IMPORTANT POINT
While determining market value of acquired land, it must be with reference to a piece of land which is comparable to lands acquired and must be similar in potentiality and nature.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23-Compensation payable on land acquired under the Act-Most reliable way to determine market value is to rely on instances of sale of portions of same land as had been acquired or adjacent lands made shortly before or after Section 4 notification-Reference court fixed compensation at Rs. 30,000/- per acre for acquired land-Certified copy of award passed by LA Judge in another acquisition where court awarded Rs. 1 lakh per acre as compensation and land was 150 ft. away-High Court did not rely on this document as no evidence was led to show that both lands were similar in nature having similar potentiality-Acquired land in other award was 3 ft. higher than acquired land-Two lands were not proved to be comparable in nature and potentiality-High Court was right in not relying on said document.
       Held : Accordingly, the appellants had produced before the High Court a certified copy of an award passed by the learned L.A. Judge in another acquisition proceedings. In this case, the land was 150 ft. away from the lands involved in the present proceedings. In those proceedings, the learned L.A. Judge had awarded Rs. 1 lakh per acre as compensation. This was sought to be relied on by the appellants. The High Court chose not to rely on this document as no evidence was led to show that both lands are similar in nature having similar potentiality. While determining the market value of land, it must be with reference to a piece of land which is comparable to the present lands being acquired. It must be similar in potentiality and nature. The document which the appellants seek to rely on relates to land which was acquired for the purpose of Assam-Agartala Road. It was 3 feet higher than the acquired land. Further, the two lands were not proved to be comparable in nature and potentiality. Therefore, the High Court is right in not relying on the said document and disallowing the claim for enhancement for compensation. (Paras 6 and 7)
       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23(2) as amended by amendment Act in 1984)-Solatium at enhanced rate-Limited retrospectivity-Increased solatium applicable to those awards passed by Collector or Court between 30-4-1982 and 29-9-1984-Award in case of appellant was passed by LA in 1974-Reference court passed the award in 1985-Appellants held entitled to enhanced solatium u/s 23(2) of the Act. (Paras 9, 10 and 14)
       (iii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23 Solatium-West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948-Section 8(2)-Provision of solatium is mandatory and cannot be done away with-Deprivation of solatium by Act, 1948 was violative of Article 14 of Constitution of Act. (Para 16)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-Leave granted.

2. The case relates to acquisition of land measuring 3.37 acres in Mouja Pablacheura in Kailashahar, State of Tripura. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter, the Act ] was issued on 24th December 1968 and on 13th October, 1969, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award in October 1974 awarding Rs.12,000/- per acre for nal land and Rs.9,000/- per acre for chara land . On 21.10.1974, the appellants filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. On reference, the learned L.A. Judge passed an award enhancing compensation, allowing Rs. 36,000/- per acre and also granted 15% solatium, and interest under Section 23(2) of the Act in 1985.

3. On appeal to the High Court, the claim for enhancement was dismissed. The High Court also denied the appellants benefits under Section 23(2) of the Act by relying on the decision of this Court in K.S. Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 1012.

4. Before this Court, the main issues are as follows:

(1) Was the High Court justified in not awarding enhanced compensation?

(2) Are the appellants entitled to solatium and interest @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act?

5. Compensation payable on a piece of land acquiring under the Act is determined by taking into account the market value of the land so acquired. The most reliable way to determine the market value is to rely on the instances of sale of portions of the same land as has been acquired or adjacent lands made shortly before or after the Section 4 notification, Sanjiva Row, Law of Land Acquisition and Compensation, 8th Edn. 2001, p.640.

6. Accordingly, the appellants had produced before the High Court a certified copy of an award passed by the learned L.A. Judge in another acquisition proceedings. In this case, the land was 150 ft. away from the lands involved in the present proceedings. In those proceedings, the learned L.A. Judge had awarded Rs. 1 lakh per acre as compensation. This was sought to be relied on by the appellants. The High Court chose not to rely on this document as no evidence was led to show that both lands are similar in nature having similar potentiality.

7. While determining the market value of land, it must be with reference to a piece of land which is comparable to the present lands being acquired. It must be similar in potentiality and nature. The document which the appellants seek to rely on relates to land which was acquired for the purpose of Assam-Agartala Road. It was 3 feet higher than the acquired land. Further, the two lands were not proved to be comparable in nature and potentiality. Therefore, the High Court is right in not relying on the said document and disallowing the claim for enhancement for compensation.

8. The second issue relates to the payment of solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act. Solatium is money comfort quantified by the statute and given as a conciliatory measure for the compulsory acquisition of land of the citizen, by a welfare state such as India, Narain Das Jain v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika (1001) 4 SCC 212. Thus the statutory amount of solatium is intended to compensate the owner for his disinclination to part with his property.

9. The main aspect that arises for consideration is the issue of the rate of solatium. By an amendment in 1984, the rate was increased to 30% from the original 15% by virtue of Section 30(2) of the Amending Act. This increase was given a limited retrospectivity, in the sense that, the Amending Act, under Section 30(2) provided that the increased solatium is applicable to those awards passed by the Collector or the Court between 30.4.1982 and 29.9.1984. Can it be said that the present case would be entitled to this additional benefit?

10. The award was made by the L.A. Collector way before the said period i.e. in 1974. However, the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1256

IMPORTANT POINTWhile determining market value of acquired land, it must be with reference to a piece of land which is comparable to lands acquired and must be similar in potentiality and nature.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
While determining market value of acquired land, it must be with reference to a piece of land which is comparable to lands acquired and must be similar in potentiality and nature.