http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: MIRZA NAUSHERWAN KHAN & ANR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION), HYDERABAD

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/09/1974

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. KHANNA, HANS RAJ BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1974 AIR 2247            1975 SCR  (2) 184  1975 SCC  (1) 238  CITATOR INFO :  F          1977 SC 580  (5)  R          1988 SC 943  (6)

ACT: Hyderabad   Land   Acquisition  Act  (9  of   1309   Fasli)- Compensation for large area of land and buildings  acquired- Principles.

HEADNOTE: The  State  Government  acquired  a  large  area  with  some buildings thereon in the city of Hyderabad, belonging to the appellant  and the Collector awarded compensation under  the Hyderabad  Land Acquisition Act.  The compensation was  made up of sums awarded for buildings, for standing trees, for  a belt of land 50 ft. deep adjoining the road at a  particular rate,  and  for  the remaining area at a  lesser  rate.   On reference,  the City Civil Court increased the value of  the buildings on the basis of by a multiple of 25 times the rent fetched.   On  appeal, the High Court further  enhanced  the value of the buildings by using a multiple of 27 instead  of 25, in fixing the compensation for the buildings. In appeal to this Court, it was contended (1) that there was a  potential  value  of the land which was  not  taken  into account  by the High Court; (2) that the land and  buildings should  have been taken together; and that the  land  should not  have been sub-divided on the principle of belting;  and (3)  that  the multiple for capitalisation of the  value  of buildings should have been 33-1/3 and not 27. Dismissing the appeal, HELD  : There is no substantial question of law  of  general importance meriting consideration by this Court. [185H] (1)The potential value of the land was taken into  account by  the High Court.  On a consideration of the  totality  of factors,  the  physical  feature of  the  terrain,  and  the evidence  placed on record, the High Court was justified  in holding  that  the appellant had not substantiated  the  big potential  value claimed by him on the basis of  any  unique features of the land. [186 D-F] (2)The  higher value for a strip of 50 feet adjoining  the land  was  given by the courts below on  the  principles  of belting.  This Principle was adopted at the instance of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

appellant  himself and such an approach had operated to  his benefit and not detriment.  The Court had also taken note of the  fact  that  the value of a tiny plot is  not  a  proper measure when a large area is acquired. [187 A-C] Mohini;  Mohan v. Province of Bengal A.I.R. 1951  Cal.  246; Kunjukrishna V. State A.I.R. 1953 T.C 177; refer-red to. (3)The  rate of interest allowed on government  securities at the relevant time (1957) ranged between 3-3/4% and 4% and the High Court, when accepting the multiple of 27,  accepted 3-3/4%.  There is no warrant for the appellant’s  contention that  the interest on government bonds at the relevant  time was only 3%. [187 D-E]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  2025  of 1968. Appeal   from  the  judgment  and  decree  dated  the   18th October,1967  of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.  C.  C. Appeal No. 46 of 1963. R.   V. Pillai and P. M. Pillai, for the appellant 185 P. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.-This appeal, by certificate, arises out  of land  acquisition  proceedings  under  the  Hyderabad   Land Acquisition   Act   (Hyderabad  Act  IX   of   1309   Fasli) (hereinafter called the Act, for short) which  substantially resembles  the  provisions of the Central  Land  Acquisition Act. The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired a large open  area with  some buildings thereon by Notification, dated  January 3,  1957  with a view to construct  Income-tax  add  Central Excise  Offices  at  Hyderabad.  The contest  before  us  is confined  to the quantum of compensation and, although  Shri Vasudeva Pillai, counsel for the appellants’ has pressed his points  with persistence, we are unable to disturb the  High Court’s award. The land, vast in extent, had a building with a plinth  area of  3,300 sq. yds.  The area in which the acquired  plot  is situate  is  perhaps an important one in  the  City.   After getting  expert  valuation  made of  the  buildings  by  the Central  Public  Works Department engineers,  the  Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 41,674/- for the buildings, Rs. 1,440/- for the standing trees and a sum of Rs. 30,630/for a belt of land  50  ft.  deep  at Rs. 15/- per  square  yard  and  Rs. 99,435/-  for  the remaining area of 13,258 sq.  yds.   The, total figure together with statutory solarium granted by the Collector was Rs. 1,99,155.85. This figure fell far short of the ambitious claim of the appellant and, when the case came before  the  City Civil Court on a reference, there  was  an enhancement   of   compensation.    Although   the   learned Additional Chief Judge held that the area was a little  less than had been determined by the Collector, the market  value of the building was increased nearly four fold on the  basis of  a multiple of 25 times the rent fetched.  On  the  other items also some changes were made and, consequentially,  the total  amount was raised to Rs. 3,31,092/-.   The  appellant arrived  in  the High Court asking for more (and  the  State also appears to have appealed, but its appeal was  dismissed and we are not therefore concerned with it). Some  measure of good fortune attended the appeal since  the High Court altered the multiple from 25 to 27 in fixing  the compensation for the building.  Otherwise, it  substantially

