important point
Initial burden to establish inadequacy of the compensation is on the claimants and only on discharge of the initial burden in that behalf, the burden shifts to the State to justify the award.

Headnote:(a)Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11 – While discarding the sale instances, the Land Acquisition Officer is expected to give cogent and sustainable reasons – Although sizes of the plots of the sale instances and those in the acquisition matters, there is no absolute prohibition in taking note of the rates fixed for sale of smaller plots and making it the basis for fixation of compensation for larger extents. (Paras 4 and 8)
       (b)Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – Awarding Officer’s rate of compensation enhanced by Reference Court – High Court setting aside the same and restoring the original award not relying on sale instances of small extents in assessing the compensation payable – It cannot be held that High Court was in error. (Para 8)
       (2003) 4 SCC 481 – Relied upon.
       (c)Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – Burden is on the claimants to establish that the amounts awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that they are entitled to more – Only on discharge of the initial burden in that behalf, the burden shifts to the State to justify the award – In absence of any adequate or tenable reasons the views of the Reference Court held not valid. (Para 9)
       (d)Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 23 – There was an element of guess work inherent in most cases involving determination of the market value of the acquired land – Judgment of the High Court revealing that it had taken into consideration the relevant factors prescribed by the Act, in appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution of India, assessment of market value thus made should not be disturbed by the Supreme Court – On the basis of the generous position adopted by the Awarding Officer, the stand adopted by the Reference Court and the relevant aspects discussed by the High Court; there arose no occasion to interfere with the decision of the High Court restoring the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. (Para 12)
       AIR 1976 SC 2219 – Relied upon.
       (e)Constitution of India – Article 136 – Normally, in an appeal against the award of compensation by the High Court, Supreme Court interferes only if there has been a misapplication of any principle of assessing compensation – Instantly no error in principle has been committed by the High Court justifying interference. (Para 16)
       Facts of the case :
       These appeals challenge the correctness of the determination of the compensation payable to the land owners in acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the Moradabad Development Authority in respect of the lands comprised in three villages, Harthala, Mukkarrabpur and Sonakpur. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of most of the lands in Harthala village was issued in the month of March, 1990 and in respect of one block of lands on 13.9.1991. The Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award determined the compensation at Rs. 80 per square meter. This was enhanced to Rs. 270 per square meter on references made under Section 18 of the Act. On appeals, the High Court set aside the enhancement given by the Reference Court and restored the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer.
       In respect of village Mukkarrabpur, the Notifications were dated 18.9.1982, 18.7.1984 and 16.8.1991. Under Awards, Rs.17.05, Rs.117/-, Rs.170/- and Rs.92.59 per square meter were awarded, which were enhanced to Rs.192/-, Rs.350/- and Rs. 350 per square meter by the Reference Court. The High Court set aside the awards of the Reference Court and restored the awards of the Collector.
       Findings of the Court :
       No error in principle has been committed by the High Court, justifying interference by Supreme Court.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.—

1.These appeals involve the correctness of the determination of the compensation payable to the land owners in acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the Moradabad Development Authority in respect of the lands comprised in three villages, Harthala, Mukkarrabpur and Sonakpur. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of most of the lands in Harthala village was issued in the month of March, 1990 and in respect of one block of lands on 13.9.1991. The Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award determined the compensation at Rs. 80 per square meter. This was enhanced to Rs. 270 per square meter on references made under Section 18 of the Act. On appeals, the High Court set aside the enhancement given by the Reference Court and restored the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the land owners have come up with most of these appeals.

2.In respect of village Mukkar-rabpur, the Notifications were dated 18.9.1982, 18.7.1984 and 16.8.1991. Under Awards, Rs.17.05, Rs.117/-, Rs.170/- and Rs. 92.59 per square meter were awarded, which were enhanced to Rs.192/-, Rs.350/- and Rs. 350 per square meter by the Reference Court. The High Court set aside the awards of the Reference Court and restored the awards of the Collector. Hence, the appeals relating to the acquisition of land in village Mukkarrabpur by some of the land owners.

3.In respect of village Sonakpur, the Notifications were dated 4.5.1982 and 13.3.1990. In the Award, lands valued at Rs.11.59 and Rs.22 per square meter were respectively awarded. These were enhanced to Rs.290 and to between Rs.350 to Rs.390 per square meter by the Reference Court. On appeal, the decision of the Reference Court was set aside and the awards of the Collector were restored. Hence, those appeals by land owners relating to the lands in village Sonakpur.

4.We shall first deal with the appeals relating to acquisitions of lands in village Harthala. In respect of these lands, as noticed, the award was at the rate of Rs.80 per square meter and the same was enhanced to Rs. 270 per square meter by the Reference Court. Taking the view that the claimants have not established a case for enhancement of compensation from that awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, and that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was itself at a higher rate than justified, the High Court set aside the decision of the Reference Court and restored the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer observing that in view of Section 25 of the Act, the State could not seek a reduction of the compensation below that awarded by the Awarding Officer. While passing the award, the Awarding Officer scrutinised the various sale deeds from the concerned Sub-Registry covering a period of three years upto the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. It was found that 19 sale deeds have been registered in respect of lands in that area. Of these, the sales were mostly in acres and not in square yards or square meters. In other words, the prices were reckoned on the basis of acres and not on the basis of square meters. The Awarding Officer found that the per square meter rate in 12 sale deeds were very less. Giving the reason that they relate to lands located at a distance, but without specifying how distant, the Land Acquisition Officer brushed aside these sale deeds on the ground that the lands were situated at quite a far distance from the acquired lands. Regarding certain other sale deeds which were proximate to the date of notification, the Awarding Officer found that the rates ranged between Rs. 1.83 per square meter to Rs. 28.39 per square meter and that in one sale deed, the value was shown at Rs. 17 per square meter. It was conceded that these lands were not at a far distance from the acquired lands. But it was stated by the Awarding Officer that it did not appear justifiable for him to adopt these rates. For w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1078

important pointInitial burden to establish inadequacy of the compensation is on the claimants and only on discharge of the initial burden in that behalf, the burden shifts to the State to justify the award.

Cases Referred (2)

important point
Initial burden to establish inadequacy of the compensation is on the claimants and only on discharge of the initial burden in that behalf, the burden shifts to the State to justify the award.