Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
RAJASHEKAR SANKAPPA TARADANDI& ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER ANDLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
NANAVATI G.T. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 153 1996 SCALE (3)295
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act 1 of 1894 (for short the ’Act’) acquiring 13 acres 29
gunthas of land near Dharwad city for extension of the
A.P.M.C. Yard, was published on December 20, 1979. The Land
Acquisition Officer in his award dated September 23, 1986
determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per
acre. On reference, the civil Court, exhibiting its feats of
imagination, and by award and decree dated April 24, 1992
determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.12.90 per sq.
ft., which worked out to Rs.5,61,729/per acre. On appeal, in
MFA NO.2455/92 by judgment and order dated March 4, 1994 the
Karnataka High Court has reduced the compensation to
Rs.65,000/- per acre. Thus this appeal by special leave.
Shri Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the appellant has
contended that the High Court having found that the lands
are situated near developed area and also in view of the
evidence of the Commissioner appointed in this case, has
committed grievous error of law in reducing the compensation
to Rs.65,000/- per acre. We find no force in the contention,
The evidence discloses that the developed area was at a
considerable distance. The nearest developed place central
bus stand - is situated at a distance of 1-1/2 to 2.00 k.m.
from the acquired land. The Commissioner appointed in this
case has stated the existing features of the year 1992. By
the time of his inspection, i.e., between 1979 and 1992 much
development had taken place and, therefore, no reliance was
rightly placed on the evidence of the Commissioner. The High
Court has considered the circumstances that the lands had
potentiality as non-agricultural land and that their value
has been determined on that basis. After considering all the
relevant aspects, the value of the lands was determined at
the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre.
It is settled law that the court has the duty to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
carefully evaluate the evidence and determine the
compensation which is just and adequate for the lands
acquired under compulsory acquisition. It is also settled
law that the court has to sit in the arm chair of a willing
purchaser in an open market with prevailing market
conditions as on the date of publication of Section 4(1)
notification and to determine whether a willing purchaser,
if offered the lands in an open market for sale, would be
prepared to purchase the land at the rate at which the court
is called upon to determine compensation on the basis of
evidence on record. Unfortunately, the Civil Judge had
exhibited, as stated earlier, his feats of imagination and
determined the compensation at sky-high rate on the basis of
three sale deeds, Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10, of which two sale deeds
relate to small extents of 92 sq. yards and 128 sq. yards.
The High Court, therefore, rightly determined the
compensation by reducing the value by 10% and fixed at 12.90
per sq. ft. This Court in [AIR 1990 SC 2192 at 2198, para 8]
described the official conduct within the net of misconduct
thus:
"In appropriate cases it may be
open to draw inferences even from
judicial acts of the misconduct.
The rule of conduct spurned by this
Court squarely put the nail on the
official act as a refuge to fix
arbitrary and unreasonable market
value and the person concerned
shall not camouflage the official
act to a hidden conduct in the
function of fixing arbitrary or
unreasonable compensation to the
acquired land."
The High Court has rightly rejected the approach
adopted by the reference Court. In view of the fact that as
on the date of the notification there was no development in
that area, though the lands were capable to be put to non
agricultural use and that Section 24, clause fifthly
prohibits taking into consideration of the future
potentiality because of acquisition in determining
compensation, the High Court rightly had determined the
compensation at Rs.65,000/- per acre. As the State did not
file any appeal, we confirm the High Court order and find
no justification to further enhance the market value.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but, in the
circumstances, without costs.