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

PETITIONER: PRITHVI RAJ TANEJA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1977

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1560            1977 SCR  (2) 633  1977 SCC  (1) 684  CITATOR INFO :  F          1984 SC 892  (13)

ACT:             Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 23---Compulsory  acquisi-         tion  of  land--Whether price paid for small plots a  crite-         rion for determining compensation for vast areas--Assessment         of market value, when to remain undisturbed.

HEADNOTE:             The  appellant’s land was acquired and compensation  was         awarded to him by the Land Acquisition Officer.  Demanding a         higher amount, the appellant had the matter referred to  the         District  Judge who increased the award, but  still  discon-         tented,  the appellant went in appeal.  The High Court  also         increased the compensation but could not satisfy the  appel-         lant  who thereupon obtained leave to appeal to the  Supreme         Court,  contending  that small plots of land  adjoining  his         large area were sold at much higher rates.         Dismissing the appeal, the Court,             HELD: 1. The price’ paid for small plots of laud  cannot         provide   a   safe criterion for determining the  amount  of         compensation  for  a vast area of land.. The large  area  of         land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which         small plots are sold.  [635 A-B]             Smt. Padma Uppal etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors.   [1977]         1  S.C.R.  329, applied.         2.  The  essential  thing is to keen in  view  the  relevant         factors prescribed by the Act.  If the judgment of the  High         Court  reveals  that it  has taken  into  consideration  the         relevant  factors,  the assessment of the market  value   of         the acquired land should not be disturbed.  [635 D-E]             Thakur  Kanta Prasad Singh (dead) by L. Rs v.  State  of         Bihar A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2219, applied.

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 1970.             (From  the  Judgment and Decree dated 28-4-1970  of  the         Madhya  Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) in First   Appeal         No.  133 of 1968).

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

       S.N. Andley and Uma Dutta, for the appellants         Ram Panjwani and H.S. Harihar, for the respondents.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             KHANNA,  J. This is an appeal on certificate by  Prithvi         Raj Taneja (now deceased and represented by his legal repre-         sentatives)  against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High         Court whereby the  High Court partially accepted the  appeal         filed  by the appellant  regarding the quantum of  compensa-         tion for the acquisition of land.             A  plot  of  land measuring 27  bighas  and  17   biswas         situated  in  Ashok Nagar, district Guna, belonging  to  the         appellant  was  acquired for the construction o,f  a  police         station  and residential  quarters for         policemen.   A bigha, it is stated, is equivalent  to  2,500         square yards. The land sought to be acquired measured 68,658         square  yards.  Notification  under section 4  of  the  Land         Acquisition  Act for the acquisition of the land was  issued         on April 7, 1961.  The Land Acquisition Officer as per award         dated June 13, 1961 awarded compensation for the land at the         rate of Rs. 100 per bigha.  In addition to that,  he awarded         a  sum of Rs. 1,175 for large trees and Rs. 1,380 for  small         trees standing on the land.  The appellant was also  awarded         Rs. 1,000 as compensation for a well which had been sunk  in         the. land,  and Rs. 800 for a house standing on the land  In         all, the appellant was awarded a sum of Rs. 7,616. including         solatium at the rate. of fifteen per cent by the Land Acqui-         sition Officer.             The  appellant wanted compensation for the  land at  the         rate  of  Rs. 10 per square yard.  He  accordingly  had  the         matter  referred to the District Judge.  Learned  Additional         District  Judge  determined the market value of the land  in         question  to be Rs.  900 per bigha. Regarding the well,  the         Additional District Judge awarded compensation of Rs.  3,000         as against the amount of Rs. 1,000 which had been awarded by         the  Land Acquisition  Officer.  In  other   respects,   the         award of the Land Acquisition Officer was upheld.  Computing         solatium  at  the  rate of 10 per cent,  the.  total  amount         awarded  by District Judge to the appellant was  Rs.  32,285         besides interest at the rate of six per cent per annum.             The appellant not being satisfied with the award of  the         Additional District Judge took the matter in appeal  to  the         High   Court.   The High Court awarded compensation  to  the         appellant at the rate of Re. 1. per square yard for the land         in  question.   The High  Court  also awarded Rs. 2,500  for         the loss of earnings to the appellant.  The rate of solatium         for compulsory acquisition was increased  by the  High Court         from ten per cent to, fifteen per cent.  In all, the  appel-         lant  was  held  entitled to a compensation  of  Rs.  88,381         besides interest at the rate of six per cent per annum.             The  appellant thereupon obtained a certificate of  fit-         ness for appeal to this Court under article 133(1)(a) of the         Constitution, as it stood at that time.             In appeal before us, Mr. Andley on  behalf of the appel-         lant  has argued that more than half of the land in  dispute         is within. the municipal limits of Ashok Nagar Municipality,         while  the  remaining land was also likely  to  be  included         within   those limits  shortly.  It is further  stated  that         the land in question abutts Ashok Nagar-Isagarh Road and  is         situated near the tehsil building and the. railway  station.         Learned  counsel  has also referred to the fact  that  small         plots  of  land adjoining the land in dispute were  sold  at         rates  of Rs. 9 and Rs. 8 per square yard during  the  years         1958 to 1960.  In this respect, we find that the High  Court         has considered most of the above circumstances and has  come         to  the conclusion that Re. 1 per  square  yard   represents

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

       fair market value of the land in dispute. The High Court has         also  referred to the special circumstances under which  the         small  plots were sold and their price was fixed.  We  agree         with the High Court that the price         635             paid  for  small  plots of land cannot  provide  a  safe         criterion  for determining the amount of compensation for  a         vast area of land.  We may in this context refer to a recent         judgment  in the case of Smt.  Padma Uppal etc. v. State  of         Punjab  &  Ors. C) wherein this Court  observed that  it  is         well settled  that in determining  compensation  the   value         fetched  for  small plots of land cannot be applied  to  the         lands covering a very large area and that the large area  of         land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which         small plots are sold.         Section  23  of the Land Acquisition Act  provides  that  in         mining  the  amount of compensation to, be awarded  for  the         land  acquired  under the Act, the Court  shall  take  into.         account inter alia the market value of the land at the  date         of  the publication of the notification under section  4  of         the  Act.  The market value means the price that  a  willing         purchaser  would  pay to a willing seller for  the  property         having  due  regard to its existing condition with  all  its         existing  advantages  and its potential  possibilities  when         laid  out  in  the most advantageous  manner  excluding  any         advantage  due to the carrying out of the scheme  for  which         the  property  is  compulsorily  acquired.   In  considering         market  value the disinclination of the vendor to part  with         his  land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser  to  buy         should  be disregarded.  There is an element  of  guess-work         inherent  in  most  cases  involving  determination  of  the         market  value  of the acquired land.  But this in  the  very         nature  of things cannot be helped.  The essential thing  is         to keep in view the relevant factors prescribed by the  Act.         If the judgment of the High Court reveals that it has  taken         into  consideration the relevant factors, the assessment  of         the  market  value of the acquired land should not  be  dis-         turbed  (see Thakur Kanta Prasad Singh (dead) by L.  rs.  v.         State  of  Bihar(2).  After having been  taken  through  the         material on the record, we find no infirmity in the judgment         of  the High Court as might induce us to  disturb its  find-         ing.   The   appeal consequently fails and is dismissed  but         in the circumstances  without costs.         Appeal dismissed.         (1) [1977] 1 S.C.R. 329,         (2) A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2219.         636