http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1136 of 2007

PETITIONER: Nelson Fernandes and Ors

RESPONDENT: Special Land Acquisition Officer,South Goa & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/03/2007

BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16533-16534 OF 2005) WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1137 OF 2007 (Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16503-16504 OF 2005)

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.               OF 2007 (Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16533-16534 OF 2005) Leave granted. The above appeal was filed against the final  judgment and order dated 01.03.2005 passed by the  Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa in First  Appeal Nos. 66 of 2002 and 75 of 2002 arising out of  Land Acquisition Case No. 58 of 1996 wherein the  Division Bench rejected the claim of compensation of the  appellants for acquisition of the land belonging to them of  Rs.750/- per sq. metre and reduced the rate of  compensation from Rs.192/- per sq. metre as awarded by  the District Judge to Rs.38/- per sq. metre after re- appraising the evidence and substituting their own  finding of facts in place of the findings of the District  Judge.  In the above case, notification under Section 4 of  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the  ’Act’ for short) was published by the Special Land  Acquisition Officer South Goa for acquisition of land for  construction of new BG line for the Konkan Railways.   The notification was published in the local dailies on 5th  and 6th August, 1994.  Under Section 6 of the Act a  declaration stating the government’s intention to acquire  the land for the purpose of construction of new broad  gauge line of the Konkan Railways between Roha and  Mangalore was made on 09.11.1994.  An award was  passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer granting  compensation to the appellant @ Rs.4/- per sq. metre  and Rs.59,192/- for trees standing on the said land.  The  appellant on 06.12.1996 made an application before the  Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter for  determination of compensation under Section 18 of the  Act and claimed a sum of Rs.89,06,250/- for the  acquired land and Rs.71,000/- for the trees standing  thereon.  Reference under Section 18 was made by the  Special Land Acquisition Officer to District and Sessions  Judge on 28.02.1996 and reference under Section 19 of  the Act was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

Margao.  Evidence was adduced by the appellant - Mr.  Nelson Fernandes before the Addl. District Judge.  Two  sale deeds dated 13.12.1993 are annexed and marked as  Annexure-P5.  Evidence was adduced by Government  Approved Valuer - Pratima Kumar on the valuation report  submitted by her before the Addl. District Judge, Margao  on 15.12.2000.  Evidence was adduced by Bartoleuma  Gama on the sale of land by him @ Rs. 449/- per sq.  metre by sale deed being Ex.AW1/B was annexed and  marked as Annexure-P7.  The Addl. District Judge passed an award  increasing the rate of compensation from Rs. 4/- per sq.  metre to Rs.192/- per sq. metre, but did not give any  compensation for the trees standing on the said land.   First Appeal Nos. 66 and 75 of 2002 were preferred by  both the appellants and the respondents before the High  Court against the judgment and award dated 29.08.2001  of the learned District Judge.   First Appeal Nos. 66 of 2002 and 75 of 2002 were  disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court by  rejecting the appeal of the appellants and allowing the  appeal of the respondents.  The Division Bench rejected  the report of the valuer and the findings of the District  Judge and reduced the rate of compensation from Rs.  192/- per sq. metre as awarded by the District Judge to  Rs. 38/- per sq. metre.  Hence the above appeal.  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.               OF 2007 (Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16503-16504 OF 2005) Leave granted. The above appeal was filed against the final  judgment and order dated 09.03.2005 passed by the  Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa in First  Appeal Nos. 63 and 67 of 2002 arising out of Land  Acquisition Case No. 391 of 1995 wherein the Division  Bench rejected the claim of compensation of the  appellants for acquisition of the land belonging to them of  Rs.470/- per sq. metre and reduced the rate of  compensation from Rs.108/- per sq. metre as awarded by  the District Judge to Rs.27/- per sq. metre after re- appraising the evidence and substituting their own  finding of facts in place of the findings of the District  Judge.  In the above case, notification under Section 4 of  the Act was published by the Special Land Acquisition  Officer, for acquisition of land for construction of new BG  line for the Konkan Railways.  The notification was  published in the local dailies.  Declaration was made on  16.06.1992 and award was passed on 24.01.1995  granting compensation to the appellant @ Rs. 4/- per sq.  metre and Rs.82,282/- for trees standing on the land.   The appellant on 27.03.1995 made an application before  the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter for  determination of compensation under Section 18 of the  Act and claimed a sum of Rs. 470/- per sq. metre for the  acquired land and in support of their contention relied on  3 sale deeds of adjoining plots, one award and a report of  a valuer.  Reference under Section 18 was made by the  Special Land Acquisition Officer to the District and  Sessions Judge on 06.09.1995.  Evidence was adduced  by the appellant before the District Judge on 30.02.1999  and 24.09.1999.  Evidence was adduced by Government  Approved Valuer - Pratima Kumar on the valuation report  submitted by her before the Addl. District Judge, Margao  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

