2011 (5) Supreme 395
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Asok Kumar Ganguly and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. — Appellant(s)
versus
M.K. Rafiq Saheb — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No.1086 of 2006
Decided on : 5-7-2011
(2010) 13 SCC 710 – Relied upon
(b) Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Section 18 – Compensation – It is not an absolute rule that when the acquired land is a large tract of land, sale instances relating to smaller pieces of land cannot be considered – More over sale instances of proximity in time should be considered. (Para 18)
(2003) 12 SCC 334; (1991) 4 SCC 506; AIR 1998 SC 781; AIR 1996 SC 3168 – Relied upon
(1980) 2 KLJ 441 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This case relates to compensation in respect of land acquisition.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not perverse.
JUDGMENT
Ganguly, J. —
1. The issue involved in the present case is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court in a land acquisition dispute is excessive or not.
2. A notification was published under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 17.7.1994 for the acquisition of the respondents land measuring 34 guntas in Sy. No. 6/2 of Binnamangala Mahavartha Kaval, K.R. Puram, Bangalore South Taluk.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘SLAO’) passed an award on 26.9.1995 granting compensation at Rs.1,30,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits. The SLAO concluded that the lands were agricultural and no sale transactions relating to the same were available. Sale transactions were available in respect of non-agricultural lands but they could not be adopted for determining the valuation of agricultural land. Therefore, the SLAO chose to rely on acquisition proceedings in respect of lands in the vicinity for determining land value. Accordingly, it was found that in the neighbouring villages of Benniganahalli, B. Narayanapura and Kaggadasapura villages, land had been acquired in favour of DRDO complex where the government had approved awards fixing land value at Rs.1,30,000/-. The said valuation was thus adopted by the SLAO in the instant case.
4. Possession of the land was taken on 11.4.1996.
5. Dissatisfied by the award of the SLAO, the respondent filed a reference under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation.
6. The Reference Court, vide judgment dated 28.5.1999, enhanced compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and also awarded statutory benefits. The Reference Court concluded that based on the evidence on record, it could not be said that the land in question was agricultural land for all practical purposes since it was situated by the side of a residential locality and was in the midst of a highly developed industrial locality. Thus, it held that though the land remained agricultural land on the records, it was not an agricultural land for all practical purposes and no agricultural activities could be carried out on it. The Court did not rely upon sale deeds Exhibit P3, P4, P5, P6, P7 and P8. Exhibit P7 and P8 were not relied upon as the parties to the transaction had not been examined. Ex. P3 and P4 were corner sites, were not within vicinity of the acquired land and were sold in a public auction, and thus also held not reliable. The respondent had also produced Ex. P9, which was a gazette notification dated 20.1.1997 issued by the Revenue Secretariat, fixing the market value of the immovable property coming under the jurisdiction of several Sub-Registrar’s office situated in Bangalore, for the purpose of collecting stamp duty. The Reference Court discarded the same on the reasoning that the Court did not know what was the basis of determination of market value for the purpose of collecting stamp duty in respect of immovable properties by the Sub Registrar.
7. Instead, the Reference Court proceeded to determine the market value of land on the basis of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 13.8.1998 made by the Reference Court in respect of land in the neighbouring villages of Kaggadasapura and Mahadevapura, pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 28.7.1988. In the said villages, about 110 acres of land had been acquired and market value was fixed at Rs.2,48,000/- per acre. The difference between dates of preliminary notifications in the abovesaid villages and in the instant case was 5 years and 15 days. Accordingly, the Reference Court gave a 10% enhancement for each year in respect of lands acquired in and around Bangalore city, relying on the judgment in J. Narayan v. Land Acquisition Officer,1 (1980) 2 KLJ 441, by which land value came to Rs.3,73,000/- per acre. However, the Reference Court found that the land had more potentiality and was situated in the midst of a heavy industrial area
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.