SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
Pradeep Kumar Etc. Etc. – Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1506-1517 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 25237-25248 of 2015)
Decided On : 16-02-2016
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Valuation and Location of Land - Inadequate Discussion
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were awarded compensation at a lower rate compared to similarly situated land acquired earlier. The court found that certain aspects regarding the valuation and location of the land were not properly discussed and required reconsideration by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the cases to the High Court for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for detailed discussion on the valuation and location of the land. The appeals were allowed with observations and no order as to costs.
Issues: Inadequate discussion on valuation and location of the land, Discrepancy in compensation rates for similarly situated land
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of detailed discussion on the valuation and location of the land in land acquisition cases, especially when there is a discrepancy in compensation rates for similarly situated land.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the cases were remanded to the High Court for reconsideration. The parties were directed to appear before the High Court for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
Anil R. Dave, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. In our opinion certain aspects with regard to the valuation and location of the land have not been properly discussed and therefore, the matters require reconsideration by the High Court. For instance, we may say that the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been issued on 10th March, 1988. The appellants have been awarded compensation @ Rs.135/- per square yard for the land belonging to them, whereas in respect of certain land, said to be similarly situated, which had been acquired in the year 1986, compensation of Rs.297/- per square yard had been awarded.
4. We are of the view that the afore-stated aspects have not been clarified because normally the price of the land goes on increasing, but the reason as to why lesser amount has been given to the appellants, has not been properly explained in the impugned judgment.
5. Be that as it may, the afore-stated fact and some other facts ought to have been discussed in detail. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and remand the cases to the High Court so that they may be reconsidered by the High Court. The appeals are allowed with the above observations with no order as to costs. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
6. We are sure that the High Court will decide the matters at an early date. The parties shall appear before the High Court on 28th March, 2016, so that date for hearing can be decided on that day.
7. Registry to send intimation of this order to the High Court.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had made a grievance that till today no compensation has been paid to the land owners. If it is so, we are sure that the amount which has been awarded by the Reference Court shall be paid to the appellants as soon as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today.
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.