on 15.12.2000. Evidence was adduced by Antonio  Rosario Rodrigues on the purchase of land by him at Rs.  480/- per sq. metre by sale deed being Ex.AW1/F was  marked as Annexure-P7.  Likewise, evidence adduced by  Maria Piea Carvalho on the purchase of land by her at  Rs.200/- per sq. metre by sale deed being AW1/E was  marked as Annexure-P8.  The Addl. District Judge passed an award  increasing the rate of compensation from Rs.4/- to  Rs.108/- per sq. metre but did not give any  compensation for the trees standing on the said land.     First Appeal No. 67 of 2002 was preferred by the  appellants and 63 of 2002 was preferred by the  respondents before the Bombay High Court at Goa  against the judgment and award dated 29.08.2001 of the  District Judge.  Both the appeals were disposed of by the  Division Bench by rejecting the appeal of the appellants  and allowing the appeal of the respondents.  The Division  Bench rejected the report of the valuer and the findings  of the District Judge and reduced the rate of  compensation from Rs. 108/- per sq. metre as awarded  by the District Judge to Rs. 27/- per sq. metre.  Hence  the above appeal. We heard Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior  counsel for the appellant and Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned  counsel for the Konkan Railways.  Though notice was served on the first respondent -  Special Land Acquisition Officer South Goa and service of  notice is complete, there is no representation on behalf of  respondent No.1.  However, Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned  counsel appeared and made his submissions.  Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel  appearing for the claimants submitted that the Division  Bench was under the obligation to satisfy the conditions  imposed under Section 23 of the Act for the purpose of  determining the amount of compensation to be awarded  to the appellants and that the Court is bound and obliged  to ensure that its judgment is in conformity with the  provisions of the statute.  He further submitted that  Court cannot reject the opinion of an expert and  substitute its own opinion in place instead of the same.   Likewise, the Court has committed an error in regard to  the rate of compensation to be awarded for acquisition of  land after rejecting all the evidence on record including  the opinion of expert.  It is also submitted that Court  cannot fix separate rate of compensation for similarly  placed lands and that the Court has to consider the sale  of land in the locality and the facilities available thereon.   Mr. Dwivedi, learned senior counsel took us  through the pleadings and the grounds alleged in the  grounds of appeal and submitted that while fixing the  rate of compensation, the District Judge did not consider  that the land in question was situated at a place which is  of high commercial value and is well connected to other  cities and that the High Court has failed to appreciate  that the compensation awarded by the Courts below has  no basis whatsoever and was not supported by cogent  reasons.  Likewise, the Court did not consider the future  prospect of development of the land in question and also  failed to appreciate that the trees grown by the appellants  on the land in question were of high value at the time of  awarding the compensation. It is also submitted that the  High Court has failed to appreciate the documentary  evidence submitted in support of the claim made by the  appellants.  According to the learned senior counsel, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

