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

1984 Supreme(SC) 42

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.
Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and others, etc., Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2458-2461 & 2462 of 1981
Decided on 15-2-1984.

Advocates:
C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, Gurdip Kaur, M.MUDGAL, M.N.SHROFF, O.P.RANA, P.CHAUDHARY, PRASANT BHUSHAN, SHANTI BHUSHAN

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act - Section 3 (1) - Land Acquisition - Fixation of compensation - Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation at 4 paise per square yard for land in two blocks besides statutory solatium of 15% - At instance of claimants reference was made to Civil Judge who raised compensation to 15 paise per square yard as against claim laid at rate of Rs. 2.50 per square yard - So far as lands are concerned, Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at rate of 3 paise per square yard and on a reference to Court, learned Civil Judge raised compensation to 12 paise per square yard besides statutory solatium of 15% while claimants had asked for compensation at rate of Rs. 1.50 per square yard - A Division Bench of Bombay High Court by judgment dated divided lands into three zones for purpose of fixation of compensation; first portion was on east, portion which abutted road near main gate up to an indicated depth was treated as second block and patch of land which was to north of second portion was treated as third block - Held, Acquisition is of compulsory nature, a solatium of 15% on valuation is provided - Bearing these considerations in view and taking into account fact that lands in question were located in a developed part and had considerable potential value, Court proceed to fix market value of property - One acre of land is equal to 4840 square yards - Learned Civil judge had maintained a distinction between two classes of lands – Court take note of that fact also in matter of determining compensation - Over and above this amount, appellants shall be entitled to statutory solatium of 15% as also interest at rate of 6% per annum on additional compensation from date of dispossession till payment thereof – Court direct Collector to work out compensation on basis indicated above within two months from today - If amount so determined is not paid within three months thereafter, interest on additional compensation shall be at rate of 12% per annum till payment is made - Appellants should have been entitled to costs - Keeping in view history of litigation and manner in which group of appellants had conducted themselves on earlier occasion before Court, Court do not award costs to them - Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J. :—All these appeals are by special leave and seek to challenge two separate judgments of the Bombay High Court. A large tract of land located within the municipal limits of Aurangabad within the State of Maharashtra was notified for acquisition under S. 3 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act prevailing in the State of Hyderabad (corresponding to S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894), by notification dated Nov. 28, 1957, for the purpose of locating a Medical College and an attached hospital. These lands can be conveniently referred to as Navkhanda and Ahmadibag properties. Four of these appeals are by one group; being Kausalya Devi Bogra and others and the other is by Syed Yusufuddin Syed Ziauddin. Since their lands were acquired under a common notification and as would be indicated later, the appeals were disposed of by the High Court by applying a common basis and these appeals at the request of the counsel have been heard together, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. The total acquisition was of about 150 acres of land. Out of it, the first group owned about 74 acres while the claim of Yusufuddin related to about 15 acres of land.

2. In so far as the lands of Kausalya Devis group are concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation at 4 paise per square yard for the Navkhanda land in the two blocks besides statutory solatium of 15%. At the instance of the claimants reference was made to the Civil Judge who raised the compensation to 15 paise per square yard as against the claim laid at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per square yard. So far as Ahmadibag lands are concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of 3 paise per square yard and on a reference to the Court, the learned Civil Judge raised the compensation to 12 paise per square yard besides the statutory solatium of 15% while the claimants had asked for compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per square yard. In both the cases the claimants as also the State preferred appeals - the State challenging the enhancement and the claimants asking for more. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by judgment dated April 27, 1971, divided the Ahmadibag lands into three zones for the purpose of fixation of compensation; the first portion was on the east, the portion which abutted the road near the main gate up to an indicated depth was treated as the second block and the patch of land which was to the north of the second portion was treated as the third block. The High Court fixed compensation at 12 paise per square yard for the middle portion and at 9 paise per square yard for the rest of the land. So far as Navkhanda lands were concerned, the same was also divided into three zones and depending upon the location of these three blocks, compensation was fixed at 16 paise per square yard of the land in the zone abutting the road; 10 paise per square yard for the second zone and at 8 paise per square yard for the remaining lands forming the third zone. Being dissatisfied with the results obtained in the first appeals before the High Court, the claimants came before this Court by certificate under Art. 133 of the Constitution on the basis of valuation involved. Attempt was made to introduce additional evidence Aurangabad which mainly consisted of material to show that higher compensation had been given for similarly situated properties. By judgment dated March 23, 1979, in Civil Appeals Nos. 1035 and 1038 of 1972, this Court directed :

"We, therefore, allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and send the cases back to the High Court to be restored and direct the High Court to take the appeals on its file and dispose them of according to law in the light of the directions given above."

One of the considerations for remand was reference to two judgments of the Civil Judge where, in respect of lands covered by the same Notification, compensation had been worked out at Rs. 4.50 per square yard.





























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