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

PETITIONER: SRI M.B. GOPALA KRISHNA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTORS LAND ACQUISITION

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (3) 594        JT 1996 (3)   595  1996 SCALE  (3)132

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have  heard  learned  counsel  on  both  sides.  The notification under  Section 4  [1] of  the Land  Acquisition Act, 1894  [for short, the "Act"] was published in the State Gazette on  October 9,  1980 acquiring  large extent of land admeasuring  105   acres  for  defence  purposes.  The  Land Acquisition Officer [LAO] awarded compensation @ Rs.30/- per square yard  by his award dated July 16, 1982. On reference, the civil  Court enhanced  the compensation by its award and decree dated  March 31, 1986 to a sum of Rs.108/- per square yard. Being  dissatisfied with  the  award,  the  respondent filed the  appeal. The  claimants  also  filed  their  cross objections. the  High Court  in the  impugned  judgment  and order dated  March 31.  1992 made  in CCCA Nos.60-64 of 1986 reduced the compensation after the deductions to Rs.65/- per square yard in respect of 1 and abutting road and Rs.60/-per square yard  in respect  of other  land. Thereby, it allowed the appeal  of  the  respondent  and  dismissed  the  cross- objections against the order of the High Court  reducing the compensation, these  appeals by  special leave    have  been filed.      Shri Mukul Mudgal, l earned counsel for the appellants, firstly contended that the High Court has committed an error in relying  upon another  judgment reducing the compensation to Rs.60/- per square yard wherein the High Court had relied upon  a  sale  deed  Ex.A3.  The  lands  of  the  appellants admeasure 17  acres and  17 gunthas, while the lands covered in that appeal were of the extent of 21 acres and 18 gunthas but all  the lands  are covered  by the common notification. Under these  circumstances, the  High Court  with a  view to maintain consistency  has rel  Red upon  a sale  deed  Ex.A3 produced therein  which was  accepted in CCCA No.11/1985 and finally reduced  the compensation to Rs.60;- per square yard We need  not go  into the  correctness of  the High  Court’s

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

relying  upon  a  single  sale  deed  Ex.A3  in  determining compensation at uniform rate since the State did not come in appeal, Suffice  it to state that Rs.60/- per square yard is just and adequate.      It is  further contended  by Shri  Mudgal that value of the land  does not  get pegged  down on  account of the land being in  occupation of  a tenant  and the  circumstances in this behalf  taken  into  account  by  the  High  Court,  is irrelevant. We  find no  force in the contention. A freehold land and  one burdened  with  encumbrances  do  make  a  big difference in  attracting willing  buyers. A  freehold  land normally  commands   higher  compensation   while  the  land burdened with encumbrances secures lesser price. The fact of a tenant  in occupation  would  be  an  encumbrance  and  no willing purchaser  would willingly  offer the  same price as would  be   offered  for   a  freehold   land.  Under  those circumstances,  the   High  Court  would  be  right  in  its conclusion that  the land  burdened with  encumbrances takes lesser price  than the freehold land. The encumbrances would operate as  a disabling factor to peg down the price when we compare the same with freehold land.      Considered in  these perspectives,  we  hold  that  the reduction of  the compensation  from Rs.108/-  to Rs.60  and Rs.65/- per square yard is not unjustified.      Appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.