High Court ought to have enhanced the compensation  awarded to the appellant in view of the evidence adduced  by it.  The High Court also did not assess the damages  that the appellant is bound to sustain by such  acquisition.  The High Court also erred in passing the  order impugned holding that the appellant was entitled to  compensation @ Rs.38/- per sq. metre and that the  Division Bench erred in passing the order impugned  thereby reducing the rate of compensation from Rs.192/-  to Rs.38/- without considering the prayer of the  appellant to fix the rate of compensation at Rs.750/-.   Thus, it is argued that the High Court has erred in  passing the order impugned in utter mis-interpretation of  the evidence on record and that the High Court by the  impugned order rejected the just and equitable claim of  the appellant and acted in a flagrant error of law and  facts which, according to the appellant, resulting in  manifest injustice being caused to the appellant.  The  High Court also erred in holding that the appellant’s land  was hilly and deduction of 65% ought to have been made  by the learned Judge and not 33% as done by him.   Likewise, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have  also erred in holding that the acquired land had lost its  significance after construction of a bridge over the Zuari  River.  Similar argument was also advanced by the other  counsel in the other connected appeals.  It was  submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate that  the land in question was well developed and the  construction thereon and the same was acquired and  that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the  compensation awarded by the Courts below had no basis  whatsoever and was not supported by cogent reasons. It  was further argued that the Court did not consider that  the land in question was substituted at a place which is  of high commercial value and well connected to other  cities.  Concluding his arguments, learned senior counsel  submitted that the High Court at Goa has erred in  passing the order impugned thereby reducing the rate of  compensation from Rs.108/- as an order passed by the  learned District Judge to Rs. 27/- without considering  the prayer of the appellant to fix the rate of compensation  at Rs. 470 per sq. metre.  It was also submitted that the  High Court has erred in passing the order impugned  without any application of mind and also by rejecting the  just and equitable claim of the appellant and acted in a  flagrant error of law and facts.  Therefore, it was  submitted that the order passed by the High Court is  erroneous and resulting in manifest injustice being  caused to the appellant.   Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for  respondent No.2 - Konkan Railways submitted that the  land acquired by the State Government for KRCL project  in question is for public purpose and not for any  commercial exploitation and for construction of new  broad gauge line for Konkan Railway adjacent to the land  already acquired for the same purpose earlier.  He further  submitted that the acquired land is 11,875 sq. metres,  hilly area, about 30 metres from the road level and is  undeveloped land as most of the area is a low lying area  and that the topography of the acquired land in question  are such that a major part of the land is of Bharad type  with fess paddy fields cultivated for both the seasons,  part of the land is under coconut cultivation and some  portion is under water and to develop the land would be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

expensive, as the land would require to be filled up and  then developed.  According to learned counsel, the Land  Acquisition Officer, in his award, took into consideration  the following in fixing the rates: 1)      prevailing conditions of the land;  2)      rates awarded recently for such types of land and  approved by the Government and;  3)      restrictions under Goa, Daman and Diu  Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964.  He further submitted that the Land Acquisition  Collector arrived at the valuation of the trees, after  considering the fact that the valuation had been done by  the technical staff of the Directorate of Agriculture and  Deputy Conservator of Forests and, therefore, the  appellant would be entitled to the market value of the  land as on the date of publication of the notification  under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 01.08.1994 and that  the rate of land approved by the Government under  Section 11(1) of the Act in respect of untenanted  Bharad/garden in orchard zone types of land in village  Cortalim as on 17.01.1995 was Rs. 4/- per sq. metre.  He  then submitted that the valuation report of Mrs. Pratima  Kumar cannot be relied upon by the appellant as she is  not competent to value the land in question and that the  valuation of Rs.500/- per sq. metre arrived at by the  valuer is not based on any known method of valuation,  but is solely on the basis of the facility available.  Further  no reasons have been given in support of the opinion  arrived at by the valuer.   Learned counsel also submitted that the  compensation payable to the appellant for the acquired  land cannot be based on the average price of the two sale  deeds dated 11.12.1993 relied upon by the appellant as  the sale deed dated 11.12.1993 pertain to plots that are  smaller in size i.e. Rs.365/- sq. metre and Rs.275/- sq.  metre.  This apart, plots were not developed by making  roads, drainages etc. as required under the planning law  and sub-divisions made were also approved by the Town  and Country Planning Department as well as the village  panchayat.  Hence, the price at which the plots were sold  i.e. at Rs.250 per sq. metre cannot be considered for the  purpose of valuation of the acquired land.  Further, the  price fetched for smaller plots cannot be  applied to lands  covering large area as held by this Court in various  judgments and, in particular, 1977 (1) SCC 684 Prithvi  raj Taneja (dead) by LRs Vs. State of Madhya  Pradesh and Anr.  It is further argued that the acquired  land in question is located at a distance of 15 kms. from  the airport, 20 kms. from Vasco city, 18 kms. from  Panaji, 3 kms. from Cortalim market and there is no  approach road to the location.  It was further submitted that the comparable sales  method of valuation of land can be adopted in case where  the acquired land in question is being compared to the  similar type of acquired land, made pursuant to the same  preliminary notification.  But if any of the factors such as   location, shape, size potentiality or tenure of the acquired  land widely differs from the other plots then the market  value of the acquired land has to be determined  independently of the others as held by this Court in  Printer House Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mst. Saiyadan (deceased)  by LRs and Others, 1994 (2) SCC 133.  It was also  submitted that while determining the amount to be  awarded for the acquired land in the year 1994, the LAO  while passing the award dated 25.08.1995, in terms of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

