2007 Supreme(SC) 146

2007(4) Supreme 728
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad)
C. K. Thakker & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Land Acquisition Officer, A. P.
— Petitioner
versus
Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 6489-6490 of 2000
Decided on : 07-02-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Rajnish Singh, Manoj Saxena, Rahul Shukla and T.V. George, Advocates
For the Respondent : Y. Raja Gopala Roa, Y. Ramesh, Y. Vaihni, B.V. Naren, V. Sridhar Reddy and V.N. Raghupathy, Advocaets.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4(1), 23 — Award of compensation — Procedure in determining compensation — Not deducting the amount of expenses for cultivation of fruit growing trees — Notification u/s. 4(1) of the Act — Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1026/- per acre by his award dated 18-5-1984 — reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per acre on yield basis of the crops and multiplier of 20 years capitalization was applied and an amount of Rs.6000/- per acre had been awarded to the claimants — On appeal, high Court fixed compensation at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per acre to the claimants — Whether High Court committed and error of law in not deducting amount towards cost of cultivation and not giving any reasons for enhancement of compensation from Rs.6,000/- per acre to Rs.22,000/- per acre (No.)

       Held : In the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the ratio laid down in Rama Rana’s case (supra) would not strictly apply in the present cases inasmuch as in fruit growing trees the expenses would not be 50% as held by this Court. Moreover, the High Court also considered an important fact that the claimants-respondents would be entitled to much more amount of Rs. 25,000/- per acre on yield-basis but has fixed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs 22,000/- per acre. It, therefore, cannot be said that by not deducting the amount of expenses for cultivation, the High Court had committed any illegality. The first contention, therefore, in the facts of the present appeals, is rejected.

       (Para 12)

       Held : Applying the ratio of the decisions of this Court in the above-said cases, we are of the view that the High Court committed no error of law or any perversity in awarding the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre to the claimants-respondents. It is no doubt true that the High Court has not given adequate and proper reasons in its order, but the pith and substance of the order cannot be found to be faulty.

       (Para 17)

       Held : The claimants-respondents have placed on record Ex. A-2, a certified copy of the Agreement to sell and Ex. A-3, the Registration Extract of the Sale Deed in pursuance to Ex. A-2. PW-2, the purchaser of the land, has purchased one acre of land for Rs. 19,800/- from Durga Prasad, a resident of Mathannagudem village. PW-1 has placed on record a copy of the Award in O.P. No. 88 of 1982 (Ex. A-4), whereby and whereunder the Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre for the land in Mathannagudem village, which was acquired for the same purpose. A copy of the Award in O.P. Nos.70 of 1982 and 71 of 1982, marked as Ex. A-5, would reveal that the Reference Court awarded a sum of Rs. 22,000/- per acre for the lands acquired for the same purpose in village Borrampalem. It has come in the evidence of PW-1 that against the said Award the State Government preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the High Court on 10.02.1989, a certified copy whereof was placed on record as EX. A-6 in support of the claims by the claimantas-respondents. The claimants respondents made the claim of their lands at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. The Reference Court has noticed in its order that village Mathannagudem, village Tadavi and village Borrampalem in which the lands of the claimants-respondent were acquired are quite adjacent to each other. The Land Acquisition Officer himself awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- per acre for the lands covered by S.No. 98 of village Borrampalem vide Award Ex. A-5. The Reference Court has rejected the claim raised by the claimants-respondents for compensation of cashew nut plants planted in an area to an extent of Ac. 4.50 cents in the acquired lands, merely on the ground that no trees were found in existence on the lands at the time of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act or at the time of passing of the Award. The High Court has not recorded any finding in respect of the cashew nut plants grown by the claimants-respondents on some portions of the acquired land.

       (Para 18)

       Held : The Land Acquisition Officer in his order has recorded that rain-fed crops such as horsegram, bobbara, cholum were grown by the claimants-respondents in the acquired land No. F 1384 to 1388 and in F 1388, cashew nut plants were raised in some parts of the land to the extent of about Ac. 9.00 cents. Therefore, the finding of the Reference Court that there were no no cashew nut trees found on the acquired land is factually incorrect and cannot be sustained. It has come in the evidence of the claimants-respondents led before the Reference Court that they had raised maize crop at one time, which would have fetched Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 5,000 per acre to them and other crops jowar and bobbara in the next season. The computation of compensation for determination of market value my be carried out on yield basis and multiplier of 20 adopted by the Reference Court in the cases on hand is on the higher side the contrary to the well-settled proposition of law as said down by this Court. However, this Court is not precluded from taking into consideration other circumstances such as, the potentiality and utility of the land acquired and awarding just compensation to the claimants who are deprived of their lands and other property. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these cases, as discussed above, we are of the view that the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre to the claimants-respondent is adequate, just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive or unwarranted.

       (Para 19)