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

PETITIONER: SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KHEDA & ANR. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VASUDEV CHANDRASHANKAR & ANR. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was  published on August 14, 1986 acquiring 12 Hectares, 95 are  88 sq,  metres of  the land  for the construction of Ahmedabad-Baroda Express  Highway. The  land are situated in village  Marida,   Tal.   Nadiad,   District   Kheda.   Land Acquisition officer  awarded compensation in his award dated 1.4.1987 at  the rate  of Rs.  250/- per  Are.  Dissatisfied therewith,  the   respondents  sought  for  enhancement  and reference was  made under  section 18. The learned Assistant District Judge,  by his  award and  decree dated  August 26, 1992, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,500/- per Are which was affirmed  by the  High Court  in the  impugned  judgment dated July  4, 1995 in First Appeal Nos. 1125-1150/95. Thus, these appeals by special leave.      We have  heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is not necessary  to go into all other documents. Suffice it to state that  in another  award of  the Reference  court under ex.43, relating  to the  same village, the land was acquired by notification  dated may  3,  1979.  The  reference  Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,100/- per Are. The appellants did not  carry in appeal against the award. Thus, the award  become final. The lands in question also situated in the same village but on different survey numbers. some of the  claimants   also  are  the  claimants  in  the  earlier acquisition as  well, as  stated in the note appended to the time  lag   of  8   years,  the   reference  Court   awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per Are.      The question,  therefore, is: whether the assessment of the compensation  made by the reference court is vitiated by any error of principle of law warranting interference. It is now settled  legal position  that the award of the reference court relating  to the  same village  of  the  similar  land possessed of  same quality  of land  and potential  offer  a comparable base  for determination  of the compensation. The reference Court  also noted  in paragraphs  18 and 19 of the similarities of  the lands  under acquisition  and that they were  covered   by  EX.   43.  No  doubt,  the  lands  under

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

acquisition are situated at the outskirts of the village. In the absence  of any  tangible material brought on record, as regards the  distinctive features of differentiation between the quality  of the land situated, The land , subject matter of Ex.43  and the  lands  under  acquisition  Ex.48,  it  is difficult to  find  out  whether  the  reference  Court  has applied any  wrong principle  of law in determination of the compensation. In  the light  of the findings recorded by the reference Court  in paragraphs 18 and 19 , we think that, in the absence of any distinct material brought on record, even in cross-examination  of the  witnesses, we cannot hazard to conclude  that   they  offered   no  comparable   value,  in particular, when  the award  earlier  has  already  attained finality. Under  these circumstance, we think that there are no circumstances warranting interference.      The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.