http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. L. KAMALAMMA (DEED) BY TRS. & ORS., K. KRISHNAMACHARI A

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/01/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S. RJENDRA BABU

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Rajendra Babu, J.      Leave granted.      An extent  of land  measuring 10 acres 1 cent comprised in different  survey numbers  situated at  Puttur  adjoining Govindapalem  of   Chittoor  District   was   notified   for acquisition under  Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred  to as  "the Act")  in the  Gazette on 28th April,  1977. After  issuing final  notification  under Section 6 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on  28.2.1981 determining  the compensation payable in respect of  the lands in question. He grouped the lands into five categories and paid at different rates of compensation. So far  as  lands  which  were  classified  by  him  as  non agricultural, he  fixed a  compensation of  Rs. 50/- per sq. yard  to  the  rest  of  the  groups  depending  upon  their locations. He  also classified certain lands as agricultural lands and  awarded a compensation of Rs. 9375/- per acre and Rs. 13,334  /- per acre depending upon their locations. On a reference made  under Section  18 of  the Act  to the  Civil Court, the  award made  by the  Land Acquisition Officer was modified having  found that classification into agricultural and non-agricultural  lands or  into  four  groups  in  non- agricultural lands was not sustainable and entire land had a potentiality  of  being  used  for  building  purposes  and, therefore, the  compensation was  fixed at Rs. 100/- per sq. yard. The matter was carried by the Land Acquisition Officer in appeal  to the High court Under Section 54 of the Act and certain claimants  also filed  cross appeals. The High Court took into  consideration that  in puttur  town, the trend of price was on the rise at a fast pace and bearing in mind the future potentiality of the land in question in comparison to sales of  similar lands  accepted  the  rate  fixed  by  the Reference Court,  however by reducing by 25 per cent thereof inasmuch as 1/4 the of the land will have to be reserved for drains.  sewers,  roads  and  such  other  amenities  to  be provided in the lay out that may be formed subsequently.      Another piece of land measuring about a 1 acre 55 cents was also  acquired under  a Notification under section 4 (1) of  the   Land  Acquisition  Act  published  in  gazette  on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

15.3.1974 for  the same  purpose and  the  Land  Acquisition Officer determined  compensation payable at Rs. 10,526/- per acre while  on Reference,  the Civil Court enhanced the same to Rs. 100/- per sq. Yard and the High court on appeal fixed the market  value at  Rs. 125/- per sq. The Compensation was reduced by  Rs. 30/-  per sq. yard following its decision to which we  have  referred  to  now.  These  two  appeals  are preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer.      In challenging  this order  made by the High Court Shri Nageshwar Rao,  learned counsel  for the appellant submitted that the  High Court and the Reference Court relied upon Ex. B- 30  which is  a sale  deed dated 9.8.1976 under which 100 sq. feet  of land  had been sold. neither the High Court nor the Reference  Court ought to have relied upon this document since the  land situated  was far  away from  the  lands  in question. Apart form the fact that it was only a small piece of land  which had  been sold  whereas a  vast tract of land measuring over  10 acres was acquired under the Notification in question, he also pointed out that even assuming that the rate mentioned in Ex. B-30 could be taken into consideration in determining  the market  value of  the  land,  sufficient deductions had  not been given towards development and other relevant matters.  He also  submitted that  the compensation paid should be drastically reduced.      Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the  High Court  and the  Reference Court  had been all relevant  factors  into  consideration  in  determinant  the market  value   and  compensation   awarded   by   them   is unassailable.      The general  trend in the prices of land is on the rise ad the  judicial notice  of the  same had  been taken by the High Court  correctly and  therefore, cannot  be challenged. Puttur is  an urban  area and  the  Lands  in  question  are abutting the main road leading from Tirupathi to Ankonam via Puttur and  the acquired  land was  in the  heart of  Puttur town. To  the north  of the  land was in the heart of puttur town. To the north of the land in question there is a famous Venkateswaraswamy Temple  and to  the immediate  south,  the famous   Tiruthani,    one   of    the   abodes    of   Lord Subrahamanyaswamy. Therefore  taking into consideration, the topography of  the land  we may  safely proceed on the basis that the High Court had correctly noted the Situation of the land  in  question  which  has  the  potentiality  of  being developed as  urban land. Exb. B-30 is a sale deed dated 9th August, 1976,  the transaction  having taken  place prior to eight months  from the issue of preliminary Notification for acquisition of  land in  the present case. Having found that that piece  of land  refereed in  Ex. B- 30 is situated very close to  the lands that are acquired under the Notification in question  the Reference  Court and  the High Court relied upon the  said document  and, in  our view, rightly. Further when no  sales of  comparable land was available where large chunks of  land had  been sold,  even land  transactions  in respect of  smaller extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the  price that  it may fetch in respect of large tracts of l and by making appropriate deductions such as for development of the land by providing enough space for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a lay out, lumsum payment  as also  the  waiting  period  required  for selling the sites that would be formed.      The argument  advanced by  Shri Nageshwar  Rao that the classification by  land Acquisition Officer was in Order and ought not  to have  been interfered  with by  the  Reference Court or  the High  Court does not appeal to us. When a land is acquired  which has  the potentiality  of being developed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

into an  urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts the main  road, higher  rate of  compensation should be paid while in respect of the lands on the interior side should be at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are formed those  abutting the main road may have its advantages as well  as disadvantages.  Many a  discerning customer  may prefer to  stay in  the interior  and far away from the main road and  may be  willing to pay reasonably higher price for that site.  One cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to indulge in  a meticulous  exercise of  classification of the land as  was done  by the  Land Acquisition Officer when the entire  land   was  acquired  in  one  block  and  therefore classification of  the same  into different  categories does not stand to reason.      The Reference  Court, however,  merely took note of the price noted in Exb. B-30, the sale deed while the High Court deducted only  towards  the  space  that  was  required  for formation of  roads or  other amenities  altogether ignoring the time  required for  formation of the lay out, the period for which the money would be locked up in the investment and the waiting  period as  also for  the reduced price for land when lumpsum  payment is made. Bearing in mind these aspects we are  of the  view that the High Court should have reduced the price arrived at by the Reference Court at Rs. 100/- per sq. yard by atleast 40 per cent.      In the  circumstances of  the case,  we hold  that  the market value  fixed at  Rs. 100/- sq. yard relying upon Exb. B- 30 , the sale deed, to be correct. However, we reduce the compensation payable  to Rs. 60/- per sq. yard computing the whole of  the land under acquisition in the two cases on the aforesaid  basis.   The  respondents  are  entitled  to  the statutory benefits as awarded by the courts below. The award made by  the Reference  Court as  modified by the High court shall stand  further modified  as indicated  by  us  in  the course of the Order. The appeals are allowed in part.