http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPN. ETC.ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHARDABEN & ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   453        1996 SCALE  (2)311

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                        O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel for both sides.  The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Act  1 of  1894)  (for  short,  ’the  Act’)    was published on  September  23,  1980  acquiring  a  large extent of  land in  different survey numbers for laying Ring Road  around Ahmedabad  City. The Land Acquisition Officer passed  three awards  relating to two villages, Wadaj and  Memnagar on  three different  dates, namely, September 29, 1984, December 31, 1985 and September 23, 1986 fixing compensation ranging between Rs.50-80/- per square  meter   Dissatisfied  therewith,  the  claimant sought references  under Section  18.  The  City  Civil Court at  Ahmedabad  by  three  awards  determined  the compensation. In  the  first  award,  the  civil  court enhanced the  compensation to Rs.100/- per square meter and in  the next  two awards, it confirmed the award of the Land  Acquisition Officer.  In other words, he made nil award.  On appeal  under Section 54 of the Act, the Division Bench  of  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned judgment dated  August 4/5, 1993 uniformly enhanced the compensation to Rs. 190/- per square meter. Thus, these appeals by special leave.      Mr.  B.K.   Mehta,   learned   counsel   for   the appellant, vehemently contended that the High Court was wrong in  its view. When no specific evidence relatable to particular survey number of comparable sale had been adduced by  the parties,  the High  Court was  wrong in adopting the  average and  determining the compensation on the  basis of  the average.  Though we find force in the contention  of learned  counsel for the appellants, one important  distinguishing feature  which we have to notice in these appeals is that the acquisition relates to small  strips of lands comprised in different survey numbers cutting  into several  lands for the purpose of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

laying  a  running  Ring  Road.  In  other  words,  the acquired land  does not  consist of a compact block for determination  of   compensation  in  which  event  the criticism of  Shri Mehta would bear relevance and would need closar  scrutiny and  examination. The  burden  is always on  the claimants  to prove by adducing reliable evidence that  the compensation  offered  by  the  Land Acquisition Officer  is inadequate  and the  lands  are capable of fetching higher market value. It is the duty of the  Court to closely scrutinize the evidence, apply the  test  of  prudent  and  willing  purchaser,  i.e., whether he  would be  willing to  purchase in  open and normal market conditions of the acquired lands and then determine just and adequate compensation.      In these  appeals we  find that the claimants have adduced evidence  regarding sales  of some lands in the locality. Though  the evidence as regards comparability of those  lands with  the lands  under  acquisition was general and  not specific,  it could  still  be  relied upon. So  also, though the sale instances were of lands situated near  some of  the lands  acquired only,  they could still  be relied  upon as   acquisition  in these cases is  of contiguous  plots.   In the very nature of acquisition, it  would be difficult to find evidence of sale  of   land  identical  with  each  piece  of  land acquired. Under  these   circumstances, the  High Court has looked into the  evidence generally and broadly and then determined  the   compensation. Though  this Court has repeatedly  not    approved  of  the  principle  of determination of  compensation on the basis of average, the conclusion   reached  by  the  High  Court  in  the peculiar facts  and circumstances of these cases cannot be said to be unreasonable. Under  these  circumstances,  we  do  not think that  these appeals call for any interference for further enhancement  of the  compensation to reduce the market value.      The appellant-Corporation  is directed to pay  the balance amount  and interest  within four  months  from today. Contempt  Petition Nos.13-17  of 1995  and  I.A. Nos.45-70 are dismissed.      These appeals  and cross-appeals  are  accordingly dismissed. No costs.