Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SRI M.B. GOPALA KRISHNA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTORS LAND ACQUISITION
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (3) 594 JT 1996 (3) 595
1996 SCALE (3)132
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. The
notification under Section 4 [1] of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 [for short, the "Act"] was published in the State
Gazette on October 9, 1980 acquiring large extent of land
admeasuring 105 acres for defence purposes. The Land
Acquisition Officer [LAO] awarded compensation @ Rs.30/- per
square yard by his award dated July 16, 1982. On reference,
the civil Court enhanced the compensation by its award and
decree dated March 31, 1986 to a sum of Rs.108/- per square
yard. Being dissatisfied with the award, the respondent
filed the appeal. The claimants also filed their cross
objections. the High Court in the impugned judgment and
order dated March 31. 1992 made in CCCA Nos.60-64 of 1986
reduced the compensation after the deductions to Rs.65/- per
square yard in respect of 1 and abutting road and Rs.60/-per
square yard in respect of other land. Thereby, it allowed
the appeal of the respondent and dismissed the cross-
objections against the order of the High Court reducing the
compensation, these appeals by special leave have been
filed.
Shri Mukul Mudgal, l earned counsel for the appellants,
firstly contended that the High Court has committed an error
in relying upon another judgment reducing the compensation
to Rs.60/- per square yard wherein the High Court had relied
upon a sale deed Ex.A3. The lands of the appellants
admeasure 17 acres and 17 gunthas, while the lands covered
in that appeal were of the extent of 21 acres and 18 gunthas
but all the lands are covered by the common notification.
Under these circumstances, the High Court with a view to
maintain consistency has rel Red upon a sale deed Ex.A3
produced therein which was accepted in CCCA No.11/1985 and
finally reduced the compensation to Rs.60;- per square yard
We need not go into the correctness of the High Court’s
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
relying upon a single sale deed Ex.A3 in determining
compensation at uniform rate since the State did not come in
appeal, Suffice it to state that Rs.60/- per square yard is
just and adequate.
It is further contended by Shri Mudgal that value of
the land does not get pegged down on account of the land
being in occupation of a tenant and the circumstances in
this behalf taken into account by the High Court, is
irrelevant. We find no force in the contention. A freehold
land and one burdened with encumbrances do make a big
difference in attracting willing buyers. A freehold land
normally commands higher compensation while the land
burdened with encumbrances secures lesser price. The fact of
a tenant in occupation would be an encumbrance and no
willing purchaser would willingly offer the same price as
would be offered for a freehold land. Under those
circumstances, the High Court would be right in its
conclusion that the land burdened with encumbrances takes
lesser price than the freehold land. The encumbrances would
operate as a disabling factor to peg down the price when we
compare the same with freehold land.
Considered in these perspectives, we hold that the
reduction of the compensation from Rs.108/- to Rs.60 and
Rs.65/- per square yard is not unjustified.
Appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.