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

affirmed the findings of the trial Court, except that to the advantage  of the appellant it restored the  area  acquired. The net result was the appellant obtained a total sum of Rs. 3,52,326.65 as compensation. It is thus clear that from the Collector to the Civil  Court and  on, to the High Court. there has been an escalation  in the  amount  of compensation and, hopefully, the  owner  has reached  this  Court with his appeal,  under  a  certificate which  he  secured under Art. 133(1)(a)  before  the  recent amendment.  We mention this because we are unable to discern any  substantial  question of law of general  importance  in counsel’s   submissions  or  the  points  outlined  in   the memorandum of appeal which merits the consideration of  this Court. 186 Merely  because the claim is large the judgment need not  be long  :and,  although  the appellant tried  to  spread  the, canvas   wide,   we   regard   the   points   deserving   of consideration-as  falling  within  a  narrow  compass.   The burden  of  the song has been that Hyderabad has,  for  his- torical  reasons,  become  a great city and  that  the  land acquired has precious potential value which has not  entered the  judicial computation at the lesser levels. (By  way  of aside  one, may say that society economic development  of  a City-  may  enhance  the  value of  space  without  any  the littlest contribution by its owner and it is, in one  sense, unfair  that  society should pay to an individual  a  higher price  not  because he has-earned it but  because  of  other developmental factors.  Of course, we are concerned with the Land  Acquisition  Act as it is and this  thought  therefore need not be pursued).  Counsel has also urged that the  land and the building taken together had a personality of its own and  therefore a special value, missed by the courts  below, should  be ascribed and the methodology of breaking  up  the totality  into  buildings  and  lands  separately  and  sub- dividing  the  land into two portions on the  principle  of. belting was all wrong.  It was also urged before us that the multiple  of 27 for purposes of capitalisation,  adopted  by the  High Court, was inadequate and that the owner  was  en- titled to capitalisation by multiplication 33-1/2 times. We  find  that the High Court has carefully  considered  ill available  points, indeed stretching them in favour  of  the appellant,  where  that  was warranted by  the  facts.   The potential value of the land was quite within the keen of the Judge who heard the appeal and weighed with the Court in the assessment  made.   However, the High Court  noted  that  no evidence whatever was placed on record in substantiation  of any big potential value based on the unique features of  the land.   On the other hand, the totality of factors was  duly considered by the High Court when it observed :               "Having regard to the physical features of the               property,   its  situation  in  an   important               locality and the price paid for a small extent               of  level  ground acquired for  the  Telephone               Exchange which is at a distance of about  half               a  mile  from the property acquired,  we  hold               that  the  compensation awarded by  the  Court               below at Rs. 20/- per square yard for the 2042               square yards constituting the 50 wide belt and               at  Rs. 10/- per square yard for the  rest  is               fair and reasonable." We see no error in this evaluation. It  is true that the Court has adopted a higher value for  a strip  50  feet  wide  adjoining  the  road,  based  on  the principle  of belting.  There is no doubt that when we  deal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

with value of an extensive plot of land in a City the  strip that adjoins an important road will have a higher value than what  is in the rear. for obvious reasons of potential  user or commercial exploitation.  While no general principle  can be laid down in these matters, local circumstances guide the Courts.  The ruling in Mohini Mohan v. Province of Bengal(1) and the principle, (1) A. I. R. 1951 Cal. 246. 187 with  its limitations, set out in Kunjukrishna  v.  State(1) are  sufficient  to  bring  out  our  point.   Indeed,   the objection  to divide the plot for purposes  of  differential valuation  has not been taken at the proper level.   On  the contrary, it has been adopted originally at the instance  of the  appellant  himself,  before the Collector  and  we  are satisfied that such an approach has operated to his  benefit and  not detriment.  The Court has taken note of  the  well- established distinction between the value of a tiny plot  as being  no  measure  when  a large  area  is  acquired.   The terrain,  in  this case, appears to have  been  uneven  with difference  in levels to the extent of 27 feet and  boulders here  and there making building operations expensive in  the initial preparation of the site. We conclude by saying  that practically  every  relevant  factor placed  on  record  has received fair consideration before the High Court. The  next  question  is whether  the  multiple  adopted  for capitalisation has been prejudicially low, Exhibit A-7,  the notification  produced by the appellant, itself  shows  that around  the middle of 1957 the rate of interest  allowed  on Government Securities at the relevant time ranged between 31 and 4%.  The Curt accepted 3-3/4 % as interest on  giltedged securities instead of 4%, thus giving Some advantage to  the appellant  and there is no warrant for the  contention  that the  interest  on Government bonds was 3%  at  the  relevant time.  The appellant apparently has sought to misread  Ex.A- 7. We are satisfied with the valuation of the rented portion of the house adopted by the High Court is correct. Shri Pillai argued in vain for an augmentation of the  value on the potential user of the plot for a Cinema House.   This story has been factually disbelieved by the Courts below and we cannot reopen the matter.  We must also remember that the Court below has been indulgent enough to adopt a multiple of 27 despite the fact that the buildings acquired are over  30 years  old.  Nor does it come with grace from the  appellant to  contend against the belting method since he himself  had asked for its application before the Collector and the trial Court. We  are thus satisfied that there is no law, no fact,  which comes  to  the  rescue  of the  appellant  and  his  appeal, virtually  against  concurrent findings of  fact,  therefore deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissed with costs. V.P.S. (1) A. I. R. 1953 P.C. 177 Appeal dismissed. 188