the provisions of the Act had considered: a)      the area and the nature of the acquired land, b)      the objects filed by the petitioner, c)      damages sustained by the petitioner, d)      inspected the land under acquisition to ascertain  the advantages and disadvantages from the valuation  point of view,  e)      the market value of trees, structure etc. f)      the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu  Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 as applicable to the  Acquired land, g)      the rate of land approved by Government under  section 11(1) of the said Act in respect of various types of  land in the aforesaid villages which are as follows: Letter of Dy.  Collector (L.A)  of Collectorate  of South Goa  No. Date Village Type of Land Rate per Sq.  Mtrs. Rs.  Ps. 2/4/94- CVS/57- LAR/418 19.09.1994 Sancoale Tenanted  Double  Cropped  Paddy 9.00

Coconut  Bharad  Marshy/Under  Water 4.00  2.00 2/4/94- CVS/90- LAR/474 24.10.1994 Sancoale  (Addl.) Tenanted  Double  Cropped  Paddy 9.00 2/4/94- CVS/65- LAR/12 17.01.1995 Cortalim Untenanted  Bharad/  Garden in  Orchard Zone  4.00    

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

According to the learned counsel, the High Court,  after considering all the above-mentioned facts, had  correctly made the deduction, that the land in question is  an undeveloped stretch of land which is held by the  tenants and has no marketable title and cannot be used  for any other purpose other than what it was being used  for now and that no approvals to develop the land has  been taken from the appropriate authority. It is also  submitted that for laying of the track, respondent No.2  had to carry out the filling of the acquired land up to 6  metre of height.  Concluding his argument, learned  counsel for the Konkan Railways submitted that the High  Court, after hearing both the parties and after  considering the evidence on record had correctly reduced  the compensation awarded by the ADJ from Rs. 192/-  per sq. metre to Rs. 38/- per sq. metre for the acquired  land by a well-reasoned judgment and order and that in  view of the above, this Court should dismiss the civil  appeal filed by the appellants with costs.  We have carefully considered the rival submissions  with reference to the pleadings, documents and  annexures filed in the instant case. In the instant case,  no document whatsoever was filed by both the  respondents.   In determining the amount of compensation to be  awarded, the LAO shall be guided by the provisions of  Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.  As per Section 22 of the  Act, the market value of the land has to be determined at  the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the   Act i.e. 25.08.1994.  As per Section 24, the LAO shall  also exclude any increase in the value of land likely to  accrue from use to which it will be put once acquired.   The market value of the land means the price of the land  which a willing seller is reasonably expected to fetch in  the open market from a willing purchaser.  In other  words, it is a price of the land in hypothetical market.  During the site inspection, it has been observed that the  land under acquisition is situated in Sancoale and  Cortalim village adjacent to the land already acquired for  the same purpose earlier.  In the instant case, two sale deeds were relied upon  dated 13.12.1993 which is 8 months before Section 4(1)  notification. The property was sold at Rs. 250 per sq.  metre. We have perused the sale deed and the recitals in  the document.  The property is an extent of Rs. 385/- sq.  metre as shown in the plan attached.  Thereafter, the  owners as recited in the partition deed developed the said  property by making roads, drainage etc. as required  under the planning laws which were approved by the  town and country planning authorities on 22.10.1993  and by the village panchayat by their license VPC/4 93- 94/754 dated 15.11.1993.  The land in question is more  particularly described in the second schedule.  An extent  admeasuring 385 sq. metre was sold for a total price of  Rs. 96,250/- which was the then market value.  Another  sale deed was sold on the same date admeasuring  around 257 sq. metres as shown in the plan attached.  It  is stated in the deed that all the co-owners have  developed the property by making roads, drainage etc. as  required under the standing laws.  The total sale  consideration is Rs.64,250/-  The Government registered  valuer Mrs. Pratiba Kumar was examined as  witness AW  2.  She is also a panel valuer for LIC, GIC and Bank of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

