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

PETITIONER: K. PERIASAMI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUB-TEHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION)

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1994 SCC  (4) 180        1994 SCALE  (2)996

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   By  a  notification  under Section  4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette on 7-3-1973  a large extent of lands including Survey No.  11/4 and 49/7 in Thathanai Village, near Madurai were proposed to be  acquired  for a Housing Scheme.   The  Land  Acquisition Officer determined the market value of that land @ Rs 92 per cent.   On reference under Section 18, the civil  court,  by its award, enhanced the market value of that land to Rs  800 per  cent as against the claim of the appellant at the  rate of  Rs 1500 per cent.  The High Court, by its  judgment  and decree  dated  25-10-1989 confirmed the award of  the  civil court  and dismissed the appeal in Civil Appeal No.  763  of 1987  of the State.  It also dismissed the  cross-objections of the appellant.  Hence, this claimant’s appeal by  special leave. 2.   It  is  not  disputed that the market  value  of  lands acquired   pursuant  to  ’he  said  notification  has   been determined  by different Benches of the High Court  such  as Appeal  Nos.  538 of 1987 and 1226 of  1986  titled  Special Tehsildar,  Land Acquisition v. Lakshmi Ammall.   The  lands for  which the and Acquisition.  Officer had awarded at  the rate of Rs 70 per cent and the civil court on reference, had enhanced  such  rate to Rs 850 per cent, the High  Court  on appeal  had  enhanced the rate in two cases to Rs  1000  per cent and in two other cases to Rs 1050 per cent.  Since  the lands  under  consideration  in  the  present  appeals   are situated  in the same area and were acquired under ,he  same acquisition  and  the Land Acquisition Officer  himself  had treated  the lands to be in a better  advantageous  position than  the  lands covered in the other appeals, it  would  be clear  that  the  lands in these appeals  are  possessed  of better  advantageous features than the lands covered by  the judgment in other appeals by fixing their value at the  rate of Rs 92 per cent.  This fact was not noticed by the learned Judge,  while  disposing of the appeals, as it  is  observed

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

that  there is no evidence as to parity of the  advantageous position  of the lands to award the same compensation.   The observation  appears to be incorrect.  The treatment of  the lands by the Land Acquisition Officer himself by awarding to them a rate of Rs 92 per cent in these appeals while he  had awarded  the  rate of Rs 70 per cent of lands in  the  other appeals  furnishes the intrinsic evidence that the lands  in question are situated in a better advantageous position than the lands concerned in the other appeals.  When such is  the situation the appellant also is entitled to parity of market value for the acquired lands. 3.   The appeals are accordingly allowed.  The appellant  is entitled  to  30% solatium and 9% interest on  the  enhanced compensation  for  the first year from the  date  of  taking possession and thereafter 15% interest till date of  payment or deposit, whichever is earlier.  No costs. 1  Appeal Nos. 538 of 1987 and 1226 of 1986 182