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

1979 Supreme(SC) 32

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvaru, Appellant
Versus
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. P. Ram Reddy, Sr. Advocate (Mr. A. V. Nair, Advocate with him), for Appellant.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4, 6, 18 – Notification – Acquisition – Compensation – Appeal arises out of proceedings for determination of compensation in respect of acquisition of certain areas of land in survey under two different notifications issued under section 4 followed by notifications under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. – First notification under Section 4 was issued in respect of an area of approximately 4 acres of land, while second notification under Section 4 was issued in respect of another area of approximately 4 acres, both areas being out of same block of land comprising Survey – Land Acquisition Officer awarded Re. 1/- per sq. yard for good land and 25 paise per sq. yard for bad land as and by way of compensation for acquisition under both notifications. – Appellants who are admittedly owner of both the areas acquired under two notifications carried matter by way of reference to District Court under Section 18 and District Court increased amount of compensation to Rs. 3.75 per sq. yard for good land and Rs. 2/- per sq. yard for bad land. – This enhancement did not satisfy the appellants and hence they preferred a separate, appeal in respect of each acquisition to High Court. – High Court delivered a common judgment in both appeals and confirmed award of compensation made by District Court. – Appellants thereupon filed present appeals after obtaining special leave from this Court. – Held, Court is concerned with the 2nd and the 3rd acquisitions which were made under the respective notifications – Both District Court and High Court proceeded on basis that rate of compensation in respect of both these acquisitions would be same, because there was hardly any difference in market value of land comprised in Survey – It was also not disputed on behalf of State Government - at least it so appears from judgment of High Court - that quality of land acquired under notifications was not different from that of land acquired under notifications – Now if market value of same quality of land in the same area was Rs. 6/- per sq. yard and Rs. 12/- per sq. yard it would be reasonable to take the market value at Rs. 9/- per sq. yard, being mean between Rs. 6/- and Rs. 12/- per sq. yard. – Court is conscious that this process of determination of market value adopted by us may savour of conjecture or guess, but estimation of market value in many cases must depend largely on evaluation of many imponderables and hence it must necessarily be to some extent a matter of conjecture or guess. – Court do not, therefore, think that court would be unjustified in taking market value of land acquired under notifications at Rs. 9/- per sq. yard. – Appeals Allowed

Judgment

BHAGWATI, J. :- This appeal arises out of proceedings for determination of compensation in respect of acquisition of certain areas of land in survey Numbers 6, 9, 10 and 11 under two different notifications issued under section 4 followed by notifications under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The first notification under Section 4 was issued on 30th October 1951 in respect of an area of approximately 4 acres of land, while the second notification under Section 4 was issued on 28th January 1954 in respect of an other area of approximately 4 acres, both the areas being out of the same block of land comprising Survey Numbers 6, 9, 10 and 11. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Re. 1/- per sq. yard for good land and 25 paise per sq. yard for bad land as and by way of compensation for the acquisition under both the notifications. The appellants who are admittedly the owner of both the areas acquired under the two notifications carried the matter by way of reference to the District Court under Section 18 and the District Court increased the amount of compensation to Rs. 3.75 per sq. yard for good land and Rs. 2/- per sq. yard for bad land. This enhancement did not satisfy the appellants and hence they preferred a separate, appeal in respect of each acquisition to the High Court. The High Court delivered a common judgment in both the appeals and confirmed the award of compensation made by the District Court. The appellants thereupon filed the present appeals after obtaining special leave from this Court.

2. Though several instances of sales have been relied upon by one party or the other in the appeals, it is not necessary to refer to them for the purpose of deciding what compensation should be awarded to the appellants in respect of the present acquisitions made under the two notifications dated 30th October, 1951 and 28th January, 1954, because we find that there were two other acquisitions, one earlier and the other later, in respect of land comprised in the same Survey Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 11 and the awards of compensation in respect of these acquisitions have become final and they afford the clearest evidence for determining the compensation awardable to the appellants in respect of the present two acquisitions. On 18th April, 1946 a notification was issued under Section 4 for acquisition of an area of about 7 acres out of the same block of land comprising Survey Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 11 and this was followed by a notification under Section 6 and proceedings for determination of compensation in respect of this acquisition were carried right up to this Court and by a judgment dated 3rd May, 1968 this Court confirmed the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. yard. There was, subsequent to the present two acquisitions, another acquisition made under a notification dated 2nd April, 1956 issued under Section 4 in respect of an area of 4 acres 3 gunthas out of the same block of land comprising Survey Numbers 6, 9, 10 and 11. The appellants claimed compensation in respect of this acquisition at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard, but the District Court on a reference made an award dated 30th September, 1969 granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 12/- per sq. yard. The State Government preferred an appeal against the award made by the District Court, but the appeal was dismissed and the award of the District Court became final.

3. It will thus be seen that four different acquisitions were made out of the same block of land comprising Survey Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 11 and in respect of the first acquisition under notification dated 18th April 1946 the compensation was finally determined at Rs. 6/- per sq. yard while in respect of the 4th acquisition made under the notification dated 2nd April, 1956 compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 12/- per sq. yard and this award was allowed to become final. We are concerned with the 2nd and the 3rd acquisitions which were made under the respective notifications dated 30



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