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

PETITIONER: K. KRISHNA REDDY AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION UNIT II,LMD KARIMNAG

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/09/1988

BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 2123            1988 SCR  Supl. (2) 853  1988 SCC  (4) 163        JT 1988 (3)   590  1988 SCALE  (2)577

ACT:     Land  Acquisition Act, 1894, ss. 4(1) and 18--Award  and payment of compensation--To be made without delay--Appellate power of remand--When to be exercised

HEADNOTE:     The  appellants  were awarded by  the  Land  Acquisition Officer compensation ranging from Rs.1,320 to 4,000 per acre depending upon the nature of the land acquired in 1977.  The District  Judge enhanced the compensation to  Rs.85,000  per acre  on the ground that compensation @ Rs.85,000  per  acre under  Award Ex. A.4 and Rs.70,000 under Award Ex.  A.5  had already  been awarded in respect of acquisition  of  certain other  similar  lands situated in Karimnagar.  However,  the High  Court,  in  appeal,  remanded  the  matter  for  fresh disposal  and also observed that the District  Judge  should exclude Ex. A.4 and Ex. A. 5 from consideration as the  land concerned in those awards are not comparable lands.     In  appeals  to  this Court by  Special  Leave,  it  was contended on behalf of the appellants that the matter should not  be remanded to the District Judge, since the  claimants being small holders and agriculturists, are hard pressed and unable  to fight another round of litigation and  that  they are prepared to accept any compensation which this Court may think fit to award.     Allowing the appeals,     HELD:  (1)  The  Judgments of the  High  Court  and  the District Judge e are set aside. The compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000 per acre regardless of categorisation would  be sufficient  to meet the ends of justice. It is  needless  to state that the claimants are entitled to mandatory  solatium at 30% and also statutory interest. [857G-H]     2(i)  It  is of utmost importance that the award  should be  made  without delay. The enhanced compensation  must  be determined without 108s of time. [857C]                                                    PG NO 853                                                    PG NO 854     2(ii)  The appellate power of remand at any  rate  ought not to be       exercised lightly. It shall not be  resorted to unless the award is wholly   unintelligible. It shall not be exercised unless there is total lack of      evidence. If

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

remand  is  imperative,  and  if  the  claim  for   enhanced compensation  is  tenable,  it  would  be  proper  for   the appellate  court to do  modest best to mitigate  hardships. The  appellate court may direct some    interim payment  to claimants  subject  to  adjustment in  the  eventual  award. [857C-D]     3. This is not a case of no evidence. This is a case  of both  relevant  and irrelevant evidence mixed up  together. Therefore  irrelevant and       exaggerated claim  must  be excluded. [857F]     In the instant case, the location of lands will have  to be  borne in    mind while  ascertaining the market  value. The  Commissioner  has     stated that the  lands  are  more suitable  for house sites   than  for   agriculture.  There is, no reason to discard this evidence and reject Ex.   A. 5 altogether. [856C-D]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  Nos.  3159- 3170 of 1988.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  30.12.1985  of  the Andhra  Pradesh   High Court in Appeal No. 2578 to  2583  of 1985.     K.   Rajendra  Chowdhary  and  A.  Subba  Rao  for   the Appellants.     P.A.   Choudhary,  T.V.S.N.  Chari,  Mrs.  Sunita   Rao, Badrinath       and K. Ram Kumar for the Respondent.     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. We grant Special Leave and proceed to dispose of these appeals.     These  appeals are from a judgment dated  3()  December, 1985  of   the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in  a  batch  of appeals  arising  out of land acquisition  proceedings.  The lands  in question are situated in Hasanapur  of  Karimnagar Taluk. The lands are acquired for the purpose of submergence under  Lower  Manair  Dam Reservoir  project.  SeCtion  4(1) notification  was  issued  on  24  March,  1977.  The   land acquisition officer by his award dated 15 July, 1978 awarded compensation   ranging  from  Rs.1320  to  4,000  per   acre depending  upon  the nature of the land and the  crop  grown                                                    PG NO 855 thereon. The District Judge on a  reference under s.  18  of the  Act  enhanced the compensation to  Rs.85,000  per  acre regardless of categorisation. The High Court by the Judgment under  appeals  herein  has remanded the  matter  for  fresh disposal with liberty for both parties to adduce  additional evidence. The high Court has specifically observed that  the District  Judge  should exclude Ex. A. 4 and Ex. A.  5  from consideration.  Ex.  A.  4  and Ex.  A.  5  are  the  awards pertaining  to  acquisition  of certain  lands  situated  in Karimnagar.  Thereunder,  compensation at the  rate  of  Rs. 85,000  per acre under Ex. A.4 and Rs.70,000 under  Ex.  A.5 were  given.  The  High Court has observed  that  the  lands concerned in those awards are not comparable lands.     Hence these appeals.     The  first  question that arises  for  consideration  is whether  Ex. A.5 should be altogether excluded or it  should be  kept open for being considered by the District Judge  on merits.  This is the specific question on which  this  Court issued  notice on the Special Leave petition. If first  part of the question is answered in the negative, then the second question  for consideration is whether the matter should  go back to District Judge for fresh disposal.

