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

PETITIONER: SMT.GOWRAMMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LAO-CUM-MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER,PARTI RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/03/1996

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

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (3)683

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH          CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6952-53 & 6948-51 OF 1996          ------------------------------------------ (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 14686-87, and 16244-47 of 1994)                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894  (for short,  the ’Act’)  was published  on August 29,1989 acquiring  an extent of 9 acres 25 guntas of land in Pargi Town,  Ranga Reddy  District in  the State  of  Andhra Pradesh for  public purpose,  namely, to provide house sites to the  weaker sections. Possession of the land was taken on June 5,  1986 pursuant  to an earlier notification which had lapsed for  failure to  pass the award. The Land Acquisition Officer in  his award  dated May  25,  1990  determined  the compensation @  Rs.7500/- per  acre in respect of some lands and Rs.15,000/-  per acre  in respect  of other lands and in addition granted  Rs.5,000/- for  well. On  reference  under Section 18, the Subordinate Judge Vikarabad in his award and decree dated February 12, 1992 determined the compensation a Rs. 36/-  per sq. yd. He determined the value of the well at Rs. 18,100/-  Both the  State as well as the claimants filed appeals in  the High  Court.  In  three  different  sets  of appeals the different Division Benches followed the judgment of a  learned single  Judge of that Court in Ex.A-2 in which Rs.11/- per  sq.yd. was  determined  as  compensation  after deductions and  the same  was proportionately  increased  to Rs.22/- per  sq.yd. due  to time lag. Accordingly appeals of the State  were allowed  and  that  of  the  claimants  were dismissed in  A.S. Nos.2030/92  & A.S.  No.  2597.>92  dated 8.9.93 and  another judgment  in A.S.No.  2024/92,  2028/92, 1662 &  1663/93 & A.S. Nos.2029/92 dated 16.9.93. Thus these appeals by special leave.      Shri R.  Venugopal Reddy,  the learned  senior  counsel appearing for  the appellants  contended that  the reasoning adopted by  the Division  Benches of  the High  Court is not

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

correct in  law. According to the learned counsel, the lands covered in the judgments under Ex.A-3 Ex.A-4 and Ex. A-5, in addition  to   Ex.A-2  also   offer  comparable   basis  for determination of  the compensation The notifications therein were issued  during period  from 1976 to 1982. The different higher rates  of compensation  have been granted by the High Court in the appeals, The Division Bench, therefore, was not right in  relying upon  Ex.A-2 along as a basis and reducing the compensation  to Rs.22/- per sq.yd. he has placed before us the  site plan  marked in  the case  as  Ex.A-1.  From  a perusal of  the site plan, it is seen that the lands bearing survey No.  18 is  adjacent to the lands bearing Survey Nos. 24,/2 which  are the subject matter of the acquisition under Ex.A-2. The  notification under  Ex.A was dated 13.4.1979. A learned single  Judge of  the high  Court after  taking into consideration  the   situation  of   the   lands   and   the development,  reduced   the  compensation   to  50%  of  the compensation towards  developmental charges  and  determined the compensation at Rs.11/- per sq.yd. that order has become final. Therefore,  the Division  Bench  has  rightly  placed reliance upon  that judgment  and in  view of  the time  lag between the  date of  the notification  under Ex.A-2 and the date of  the notification in these cases has proportionately increased the compensation and fixed the market value at the rate of  Rs.22/- per  sq.yd after  due deductions  The lands under Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 are situated far away from the lands covered in  Survey No.  18. Therefore,  the High  Court  was right in not placing reliance on those judgments. Therefore, we find  that there is no justification for further increase in respect of the lands covered in first set of appeals. But with regard  to the  lands in  Survey No.  271/2, 272/2  and 276/2, we  find that  there is  no justification in awarding the same compensation at Rs.22/- per square yard. It is seen that these  lands are  situated on  the  main  road  and  in developed area.  Though Mr.  R. Venugopal Reddy, the learned senior counsel  repeatedly placed  reliance on the judgments of the  courts in  relation to  Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4, we do not find that  they do  offer any  comparable basis to determine the compensation.  But one important factor to be taken note of is  that the  Land Acquisition  Officer  himself  made  a distinction between  the lands  covered in  Survey Nos. 18 & 20. While  granting compensation @ Rs.7500/-, he had granted double the  rate to  these lands,  namely,  Rs.15,000/-  per acre. In  other words,  he had  taken the potential value of these lands into consideration. It is seen that though there was not  much development  except partial development in the neighborhood, these  lands having  been situated on the main road and  abutting the  developed area,  on  the  facts  and circumstances, we  think that there should be a uniform rate of Rs.30/- per sq.yd.      Accordingly, the appeals and S.L.P.(C) Nos. 14244-14245 & 14686-14687/94  are dismissed  and appeals  and  S.L.P.(C) Nos.16244-16247/94 are  allowed  and  the  market  value  is determined at  Rs.30/- sq.yd.  in respect  of all the lands. The claimants  are entitled  to the  benefits under Sections 28, 23(2)  and 23(1-A)  of the Act of the enhanced solatium, interest and  additional amount @ 9% p.a. for one year and @ 15% p.a. thereafter, from the date of taking possession till date of the award. No costs.