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

PETITIONER: A.R. RANGAMANNAR NAIDU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUB COLLECTOR OF CHIDAMBARAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/08/1992

BENCH: THOMMEN, T.K. (J) BENCH: THOMMEN, T.K. (J) RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II SINGH N.P. (J)

CITATION:  1992 SCR  (3) 890        1992 SCC  (4)  78  JT 1992 (4)   508        1992 SCALE  (2)208

ACT:           Land Acquisition Act, 1894:           Ss.  12, 18-Land with road and  drainage-Developed for building sites-Acquisition of Compensation-Proportionate deduction towards roads and drainage-Whether permissible.

HEADNOTE:      On  State’s appeal against enhancement of  compensation for a compact area of 10 acres of land laid out as  building sites  with  fully formed roads and drainage,  and  acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the High Court reduced the  compensation holding that since the roads and  drainage occupied   a  part  of  the  area  acquired,   proportionate deduction  in  compensation ought to be made.  The  claimant filed appeal by special leave to this Court.           Allowing the appeal, this Court,      Held:  1.1.  The High Court was wrong in  principle  in reducing the compensation on account of roads and  drainage. The  fact that these improvements had been made on the  land acquired shows that what was acquired was more valuable than what it would have been without the improvements. [p.  891E- F]           1.2.  Accordingly, the judgment of the High  Court is  set aside and that of the Reference Court  is  restored. [p.891F]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1210  of 1984.      From  the  Judgment and Order dated  28.8.1980  of  the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 213 of 1978.      K. Ram kumar for the Appellant.      R. Mohan, T. Raja and R. Nedumaran for the Respondent.                                                        891      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      Ten  acres of land belonging to the appellant had  been acquired   under   the  Land  Acquisition  Act.   The   Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of  one rupee one paise per sq. ft. On a reference under section  18

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

of  the Act, the Court enhanced the rate of compensation  to Rs. 2.25 per sq. ft. On appeal by the State, the High  Court by  the  impugned judgment reduced the compensation  to  Rs. 2.00 per sq. ft.      The reason stated by the High Court for so reducing the rate  of  compensation  was that the  acquired  area  was  a compact  plot  of 10 acres which was laid  out  as  building sites  with fully formed roads and drainage. The High  Court held  that since the roads and drainage occupied a  part  of the  area acquired, proportionate  deduction in compensation ought to be made.      Counsel  for  the  appellant  submits  that  what   was acquired was a compact area of 10 acres. The fact that roads and drainage had been laid out does not reduce the value  of the  land  acquired.  In fact  the  appellant  had  incurred expenditure in preparing the land as building sites, and the High Court ought to have accepted his contention that he was entitled to higher compensation.      We see no reason why the High Court should have reduced the  compensation  awarded  by the Reference  Court  on  the ground  that roads and drainage had been laid out. The  fact that these improvements had been made on the land shows that what was acquired was more valuable than what it would  have been without the improvements. The reason given by the  High Court for reducing the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was wrong in principle. Accordingly, we set aside  the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of  the Reference Court.      The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No Costs. R.P.                                    Appeal allowed.                                                        892