India.  She has prepared the valuation report at the  request of the appellants.  According to the report, the  acquired land admeasures 11,875/- sq. metres and the  said property is a joint property of the applicants which  is situated close to the ferry point at Cortalim and it is  abutting the public road and that the acquired land  aborts the acquired land of LAC 391/95 which touches  the public road which was acquired for Konkan Railways  broad gauge line.  The acquired land is situated in  settlement zone S2 police station, petrol pump,  salgaonkar ship yard, government warehouse within a  range of about 200 metres and market, school, bank etc.  are within a range of 1 km and in the year 1994 and even  prior to a point when electricity, telephone and water  facility were available to the acquired land.  After taking  into consideration all the factors mentioned in her report,  she has arrived at the market value of Rs. 500/- per sq.  metre.  Nothing has been elicited from her in the cross- examination in regard to her statements made in the  chief examination.  It is thus seen from the above report  that the approved valuer, taking into consideration the  location of the property amenities available and also the  cost of similar properties in the locality, has arrived at  the present fair market rate of the land which was fixed  at Rs. 500 per sq. metre.  The Addl. District Judge South Goa considered the  2 sale deeds relied upon by the appellants.  Both the sale  deeds are dated 13.12.1993 Ex AW1/B and Ex AW1/C.   The executants of the sale deed was examined as AW3  and AW1.  According to them, the land was sold @ Rs.  250/- per sq. metre which is situated about 3 kms away  from the acquired land and that the second sale deed is  in respect of Rs. 257 sq. metres and also situated at a  distance of about 3 kms.  Both the sale deeds are about 8  months prior to the acquisition of the land.  Both the  lands were sold @ Rs. 250/- per sq. metre.  It was argued that small extent of land sold cannot  be taken into account.  According to the District Judge  deduction has to be made where there is larger area of  undeveloped land under acquisition provision has to be  made for providing the minimum amenities of town line  such as water connections, well laid out roads, drainage  facility, electricity connections etc and that the process  necessarily involves deduction of the cost of factors  required to bring the undeveloped lands on par with the  developed lands.  In the instant case, taking the average of both the  sale deeds Ex. AW 1/B and AW 1/C the District Judge  made a deduction @ 33% for the development charges  and on deduction of 33% from Rs. 250/- per sq. metre  the actual price of the acquired land would be  approximately Rs. 192/- per sq. metre which, according  to the opinion of the District Judge would be reasonable  for the acquired land.  By holding so, he passed the  following Award.  "Award          This compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition  Officer is enhanced to Rs. 192/- per sq.mt. The  respondents shall pay to the applicants the said  compensation in addition to proportionate solatium  charges on the amount thereof and the interest at the  rate of 9% during the period of one year from the date  of possession of the land delivered to the respondents  in terms of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

thereafter at the rate of 15% per year under section 28  of the said Act from the date of expiry of the period of  one year till the actual payment of the whole amount  of compensation plus 12% interest over and above the  market value of the land from the date of notification  under section 4 of the Act up to the date of the award  or taking possession whichever is earlier in terms of  section 1A of section 23 of the LA Act. The amount  already paid shall be adjusted against the  compensation awarded and the applicants shall be  entitled to the refund of the court fee paid by them and  the costs of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the respondents."

