Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
V.G. KULKARNI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
NANAVATI G.T. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 220 1996 SCALE (3)297
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 [for short, the ’Act’] acquiring 20 acres and 4
gunthas of land for industrial development, was published on
January 21, 1982. The Land Acquisition Officer determined
compensation at the rate of Rs.8000/- per acre. On reference
the Civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.8.97 per sq.
ft. which worked out to Rs.3,90,000/- per acre. On appeal,
the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.67,200/per
acre. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
Shri Javali, learned senior counsel for the appellant
contended that the High Court, having noticed that the lands
are possessed of immense potentiality for non-agricultural
use and that Dharwad City has been developing towards the
land under acquisition, committed grievous error of law in
reducing the compensation. He also referred to another
judgment of the High Court wherein the High Court had held
that 10% escalation in price is to be given for each year.
In this case, even accepting the view of the High Court that
Rs.67,200/- would be the market value, due to time lag of
about 10 months from previous notification, the appellant is
entitled to 10% more compensation.
The question, therefore, is: whether the High Court has
committed any error of law or applied wrong principle of law
in determining the compensation? The High Court in para 37
found that the sale deeds Exs.P-2 to P-7 being of the year
1985, i.e., 3-1/2 years after the notification published
under Section 4(1), were not comparable sales Moreover.
those sale deeds related to small corner plots in a
developed area. Therefore, they do not offer any comparable
sales. The High Court also found that though the lands are
situated towards the University area which is developing,
actual development would take some more years. There is no
evidence of actual development taking place near the land in
question. Under those circumstances, in the absence of any
comparable sale instances, the High Court relied upon
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
determination of the market price at Rs.56,000/- per acre in
respect of nearby lands which were the subject-matter of MFA
Nos.678 to 681 of 1989 and which were also disposed of by
the High Court on that day, viz., September 25, 1992 and
added the notification 20% this case is of January 1982.
Thus the High Court determined the compensation in this case
at the rate of Rs.67,200/- per acre. It can be seen from the
evidence on record that as on the date of the notification
the acquired lands did not possess building potentiality. In
view of the evidence on record that it would have taken 3 to
4 years for actual development of area, the finding recorded
by the Reference Court that the lands possessed building
potentiality was not correct. It appears that the learned
District Judge did not correctly appreciate the legal
position. Therefore, determination of the compensation by
the Reference Court on the basis that the lands had already
acquired building potentiality was not at all proper. No
willing purchaser would have purchased the land at the rate
of Rs.3,90,000/- per acre., The acid test of the court
sitting in the arm chair of a willing prudent purchaser in
open market is whether the would be prepared to purchase the
land at the rate about to be determined by the court. The
sale deeds, Exs.P-2 and P-3 relied upon by the claimants
were not comparable sales as found by the High Court. The
lands were sold in plots near the acquired lands only in
1985, only after Further development had taken place in that
area. Therefore, those two instances of sale could not have
afforded a reasonable basis for determination of
compensation. The High Court, therefore, has not committed
any error of law in rejecting those sale instances.
Further contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that since the judgment in the above referred
cases [MFA Nos 678 to 681 of 1989] has not been made a part
of the record of this case, the High Court could not have
taken note of the compensation determined at the rate of
Rs.56,000/- per acre in those cases. Though legally, the
learned counsel is right, he overlooks the fact that the
High Court has done it to do justice to the appellant
instead of throwing its hands up in despair in the absence
of evidence justifying giving of higher compensation instead
of what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It has
held that though the claimants have failed to establish on
the basis of evidence led tn the case that the compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer deserved to be
enhanced, it can take notice of the market value determined
in comparable cases disposed of on that day. If at all any
complaint could be made in this behalf, it would be by the
State and not by the appellant. With regard to escalation of
market price of lands every year it has to be stated that
the principle of taking judicial notice cannot be extended
to such a matter also. Each case has to be considered on its
own facts. The claimants would be required to establish by
adducing evidence that there was gradual rise in price due
to development and constant demand for land in the
neighborhood. Therefore, the approach adopted by the High
Court cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law. The
High Court has in fact extended the benefit of escalation in
price to the claimants, by increasing the market value
determined at Rs.56,000/- per acre in the aforesaid case by
20%.
For all these reasons, we hold that the High Court has
not committed any illegality in determining the compensation
at Rs.67,200/- per acre and holding that further increase in
the market price by the reference Court was not justified.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3