Back
2009 Supreme(UK) 163
2009 (2) UAD 199
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha
Civil Appeal No. 2385 of 2009
MOHAMMAD RAFUDDIN – Appellant
Versus
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER – Respondent
Decided on : 13.04.2009
For the Respondent:Mr. Anoop G. Choudhary, Sr. Adv., Mr. Manoj Saxena, Mr. Rajnish Kr. Singh, Mr. Rahul Shukla, Mr. T.V. George, Advocates
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Secs. 23, 24, 15— Determination of amount of compensation — Collector to be guided by the provisions in Secs. 23 & 24 of the Act — Sec. 23 contains list of positive factors and Sec. 24 has a list of negatives — Vis-a-vis the land under acquisition, to be taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation — First step being the determination of the marketvalue of the land on the date of publication of Notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Act — Principles for determination of the market value of the acquired stated.
(Paras 9 to 12, 18)
(B) Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 133 — Interference of the Apex Court in an award granting compensation — Scope of — If the judgment of the High Court revealed 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 this Court — Therefore, the scope of interference in such matters is very limited — It is only in cases where it is found that the authorities below have either applied wrong principles or have omitted to take into consideration some important point affecting valuation, that Supreme Court can interfere. (Paras 13, 14)
¼v½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk&23] 24] 15 & eqvkots dh /kujkf'k dk vkadyu & /kkjk&23 vkSj 24 esa ftyk/kh'k ds fy, ekxZn'kZu dk izkfo/kku fd;k x;k gS & /kkjk&23 esa ldkjkRed rF;ksa dh lwph nh xbZ gS tcfd /kkjk&24 esa udkjkRed rF;ksa dh lwph n'kkZbZ xbZ gS & Hkwfe ftldk vtZu fd;k tkuk gS ml ij eqvkotk jkf'k dk vkadyu djus gsrq rqyukRed n`f"V ls fopkj fd;k tkuk visf{kr gS & izFke dk;Z tks gksuk gS og ;g gS fd vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&4 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr ftl Hkwfe dh foKfIr dk foKkiu ftl frfFk dks fd;k tk, rks ml fnu Hkwfe dh cktkjh dher ekywe djuh pkfg, vftZr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe dk cktkjh ewY; Kkr djus ds fl)kUr Hkh fn;s x;s gSaA ¼izLrj 9 ls 12 ,oa 18½
¼c½ Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 133 & eqvkots ds iap fu.kZ; esa mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dk foLrkj & ;fn mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ls fofnr gks fd vf/kfu;e esa iznRr lqlaxr rF;ksa ij mlds }kjk fopkj fd;k tk pqdk Fkk rks vuqPNsn 133 Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vUrxZr vihy esa cktkjh ewY; dk vkadyu tks bl izdkj fd;k x;k Fkk mlesa U;k;ky; }kjk ck/kk ugha Mkyh tkuh pkfg, & blfy, gLr{ksi djus dk foLrkj ,sls ekeyksa esa cgqr lhfer gS & ;g dsoy mu dslst esa tgk¡ ;g ik;k tk, fd fupys vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ;k rks xyr fl)kUr dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k ;k dksbZ cgqr egRoiw.kZ fcUnq ftl dk izHkko ewY; fu/kkZj.k ij iM+rk gks NksM+ fn;k x;k rks mPpre U;k;ky; gLr{ksi dj ldrk gSA ¼izLrj 13] 14½
D.K. Jain, J. — 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 A7 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 whereunde
