2005 Supreme(SC) 337

2005(2) Supreme 210
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
Govt. of A.P. and Anr. —Appellants
versus
J.B. Educational Society and Anr. etc. —Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 976-978 of 1999
With
Civil Appeal No. 3026 of 1999
Decided on 23-2-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : T.V. Ratnam, K. Subba Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondents : B. Kanta Rao, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, D. Mahesh Babu, E.C. Vidya Sagar, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Chava Badri Nath Babu and Bimal Roy Jad, Advocates.

Important point
Provisions of Section 20 of Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 is not in any way repugnant to Section 10 of AICTE Act and is constitutionally valid.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 6, 18 and 23—Claim for compensation—Principles to be kept in mind with reference to comparable sales—Instance of acquisition by the State Government within a distance of about 500 yards from the present land—Acquisition of land for purpose of establishing a base camp of Sheep Breeding Farm—Petitioner claimed compensation at the rate of Rs 12,000/- per Kanal for the land and compensation for trees separately—Land Acquisition Collector fixed compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 800 per Kanal—Reference for enhanced compensation—Reference Court held that comparable instances of sale cited by appellant were in respect of very small pieces of land while the acquired land was a big chunk—Reference Court not considering those sales assessed the market value at Rs. 800/- per Kanal—High Court enhanced the compensation for land to Rs. 1,000/- per Kanal—High Court considered an instance of sale of land which was about 400 to 500 yards away from the land acquired across the river @ Rs. 1000/- per Kanal—Whether High Court was justified in taking this as reasonable comparable instance of sale and fixing the market value of the acquired land based thereupon—(Yes)—Whether Reference Court was justified in rejecting his claim for trees—(No).

       Held : Generally instances of sale of small tracks of land could not form acceptable basis for determining the market value of large tracks of land, unless suitable deduction was made in respect of the developmental charges and land to be set apart. However, it was pointed out that the nature of the land acquired would be determinative of the issue as to how much of deductions are to be made in respect of developmental charges and other related expenses. This would of course depend on the nature of the land, its topography and special features, if any, and the state of its development so as to make it suitable for being adapted for immediate use. (Para 10)

       The Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that although instances of sale of smaller chunks of land could not be always relied upon, there was no reason why the instance of acquisition by the State Government within a distance of about 500 yards from the present land for the purpose of setting up Sheep Breeding Farm could not be considered. In the instant case the land was situated across the river on Thethri on the right side and its market value was fixed at Rs. 1000 per kanal. The High Court was, therefore, justified in taking this as reasonable comparable instance of sale and fixing the market value of the acquired land based thereupon. Turning to the other question as to the valuation of trees, it appears that there has been an omission on the part of the Reference Court in rejecting the claim on the ground that there was no specific reference made. It must be remembered that the Reference made under Section 18 was for determination of the amount of compensation payable to the appellant for the “land” acquired. The expression `land’ as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act is inclusive of benefits to arise out of the land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. As a matter of fact, the land acquisition officer had worked out the compensation for 261 trees in Khasra No. 804 determined as Rs. 17,315/- and the cost of 96 trees in Khasra No. 805 determined as Rs. 6207/-. Issue no.2 raised by the Reference Court was “whether the value of trees worth Rs. 300/- per tree, has not been included in the award”. While answering this issue, the Reference Court has taken the view that the Reference Court has no jurisdiction to determine the controversy as it has not been referred by the Collector. This, in our view, is erroneous. The Reference Court ought to have adjudicated the claim of the appellant for higher compensation in ­respect of trees. On account of the unduly restrictive view taken of its own jurisdiction, the Reference Court fell into error. The single Judge and the Division Bench also fell into the same error in totally rejecting this claim as beyond jurisdiction. In our opinion, the appellant is entitled to have his claim in respect of the trees on the land acquired adjudicated by the Reference Court. (Paras 12 to 15)