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

2009 Supreme(SC) 684

2009 2 AWC(Supp)1974SC, JT2009(5)SC439, 2009(5)SCALE381, (2009)14SCC367, [2009]5SCR864, 2009(5)UJ2228(SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D. K. Jain and R. M. Lodha, JJ.
Mohammad Raofuddin Appellant
Vs.
The Land Acquisition Officer Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2385 of 2009 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14209 of 2006)
Decided On: 13.04.2009

Advocates Appeared
D. Rama Krishna Reddy and Asha Gopalan Nair, Advs
Anoop G. Choudhary, Sr. Adv., Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla and T.V. George, Advs.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 54-Acquisition of land-Enhancement of compensation amount-One of principles for determination of market value of acquired land would be price an interested buyer would be willing to pay if it is sold in open market at the time of issue of Notification under Section 4 of Act-But, finding a direct evidence in this behalf is not an easy exercise and an element of some guess work is involved in entire exercise-Comparable sale instance of similar lands in neighbourhood at or about date of notification under Section 4(1) of Act are best guide for determination of market value of land to arrive at a fair estimate of amount of compensation payable to land owner-Scope of interference in such matters is very limited-It is only in cases where it is found that authorities below have either applied wrong principles or have omitted to take into consideration some important point affecting valuation, that High Court can interfere-Merely because a different conclusion could be possible on two sets of sale/acquisition instance is no ground to interfere with award of High Court when it has taken into consideration an instance which is more closer to appellant's land in respect of date of acquisition; happened to be in same village and acquired for same purpose-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 19)

       (2001) 7 SCC 650; (2005) 4 SCC 789; (1976) 3 SCC 772; (1992) 3 SCC 67-Relied upon.

       (1992) 4 SCC 400; (1991) 4 SCC 195; (1975) 2 SCC 730;-Referred to.

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal by the claimant-land owner is to the judgment and order dated 16th September, 2004 rendered by the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in A.S. No. 1472 of 1999 filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for enhancement of the amount of compensation. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has affirmed the award made by the Reference Court, Medak in O.P. No. 25 of 1993 dated 31st December, 1998 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant.

3. Lands measuring 4 acres 2 guntas situated in Survey No. 434, Manthoor village of Pulkal Mandal in Medak District of Andhra Pradesh were acquired for a public purpose, namely for submergence under the Singnoor project by issuing a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 15th July, 1987. The possession of the land was taken on 19th November, 1987. Pursuant to the notice issued under Section 9 of the Act, the appellant filed a statement claiming compensation for the land at Rs. 25/- per square yard. An additional amount at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per year was claimed as damages on account of "ill" dispossession by the government. After following the requisite procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 18th March, 1989, fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per acre.

4. Being aggrieved by the award, the appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. According to the appellant, the village in which his land is located was fully developed and on the date of Notification, the market value of similar land, meant for house sites, was not less than Rs. 35/- per square yard. Upon appreciation of the material available on record, the reference Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 20,000/- per acre i.e., an additional amount of Rs. 11,000/- over and above what had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, alongwith the statutory benefits, viz. 30% solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation; interest at 9% per annum for one year from 18th March, 1989, i.e., date of passing award; interest at 15% per annum after one year of passing of award till the date of realization and additional interest at 12% per annum from 18th July, 1987 to 18th March, 1989.

5. Being not satisfied, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 35/- per square yard. Relying on Ex. A.6, an order of the Reference Court in another O.P. No. 112 of 1987, in respect of land approximately 100 yards away, which was acquired for the same purpose vide Section 4(1) Notification dated 31st August, 1985, i.e., nearly two years before the acquisition of the subject land whereunder compensation was paid at the rate of Rs. 18/- per square yard, the stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the minimum amount of compensation had to be at the rate of Rs. 18/- per square yard. As noted earlier, by reason of the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the appeal, maintaining the amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court. Dealing with the evidence adduced by the appellant, in particular, Ex. A6, the High Court observed as follows:

Admittedly, the lands that were acquired leading to the judgment of the Reference Court under Exs. A.6 and A.7 are not situated in the same village. The lands that are acquired thereunder were situated in Seripeddareddy Village. However, according to the appellant, the distance between the lands acquired leading to the judgment under Ex. A.6 and the acquired lands are at a distance of just about hundred yards. The lands are contiguous to each other. It is unnecessary to further dilate on this subject in view of the decision of this Court in A.S. No. 2336 of 1998 wherein this Court confirmed the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak in O.P. No. 109 of 1987 dated 7.10.1997 whereunder compen






















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