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

PETITIONER: STATE OF MADRAS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: A. M. NANJAN AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/02/1976

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

CITATION:  1976 AIR  651            1976 SCR  (3) 356  1976 SCC  (1) 973

ACT:      Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894-Section  23-Compensation- Quantum   of-Increasing    the   amount    of   compensation appreciating the evidence oral and documentary, the admitted rise of prices of land, the advantages and facilities of the land with  reference to its location etc. is within the well recognised principles  of fixing the compensation and is not based on  speculation or  con jecture-Awards for other lands are in  the nature of admission of the Value of the land and admissible in evidence.

HEADNOTE:      In respect  of an  area of  18.34  acres  in  Mulligoor village, Nilgiris  District belonging to the respondents and acquired by  the appellant for the purpose of hydro-electric scheme at  Kundah in  May 1957  the land acquisition officer awarded a compensation of Rs. 500 /- per acre as against its purchase price  of Rs.  230/- per acre in February 1951; but on a reference the Subordinate Judge raised it to Rs. 1800/- per  acre.   On  appeals  by  the  Appellant/State  and  the Respondent/Claimant, while  dismissing the  State appeal and partly allowing  the respondent’s  appeal, the High Court of Madras  by   its  common   judgment  raised   the  rate   of compensation to Rs. 3000/- per acre.      In the  two appeals by certificate, the appellant State contended (i)  that raising  the rate  of  compensation  was without any  basis and  merely on speculation, (ii) that the rates at which the adjoining lands were sold for house sites cannot be  safe-guides; (iii) that allowing flat rate of Rs. 3000/- per  acre with  out due  regard  to  the  quality  or classification of  the land  is bad  in principles of fixing compensation.      Negativing the  contentions of the State and dismissing the appeals, the Court ^      HELD: (1)  The awards  given by  the  Land  Acquisition Collector are  at least  relevant material and may be in the nature of  admission with regard to the value of the land on behalf of  the State  and if the land involved in the awards is comparable  land  in  the  reasonable  proximity  of  the acquired land, the rates fund in the said documents would be a reliable  material to  afford a  basis to  work  upon  for

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

determination of  the compensation  on  a  later  date.  The awards can  be taken  as safe  guides. and are admissible in evidence for the determination of compensation. [358EF]      (2) In  the instant  case, from  an examination  of the evidence  and   the  documents  and  having  regard  to  the location, advantages  and facilities  of the  land  and  the admitted rise  of price  of the  land between the years 1951 and 1957,  it cannot  be said  that the  High  Court  either departed from  any well  recognised principle in determining or committed an error in raising the amount of compensation. [359A-B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos.  1212 and 1213 of 1968.      From the  Judgment and  Decree dated  2-5-1960  of  the Madras High Court in Appeals Nos. 20 and 61 of 1960.      Lal Narain  Sinha, Solicitor  General, A. V. Rangam and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.      M. Natesan and Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan for Respondents. 357      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.      GOSWAMl,  J.-The   only  question   that   arises   for consideration in  these appeals  by certificate  of the High Court of  Judicature at  Madras relates  to the  quantum  of compensation with  regard to  acquisition of  18.34 acres of land in  Mulligoor village,  Nilgiris District, belonging to the respondents. B      The land  in question was acquired for the purpose of a hydro  electric  scheme  at  Kundah.  A  Notification  under section 4(1)  of the 5‘ Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was duly published on  May 1,  1957. This  land was  purchased by the respondents’ father  by a  sale deed  (Ext. B-l) of February 22, 1951,  for a  consideration  of  Rs.  4218/4/  from  the Nilgiris Wattle  Plantations Limited. The rate at which this purchase was  made was  Rs. 230/-  per acre.  The  Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre. On a reference at  the instance  of  the  claimants  (respondents herein) the Subordinate Judge raised the compensation to Rs. 1800/- per acre. The State as well as the claimants appealed to the  High Court  against the  judgment and  decree of the Subordinate Judge.  By a  common  judgment  the  High  Court dismissed  the   State’s  appeal   and  partly  allowed  the claimants’ appeal by raising the rate of compensation to Rs. 3000/- per  acre. That  is how  the two appeals are filed by the State with certificate from the High Court.      The learned  Solicitor General  appearing on  behalf of the State  submits that  the High  Court  erred  in  law  in raising the  rate of  compensation  without  any  basis  and merely on  speculation. He  particularly draws our attention to an  observation of  the High Court in the judgment to the effect:           ".... the Court has necessarily to speculate as to      how much  the value  has increased. Sometimes the Court      is obliged  to indulge in fair measure of conjecture in      regard to the fixation of values......"      However, when  we read  the entire  observation of  the High Court  with regard to the aspect of compensation we are unable to hold that the High Court based the compensation on mere speculation  or conjecture.  The High Court has clearly observed that-           ".... fortunately  in this  case-our decision need      not depend  upon mere  speculation-  or  conjecture  as

