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

PETITIONER: LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,HYDERABAD ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MALE PULLAMMA & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (4)   135        1996 SCALE  (3)341

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             AND                CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5253 OF 1996             [Arising out of SLP Nos.3440 of 1994                             AND                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5252 OF 1996             [Arising out of SLP No.12419 of 1994                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      Notification  under   Section   4   [1]-of   the   Land Acquisition Acts  1894 [for  shorts the  ’Act’] acquiring 89 acres, 37  gunthas of  land situated  in Siddanti village of Shamshabad in  Ranga Reddy  District of  Andhra Pradesh  was published  on  16th  October,  1982.  The  Land  Acquisition Officer  in   his  award   dated  May  13,  1987  determined compensation 9  Rs.20,000/- per  acre. In  addition, he also awarded Rs.  63,616/- towards  the value  of the  structures constructed on  the land in which poultry farms were set up. On reference, the Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District by his award  and decree  dated February  20 1991  enhanced the compensation to  Rs.35,000/- per  acre. In addition, he also awarded Rs.50,000/- more than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer  towards the value of the structures. On appeal, the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  in  A.S. Nos.1176 and  2077 of  1991 by  order  dated  July  8,  1993 enhanced the  compensation to  Rs.14/-per square  yard which worked out  to Rs.67,800/-  per acre  and remitted  the case with regard  to determination  of value  of structures. Thus this appeal by special leave.      Shri Venugopal  Reddy, learned  senior counsel  for the respondents contended that this Court in P. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land  Acquisition Officer,  Urban Development  Authority, Hyderabad &  Ors. (1995)  2 SCC  305],  considering  various factors  in   evaluating  the   market-value,  stated  seven circumstances to  be taken into consideration in determining the compensation.  The High Court accepted the sale instance

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

Ex.A-4 dated  September 8, 1982 which is earlier in point of time than  the date of the notification under which the land was sold  at  Rs.30/-  per  square  yard.  The  High  Court, therefore,  after  giving  deductions  at  53%  towards  the developmental charges  etc. determined  the market  price as Rs.14/-  per   sq.yd.  The  fixation  of  the  market-value, therefore, is  not vitiated  by any  error of  law. He  also contended that  the High  Court has  recorded a finding that the lands  are possessed  of potential value. On that basis, deduction towards further development was given and fixation of the market-value cannot, therefore be said to be illegal.      We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the respondents themselves had admitted during cross examination that the lands were agricultural lands as on the date of the notification. They  had set up a poultry farm it and to that small extent  it was  being used as such. Both the reference Court and  the Land  Acquisition officer  founds as  a fact, that the  lands are  agricultural lands.  The High Court has noted in  the judgment  that some  development  had  already taken place around the area and in the neighborhood there is a railway  station, hospital  and school  etc. On that basis the High  Court has  held that  the lands  had the potential value  for   building  purposes.   The  finding   is  wholly unsustainable on  the basis of the evidence on record. It is seen that  as on  the date  of the notification, admittedly, the land  were being  used for  agricultural purposes  and a part of  the land was used for poultry purposes. Under these circumstances, it  could not be said that the lands have the potentiality to  be used as building sites as on the date of the notification, Sale deed dated September 8, 1982 [Ex.A-4] was executed  just before  the  notification  was  published under Section  4 [1]  in respect  of an extent of 198 square yards of  land which  worked out to Rs.30/- per square yard. By no  stretch of  imagination it  could form the sole basis for determination of the compensation. Ex. A-4 is therefore, rejected  as  no  prudent  purchaser  would  be  willing  to purchase vast  extent of  land on  that basis.  The feats of imagination of  the Division Bench of the High Court had run riot.      When Ex.A-4  is excluded  from consideration,  the only question  that   arises  is:  whether  the  lands  could  be determined as  possessing  building  value  in  hypothetical layout, as  contended by  Shri Venugopal  Reddy. In  P.  Ram Reddy’s case  [supra] the  lands were abutting the developed area in  which  the  building  plots  were  sold  for  those purposes, as  was admitted  by the  Land Acquisition Officer which  was   noted  in   the  judgment.   In  view  of  that development, this  Court had  laid  down  the  criterion  in determining the  market value.  The  ratio  thereof  has  no application to  the facts  in this  case.  The  question  of deduction would  arise only when the lands are found to have potential value  and there is evidence of development in the neighborhood. Facts,  as found  by the  reference Court  and also Land  Acquisition Officer,  clearly indicate that there was no  development in the area or in the neighborhood as on the date of the notification. Under those circumstances, the High Court  was wholly wrong in determining the market-value treating the  acquired lands  as possessing potential value. The next  question is:  what would  be the just and adequate compensation which  the lands  are capable to fetch? In view of the  findings of  the reference  Court that the lands are agricultural  lands,   we  think   that  just   and   proper compensation would  be Rs.40,000/-  per acre. With regard to the value of the structures, the remand order is maintained. The court will determine the same according to law.

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

    The  State   appeals  are   accordingly  allowed.   The claimants’ appeal is dismissed. No costs.