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

PETITIONER: G. NARAYAN RAO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   721        1996 SCALE  (5)476

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The  petitioner   questions  the   correctness  of  the judgment and  order dated  August 30,  1995 made  in  Appeal No.6/87 by  the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court. Hyderabad, Petitioner’s  land in  an extent  of 7  acres  25 guntas situated  in  Nizamabad  town  was  acquired  by  the Government to provide house sites to the poor by publication of  the   notification  under   Section  4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (for  short, the  ‘Act). On September 22, 1976, the petitioner claimed compensation @ Rs.300/- per sq. yd.  The Land  Acquisition Officer awarded @ Rs.30,000/- per acre.  On  reference,  the  Additional  District  Judge, Nizamabad had  enhanced the  compensation at Rs.63/- per sq. yd. and  after deducting 1/3 for development charges awarded Rs.46/- per  sq. yd.  by his award and decree dated June 25, 1986.  The  High  Court  reversed  the  decree  and  awarded compensation @ Rs.32,000/- per acre with additional benefits under Amendment  Act 68  of 1984.  Shri Prakash Reddy in his usual thorough  preparation and vehemence contended that the Division Bench was not right in refusing to remit the matter to the  Court for fresh trial. As per the law then existing, it was  not necessary  for landlord to examine the witnesses connected with  the sale  deeds Exhibit A-21 and A-22 relied on and  accepted by  reference Court which were proximate to the  point  of  time  and  adjacent  to  the  land  offering comparable rate  to award  compensation. He  also  contended that the  lands are possessed of potential value as building sites since  they are  situated in  the municipal  limits of Nizamabad. The  potential value  should  be  considered  and market value  determined on that basis. He further contended that the  Land Acquisition  Officer had  himself admitted in his evidence  that a small sale deed to an extent of 200 sq. yd. sold  to statutory  bodies had secured a rate worked out at Rs.47/- per sq. yd. That would provide basis to determine the market  value after  due  deduction.  At  any  rate,  as requested for  in the  High Court, the High Court would have

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

remitted the  matter for  decision afresh.  Having given our due  consideration   to  the  forceful  contentions  of  the counsel, we find no merit in any one of the contentions.      It is seen that, admittedly, neither the vendor nor the vendee  of  the  sale  deeds,  Exhibit  A-21  and  A-22  was examined. It is settled law from the decisions of this Court starting from  The  Collector,  Raigarh  vs.  Dr.  Harisingh Thakur and  Anr. [AIR 1979 SC 472] and that of the A.P. High Court in  The Tehsildar, Land Acquisition Vishakhapatnam vs. Shri P.  Narsingh Rao  & Ors. [(1985) 1 APLJ 99] that either the vendor  or the vendee should be examined in proof of the documents to  establish passing  or the  real  consideration under the  documents, the nature of the respective lands and whether the  documents are  genuine documents etc. It is for the Court  to consider  all the relevant facts to accept the correctness of the sale deeds and then consider whether they should form  basis to determine compensation. In the absence of proof  of above  facts that  would be no evidence for the Court to place reliance on untested documents. The reference Court, therefore,  was clearly  in error  in acting upon the untested sale  deeds to determine the compensation @ Rs.46/- per sq. yd. after due deduction.      The High Court elaborately considered the nature of the lands situation  in the  developed area  to find out whether the lands  were possessed  of potential  value. It  was held that the  lay out  sanction was  obtained three  years after publication of  the notification  under Section  4(1) of the Act. There  was no development in the neighbourhood. It must be established,  as a  fact, that the potential purpose does exist as  on the  date of  the notification,  the prevailing conditions in  the market  the existence of the construction of building  activities in  the neighbourhood and that other lands in the neighbourhood possessed similar conditions. The High Court  relied on  recent judgments  of  this  Court  in Acquisition Officer,  Eluru & Ors. vs. Smt. Jasti Rohini and Anr. [(1995)  1 SCC  717] and  P. Ram  Reddy & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer  Hyderabad Urban  Development  Authority Hyderabad &  Ors. [(1995)  2 SCC 305] etc. It is settled law that the Court in determining the compensation should sit in the armed chair of a willing vendee and determine whether in the given  facts and  circumstances  he  would  be  willing, depending upon  the prevailing  market conditions,  to offer the rates which the Court proposes to determine as a prudent purchaser. In case of approved layout, it is equally settled law that  layout was  obtained in  normal course or business venture. The  Court must  consider the  suitability  of  the acquired land  for putting up the buildings for residential, commercial or  industrial buildings  which have already come up in  the neighbourhood  and also the possibility to obtain amenities like  water,  drainage,  electricity  supply  etc. Absence of statutory impediments like obtaining sanction for layout would be yet another relevant circumstance. On taking all material  and relevant  facts  into  consideration,  the Court would  consider whether the willing vendee would offer the price  at which  the Court  proposes to  determine.  The determination of  the compensation under those circumstances must be  just and  adequate. The  High Court  considered all these relevant circumstances and held that the lands are not possessed  of  potential  values  as  on  the  date  of  the notification to determine the compensation on yardage basis. It is  not in  dispute that  in  a  related  acquisition  in O.P.361/77,  the   Court  determined   the  compensation   @ Rs.32,000/- per  acre for  the lands  in  the  neighbourhood based upon it the High Court confirmed as under:      "Keeping that  in view, as a result

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

    of the  above discussion we have to      hold that  the award in O.P. No.361      of  1977  relied  on  by  the  Land      Acquisition  Officer   furnishes  a      proper ’price  basis’ for  arriving      at the  market value of the land in      question at  the relevant time. The      learned  counsel   on  both   sides      accept that  the said award was not      questioned and it became final. But      we have  to notice  that  the  Land      Acquisition     Officer     himself      proposed to fix the market value of      the land in question at Rs.32,000/-      per acre  in view  of the fact that      the land covered by O.P. No. 361 of      1977  was  further  away  from  the      developed localities  than the land      under the present acquisition. This      is borne  out by  the  Master  Plan      Ex.B.19 and  Ex.B.26, which  is the      relevant portion of the Master Plan      though both  the lands were located      in undeveloped area at the relevant      time and  were  similarly  situated      from   the   point   of   view   of      potentialities,  Land   covered  by      O.P. No.361  of 1971  is about  one      furlong away  and  further  to  the      north of  the present land. We are,      therefore,  inclined  to  take  the      view that  the market  value of the      land in question should be fixed at      Rs.32,000/- per acre."      Accordingly, the High Court determined the compensation @ Rs.32,000/- per acre.      It would  appear  that  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer stated in  his evidence  that the  land of  an extent of 200 square yards was sold to a public authority at a rate worked out at Rs.47/- per sq.yd. But, as rightly pointed out by the High Court,  the said  document was  not made  part  of  the record nor anyone was examined in proof of the circumstances in which  sale came  to be  made. Under these circumstances, the High  Court rightly was not inclined to accept that part of the  evidence to  determine compensation in this case. We do not  find any  error of any principle of law committed by the High Court warranting interference.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.