The High Court, in para 10 of its judgment,  however, held that the District Judge was not justified in  principle to take an average of the price of two sale deeds  and apply the same for fixing the compensation payable  to the claimants.  The High Court held that the two sale  deeds could be used as a guide for the purpose of fixing  the compensation to the acquired land and the same  could be used but by making further deductions.   According to them, to carry out the development of such  land which was not at one level the applicant would have  to spend a considerable amount towards the  development, namely, level terracing roads etc. and,  therefore, considering the nature of the land which was   hilly at least a deduction of 65% ought to have been  taken by the Addl. District Judge and not 33% as done  by him.  Again, the High Court was of the view that the  District Judge ought to have made a further deduction of  at least 10% since the distance between the acquired  land and the plots was about 3 kms.  Further, the High  Court held that the prices fetched from small plots  cannot be applied to the lands covering large area and,  therefore, a further deduction ought to have been made  on this ground of at least of 10%.  The High Court,  therefore, held that considering the location of the  acquired land vis-‘-vis its nature and the plot of the sale  deeds, the District Judge ought to have made a  deduction of at least 85% and in view of the said  deduction, the price of the acquired land works out to Rs.  37.50 which is rounded of to Rs.38/- per sq. metre. A  further direction was issued that the compensation paid  towards the trees must be adjusted from the  compensation fixed for the lands.  In our opinion, the High Court has adopted a rough  and ready method for making deductions which is  impermissible in law.  We have already noticed the  valuers report.  No reason whatsoever was given by the  Reference Court or by the High Court as to why the  report of the valuer and her evidence cannot be relied on.   In our opinion, the compensation awarded by the High  Court had no basis whatsoever and was not supported by  cogent reasons and that it did not consider the future  prospect of the development of the land in question.  The  High Court also did not assess the injury that the  appellant is likely to sustain due to loss of his future  earnings from the said land and also did not assess the  damage already suffered due to diminution of the profits  of the land between the time of publication of the notice  and time of the collector taking possession.  The Division  Bench of the High Court has miserably erred in passing  the order impugned thereby reducing the rate of  compensation from Rs. 192/- to Rs. 38/- and in utter  mis-reading of the evidence on record and acted in a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

flagrant error of law and facts.  In our view, the orders  passed by the Division Bench resulted in manifest  injustice being caused to the appellants.  The High Court  also erred in passing the order by holding that the  opinion of the government approved valuer was not based  on any opinion method of valuation but solely on the  basis of facilities available to the land.  In our view, the  High Court ought to have appreciated that the  government approved valuer is an expert in her field and  the opinion of such an expert ought not to have been  rejected shabbily.  Both the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the  District Judge and of the High Court have failed to notice  that the purpose of acquisition is for Railways and that  the purpose is a relevant factor to be taken into  consideration for fixing the compensation.  In this  context, we may usefully refer the judgment of this Court  of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by Lrs. Vs. State of  Gujarat reported in JT 2005 (4) SC 282.  This Court held  that the purpose for which the land is acquired must also  be taken into consideration in fixing the market value  and the deduction of development charges.  In the above  case, the lands were acquired because they were  submerged under water of a dam.  Owners claimed  compensation of Rs. 40/- per sq. ft.  LAO awarded  compensation ranging from Rs. 35/- to Rs. 60/- per sq.  mtr.  Reference Court fixed the market value of the land  at Rs. 200/- per sq. mtr. and after deduction of  development charges, determined the compensation @  Rs. 134/- per sq. mtr.  In arriving at the compensation,  Reference court placed reliance on the comparative sale  of a piece of land measuring 46.30 sq. metre @ Rs. 270  per sq. mtr.  On appeal, the High Court awarded  compensation of Rs. 180/- per sq. mtr. in respect of large  plots and Rs. 200/- per sq. mtr. in respect of smaller  plots.  On further appeal, this Court held that since the  lands were acquired for being submerged in water of dam  and had no potential value and the sale instance relied  was a small plot measuring 46.30 sq. mtr. whereas the  acquisition in the present case was in respect of large  area, interest of justice would be subserved by awarding  compensation of Rs. 160/- per sq. mtr. in respect of  larger plots and Rs.175/- per sq. mtr. for smaller plots.   In Basavva (Smt.) and Ors. Vs. Spl. LAO and Ors.  reported in JT 1996 5 SC 580, this Court held that the  purpose by which acquisition is made is also a relevant  factor for determining the market value.   We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that  normally 1/3 deduction of further amount of  compensation has been directed in some cases.   However, the purpose for which the land acquired must  also be taken into consideration.  In the instant case, the  land was acquired for the construction of new BG line for  the Konkan Railways.  This Court in Hasanali  Khanbhai & Sons & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 2  SCC 422 and L.A.O. vs. Nookala Rajamallu, 2003 (10)  Scale 307 had noticed that where lands are acquired for  specific purposes deduction by way of development  charges is permissible.  In the instant case, acquisition is  for laying a railway line.  Therefore, the question of  development thereof would not arise.  Therefore, the  order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside  and in view of the availability of basic civic amenities  such as school, bank, police station, water supply,  electricity, high way, transport, post, petrol pump,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