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

   We  heard  counsel on both sides on the  merits  of  the entire matter.     The  claimants have alleged that the lands acquired  are fit   for  residential  houses  as  they  are  adjacent   to industrial  estate.  MARKFED  factory,  Vanaspathi  complex, diary   farm   and  Padmanagar  colony.   The   lands   have potentiality  of being used as house sites and the  like  of which  was sold for Rs.5,000 per gunta prior to the  present acquisition. The lands are near to Karimnagar town The  town is  developing into a modern town in Andhra Pradesh, with  a lot of industrial, commercial, educational activities.  They have  claimed compensation at Rs.1,60,000 per acre  for  dry lands and a little more for wet lands.     The  evidence in support of their claim consists of  the testimony  of  one of the claimants (PW 1). He has  given  a rosy picture of the location and value of the lands. Another witness (PW 2) has corroborated the version of PW 1. Besides we have the evidence of a Commissioner. Mr. G. Santosh Reddy Advocate was appointed as Commissioner in this case. He  has filed his report Ex. A.7 and Plan.                                                    PG NO 856     The  High Court appears to have brushed aside  all  that evidence.   The  High  Court compared the  combined  map  of karimnagar  and Hasnapur village (Ex. A.3) with  the  sketch map  (Ex. A.8) prepared by the Commissioner. The High  Court was  of  opinion  that the lands  concerned  in  Ex.A.5  are abutting  Karimnagar  town. They are close  to  MARKFED  and other  industrial  institutions and buildings, but  not  the lands in question. The High Court said: "whereas  admittedly the lands in question are 3 kms from Karimnagar town".  This statement has been seriously disputed before us. It is  said that  the  claimants  or their counsel did  not  admit,  and indeed  could  not  have made that  admission  suicidal   to their case.     Be  that as it may, the distance determined by the  High Court  whether on admission or by comparison of village maps makes  little difference. The distance from Karimnagar  town should  not be a ground to reject Ex. A.5. If the lands  are suitable  for house sites, Ex. A.5 would still be  relevant. The  location of lands will have to be borne in  mind  while ascertaining the market value.     As  to the nature of lands we have the evidence  of  the Commissioner.  He  is an Advocate of the local Bar.  He  had gone to the spot. He had a topographic surveying.  According to his evidence, the lands in question are similar in nature and  of value as the lands covered under the Award Ex.  A.5. The lands are nearer to collectorate complex, RTC Bus  stand and other housing complex. He has stated that the lands  are more   suitable for house sites than for agriculture.  There is no reason to discard this evidence. We cannot  therefore, reject Ex. A.5 altogether. The  next  question for consideration is whether it  is  now necessary to keep the remand order undisturbed. Counsel  for the  claimants  ’ is totally against the matter  being  sent back  to the District Judge. He  urged that  the   claimants are small holders and agriculturists. they are hard  pressed and  unable to fight another round of litigation. I hey  are prepared  to accept any compensation which this   Court  may think  fit  to  award.  This plea  of  the  counsel  has  an appealing  simplicity.  It reflects  the facts of  life  and problems of litigation.     We  can  very well appreciate the anxiety  and  need  of claimants  to get compensation here and now. No matter  what it  is.  The lands were acquired as far back  in  1977.  One decade  has  already passed. Now the  remand  means  another

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

round  of  litigation.  There would  be  further   delay  in getting  the  compensation. After all money  is  what  money                                                    PG NO 857 buys.  What  the  claimants  could  have  bought  with   the compensation  in 1977 cannot do in 1988. Perhaps,  not  even one  half  of  it.  It  is  a  common  experience  that  the purchasing   power  of  rupee  is  dwindling.  With   rising inflation,  the  delayed  payment may, lose  all  charm  and utility of the compensation. In some cases, the delay may be detrimental  to  the  interests  of  claimants.  The  Indian agriculturists  generally  have no avocation.  They  totally depend  upon  land. If uprooted, they will  find  themselves nowhere. They are left high and dry. They have no savings to draw.  They  have nothing to fall back upon.  They  know  no other   work.   They  may  even   face   starvation   unless rehabilitated. In all such cases, it is of utmost importance that  the award should be made without delay.  The  enhanced compensation  must be determined with-out loss of time.  The appellate  power  of  remand, at any rate ought  not  to  be exercised  lightly. It shall not be resorted to  unless  the award  is wholly unintelligible. It shall not  be  exercised unless  there  is  total  lack of  evidence.  If  remand  is imperative,  and if the claim for enhance I compensation  is tenable,  it would be proper for the appellate court  to  do modest  best to mitigate hardships. The appellate court  may direct  some  interim  payment  to  claimants  subject  t  o adjustment in the eventual award.     Counsel for the State argued that there is no  material on  record for this Court to determine compensation and  the remand  may  be  useful for  the  claimants  themselves.  He however.  reluctantly   indicated his own  estimate  of  the market value in the event of this Court giving a quietus  to the litigation.     It  seems  to  us  that  this  is  not  a  case  ot  no evidence.  This  is a case of both relevant  and  irrelevant evidence  mixed up together. We must exclude the  irrelevant and exaggerated claim.  The claimants have not justified the award generously given by the District Judge. Rs. 85,000 per acre appears to be on the high side as against the award Ex. A.5. In the first place, Section 4 notification concerned in that Award was dated 16 February l978. It was almost a  year after  the notification in these cases. Secondly, the  lands therein were close to the town of Karimrtagar. The situation is  not similar in this case. Here the lands are 3  kms  awy from  Karimnagar  town. It is in this background I  we  have carefully considered the rough estimates given by counsel on both  sides. We have also examined the relevant material.  A distance  of  3  kms  from a  growing  town    of   District headquarters should not however. make a world of difference. We  are  of  opinion that the compensation at  the  rate  of Rs.25,000  per  acre regardless of categorisation  would  be sufficient  to meet the ends of justice. It is  needless  to state that the claimants are entitled to mandatory  solatium                                                    PG NO 858 at 30 per cent and also statutory interest.     In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the judgments of the High Court and District Judge. There  shall be   an   award  in  terms  as  indicated  above.   In   the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. M.L.A.                                      Appeals allowed.