SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 147

1997(2) Supreme 646
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Gurlingappa & Ors. -Petitioners
versus
Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarg -Respondent
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2846       of 1997
(CC-821/97)
Decided on 28-1-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Rajni K. Prasad, Advocate, (T.C. Sharma) Advocate (NP).

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Section 23-Reference Court fixed compensation at Rs. 6300/- per acre for dry lands and Rs. 9,820/- per acre for cultivable lands-Award confirmed by High Court-Civil Judge was alleged to have enhanced compensation to Rs. 12000/- per acre for irrigated land and Rs. 8000/- per acre for dry lands-High Court found no evidence to show that lands referred to in those judgments bear any similarity to lands in question-No illegality in determination of compensation warranting interference. (Para 3)

       

ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in October 1977 for construction of Amerja Project. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award under Section 11 awarded compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per acre. On reference, the District Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,300/- per acre for dry lands and Rs. 9,820/- per acre for Bgayat Lands (cultivable lands). On appeal, the High Court dismissed the same and confirmed the award of the reference Court. Thus, this special leave petition.

3. It is contended for the petitioners that in similar circumstances, the Additional Civil Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 12,000/- per acre for the irrigated land and Rs. 8,000/- per acre for the dry lands and confirmed by the judgment of the High Court in RFA Nos. 1160 and 1825/92 and, therefore, the petitioners also are entitled to the same compensation. We find no force in the contention. It is now well settled legal position that in compulsory acquisition, the Court would sit in the arm-chair of a willing purchaser and would ask whether as a reasonable prudent vendee, he would offer in the open market the rate of market value proposed by him in respect of the land under acquisition. The Court requires to consider the relative values of the lands in the neighbourhood, the soil condition and same or similar advantageous features on comparable prices. The High Court has pointed out in its judgment that there is no evidence to show that the lands referred to in those judgments bear any similarity to the lands in question. On the other hand, it is pointed out that for the same project and for the lands situated in the same village another award for a sum of Rs. 6,320/- per acre was passed by the Additional Civil Judge and the same has been upheld by the High Court.

4. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the determination of the compensation warranting interference.

5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

SLP dismissed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top