industry, telecommunication and other businesses, the  claim of compensation should reasonably be fixed @ Rs.  250/- per sq. mtr. with the deduction of 20%.  The  appellant shall be entitled to all other statutory benefits  such as solatium, interest etc. etc.  The appellants also  will be entitled to compensation for the trees standing on  the said land in a sum of Rs. 59,192 as fixed.  I.A. No. 1  of 2006 for substitution is ordered as prayed for.  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.               OF 2007 (Arising Out of SLP (C) NOS. 16503-16504 OF 2005) In this case, the LAO awarded compensation to the  appellant @ Rs 4/- per sq. mtr. and Rs.82,282/- for trees  standing on the said land.  The appellants claimed a sum  of Rs. 470/- per sq. mtr. for the acquired land and in  support of their contention relied on 3 sale deeds of  adjoining plots, one award and a report of a valuer.  The  District Judge in accordance with the rate of  compensation from Rs.4/- to Rs.108/- but did not give  any compensation for the trees standing on the land.  In  the first appeal preferred by the appellant and the appeal  preferred by the respondents, the High Court against the  judgment and award dated 29.08.2001 of the District  Judge rejected the appeal of the appellants and allowed  the appeal of the respondents.  The Division Bench  rejected the report of the valuer and findings of the  District Judge and reduced the rate of compensation  from Rs. 108/- as awarded by the learned District Judge  to Rs. 27/-.  This case also stands on the same footing as  that of the other appellant in SLP (C) Nos. 16533-16534  of 2005.  Therefore, they are also entitled to  compensation on par with the other appeal.  In this case,  the appellant adduced two sale deeds AW1F and AW1E  on the purchase of land by him at Rs. 480 per sq. mtr.  and Rs. 200 per sq. mtr. respectively.  The Government  valued approver also submitted his report and also  deposed before the Court.  The land in question is also  acquired for the same purpose.  Therefore, the appellant  in this case is also entitled to the same compensation at  Rs. 250/- per sq. mtr. with deduction of 20%.  The  appellant will be entitled to compensation for the trees  standing thereon at Rs. 82,232/- as justified by the  L.A.O. The appellant will also entitled to all the other  statutory benefits such as solatium, interest etc.  Both  the appeals are ordered accordingly.  Since the  acquisition was made under Section 4(1) notification and  the matter was pending from the year 1996 the appellant  shall be entitled for payment of compensation now fixed  by this Court together with solatium, interest and other  statutory benefits as permissible under law and that the  compensation and other payment shall be made within 3  months from today after adjusting the payments which  have already been made.  No costs.