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

PETITIONER: SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.BANGALORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SRI DYAVAPPA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (5) 584        1995 SCALE  (5)189

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short,  ’the Act’)  was published  on October  6,  1975 acquiring  Ac.   7.14  cents  of  land  near  Bangalore  for Agriculture University.  Pursuant to  the notice  under ss.9 and 10.  the respondents claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.  60,000/-  per  acre.  The  Land  Acquisition  Collector awarded compensation  for the agriculture land to the extent of Ac.5.20  cents, @  Rs.12,000/- per acre and for Ac. 1.34, he awarded @ Rs.1,000/- per acre, treating the same as phot- kharab land. On reference under s.18, the Court relying upon a sale  deed, Ext.P6 dated February 24, 1975 to an extent of Ac.1.8  cents   sold  at  Rs.50,000/-  per  acre  which  was purchased for  setting up  of a  factory,awarded Rs.42,500/- per acre. Being dissatisfied, the appellant preferred appeal before the  High Court,  who by  its impugned judgment dated September 7,  1979 confirmed  the same,  against which these appeals by special leave have been filed.      Two contentions  have  been  raised  by  Mr.M.Veerappa, learned counsel  for the appellant. First, it is argued that in view  of the  fact  that  the  lands  under  Ext-P.6  are situated at  a distance of 2 to 3 furlongs from the acquired lands,  it  would  be  evident  that  those  lands  are  not similarly situated  and, therefore, awarding compensation at he rate  of Rs.42,500/-  per acre  relying on Ext.P.6 is not justified in  law. We  find no  force in the contention. The High Court has considered the fact that the lands are nearer to the  Bangalore-Mysore Road and near about the lands where Coca   Cola    factory   is   established.   Finding   these circumstances favourable  to the respondents, the High Court confirmed the award at the rate of Rs.42,500/- per acre.      It was  next contended that the Reference Court and the High Court  were not  justified in  awarding compensation at the rate  of Rs.42,500/-  for Ac.1.34  cents which  is phot- kharab when  the agriculture  lands also had been awarded at the rate of Rs.42,500/- per acre. Though prima facie we were

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

impressed  with   this  argument  but,  unfortunately,  this contention was  not raised  in the  High Court  nor the High Court had  advantage of  going into  this circumstance. Even the Reference  Court judgment  has not been made part of the record. Therefore,  we are  unable  to  know  what  are  the grounds that  weighed with  the  reference  court  to  award compensation at  the rate of Rs.42,500/- for the phot-kharab land to  the extent  of Ac.1.34 cents. It is also to be seen that this  point was  not raised in the grounds of appeal in this Court.      In these circumstances, we are constrained not to agree with the  contentions raised  by the  appellant. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.