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

    there are  materials which  as far as possible afford a      correct basis for fixing the approximate market value".      The learned  Solicitor General next draws our attention to the  various sale  deeds produced  in the  case and  took objection to  the High  Court’s placing  undue importance on two awards  (Exts. B-l0  and B-ll)  dated September 27, 1956 and March  30, 1957,  respectively. According to the learned Solicitor General  these two  awards are with regard to land at a  place called  Kil Kundah  about  ten  miles  from  the acquired land  and cannot  be said to be comparable land for the purpose  of assessment of compensation. According to the first award 358 (B-10) the rate per acre was Rs. 3000/- and according to the second one  (B-11) the rate awarded was Rs. 5263/- per acre. He also  submits that  the Sale deed (Ext. A-7) of September 27, 1955,  which appertains to land in the identical village Mulligoor and  which shows  the consideration  of Rs. 5000/- for one  acre of  land should not have been taken as a guide in view  of the  fact that  the area  was small with a large number of wattle trees and it was a speculative transaction.      There are  three other  sale deeds which the High Court took into  consideration, namely,  Exts. A-8,  A-9 and  A-l0 which were  transactions between  March 1956  and June 1956. The land  involved in  these transactions  was  situated  in Bikatti village about four miles from the acquired land. The village itself  is only  2 to 4 furlongs from Mulligoor. The rate per  acre for  these lands  in 1956 was Rs. 6000/-. The learned Solicitor General submits that these lands were sold as house  sites and  therefore cannot be safe-guides for the type of  the land  acquired. The  learned Solicitor  General also objected  to the flat rate of Rs. 3000/- granted by the High  Court   without  due   regard  to   the   quality   or classification of  the land.  He points out that even in the award Ext.  B-l0 all  the lands  were not priced at the same rate per  acre. The  rates varied  from "Rs.  300/-  to  Rs. 5263/- per acre considering the fertility of the soil of the fields,  their   location,   importance   and   registration statistics ....  ". Even  so, the  Land Acquisition  officer fixed the  value of  the land  at Rs.  3000/-per acre in the said award  taking into consideration several sale deeds. He even fixed  Rs. 5000/- per acre for..30 acres of land having regard to the bona fide sale transaction of a portion of the land covered by the same survey number.      We are  unable to accept the submission that the awards in question  cannot be taken as safe-guides in the matter of determination of  compensation. As  a matter  of facts these awards given by the Collector are at least relevant material and may  be in  the nature  of admission  with regard to the value of  the land  on behalf  of the  State and if the land involved in  the awards is comparable land in the reasonable proximity of  the acquired land, the rates found in the said documents would  be a reliable material to afford a basis to work upon  for determination  of the compensation on a later date.  The   awards,  therefore,   cannot  be  dismissed  as inadmissible  for   the  purpose  of  determination  of  the compensation.      Mr. Natesan,  learned counsel  for the respondents, has taken us  through the  evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of  the appellant  and we  find from a perusal of the same that the High Court cannot be said to take an erroneous view when it observed as follows:-           "But  witnesses   examined  on  the  side  of  the      Government have  admitted that even close to Survey No.      9/1 the  acquired land,  there are facilities like bus-

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

    stops, shops  etc. From the evidence it is fairly clear      that Mulligoor  area is  not less  prominent than  Kil-      Kundah  or   Bikatti  area   Kil-Kundah,  Bikatti   and      Mulligoor are within short distance 359      of one another and, it would not be proper to weigh the      comparative value  of the  lands  in  the  locality  on      delicate scales.  It could reasonably be said that they      are all of about equal value".      We are  satisfied after examination of the evidence and the documents that having regard to the location, advantages and facilities of the land and to the admitted rise of price of land  between the  years 1951 and 1957, it cannot be said that  the   High  Court   was  far   wrong  in  raising  the compensation to  Rs. 3000/-  per acre  in this  case. We are also satisfied that the High Court has not departed from any well recognised principles in determining the compensation.      In the  result the  appeals fail and are dismissed with one set of costs. C S. R.                                     Appeals dismissed. 360