightly. Further
when no sales of comparable land was available where large
chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions in
respect of smaller extent of land could be taken note of as
indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large
tracts of l and by making appropriate deductions such as for
development of the land by providing enough space for roads,
sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a lay out,
lumsum payment as also the waiting period required for
selling the sites that would be formed.
The argument advanced by Shri Nageshwar Rao that the
classification by land Acquisition Officer was in Order and
ought not to have been interfered with by the Reference
Court or the High Court does not appeal to us. When a land
is acquired which has the potentiality of being developed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
into an urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts
the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid
while in respect of the lands on the interior side should be
at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are
formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages
as well as disadvantages. Many a discerning customer may
prefer to stay in the interior and far away from the main
road and may be willing to pay reasonably higher price for
that site. One cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to
indulge in a meticulous exercise of classification of the
land as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer when the
entire land was acquired in one block and therefore
classification of the same into different categories does
not stand to reason.
The Reference Court, however, merely took note of the
price noted in Exb. B-30, the sale deed while the High Court
deducted only towards the space that was required for
formation of roads or other amenities altogether ignoring
the time required for formation of the lay out, the period
for which the money would be locked up in the investment and
the waiting period as also for the reduced price for land
when lumpsum payment is made. Bearing in mind these aspects
we are of the view that the High Court should have reduced
the price arrived at by the Reference Court at Rs. 100/- per
sq. yard by atleast 40 per cent.
In the circumstances of the case, we hold that the
market value fixed at Rs. 100/- sq. yard relying upon Exb.
B- 30 , the sale deed, to be correct. However, we reduce the
compensation payable to Rs. 60/- per sq. yard computing the
whole of the land under acquisition in the two cases on the
aforesaid basis. The respondents are entitled to the
statutory benefits as awarded by the courts below. The award
made by the Reference Court as modified by the High court
shall stand further modified as indicated by us in the
course of the Order. The appeals are allowed in part.