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

PETITIONER: RAJASHEKAR SANKAPPA TARADANDI& ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER ANDLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/03/1996

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

CITATION:  JT 1996 (4)   153        1996 SCALE  (3)295

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard the counsel on both sides.      Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1  of 1894  (for short  the ’Act’) acquiring 13 acres 29 gunthas of  land near  Dharwad city  for  extension  of  the A.P.M.C. Yard,  was published on December 20, 1979. The Land Acquisition Officer  in his  award dated  September 23, 1986 determined the  compensation at  the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre. On reference, the civil Court, exhibiting its feats of imagination, and  by award  and decree  dated April 24, 1992 determined the  compensation at the rate of Rs.12.90 per sq. ft., which worked out to Rs.5,61,729/per acre. On appeal, in MFA NO.2455/92 by judgment and order dated March 4, 1994 the Karnataka  High   Court  has  reduced  the  compensation  to Rs.65,000/- per acre. Thus this appeal by special leave.      Shri Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that  the High  Court having  found that the lands are situated  near developed  area and  also in  view of the evidence of  the Commissioner  appointed in  this case,  has committed grievous error of law in reducing the compensation to Rs.65,000/- per acre. We find no force in the contention, The evidence  discloses that  the developed  area was  at  a considerable distance.  The nearest  developed place central bus stand  - is situated at a distance of 1-1/2 to 2.00 k.m. from the  acquired land.  The Commissioner appointed in this case has  stated the  existing features of the year 1992. By the time of his inspection, i.e., between 1979 and 1992 much development had  taken place and, therefore, no reliance was rightly placed on the evidence of the Commissioner. The High Court has  considered the  circumstances that  the lands had potentiality as  non-agricultural land  and that their value has been determined on that basis. After considering all the relevant aspects,  the value  of the lands was determined at the rate of Rs.65,000/- per acre.      It is  settled law  that the  court  has  the  duty  to

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

carefully  evaluate   the   evidence   and   determine   the compensation which  is  just  and  adequate  for  the  lands acquired under  compulsory acquisition.  It is  also settled law that  the court has to sit in the arm chair of a willing purchaser  in   an  open   market  with   prevailing  market conditions as  on the  date of  publication of  Section 4(1) notification and  to determine  whether a willing purchaser, if offered  the lands  in an  open market for sale, would be prepared to purchase the land at the rate at which the court is called  upon to  determine compensation  on the  basis of evidence on  record.  Unfortunately,  the  Civil  Judge  had exhibited, as  stated earlier,  his feats of imagination and determined the compensation at sky-high rate on the basis of three sale deeds, Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10, of which two sale deeds relate to  small extents  of 92 sq. yards and 128 sq. yards. The  High   Court,   therefore,   rightly   determined   the compensation by reducing the value by 10% and fixed at 12.90 per sq. ft. This Court in [AIR 1990 SC 2192 at 2198, para 8] described the  official conduct within the net of misconduct thus:      "In appropriate  cases  it  may  be      open to  draw inferences  even from      judicial acts  of  the  misconduct.      The rule of conduct spurned by this      Court squarely  put the nail on the      official act  as a  refuge  to  fix      arbitrary and  unreasonable  market      value  and   the  person  concerned      shall not  camouflage the  official      act to  a  hidden  conduct  in  the      function  of  fixing  arbitrary  or      unreasonable  compensation  to  the      acquired land."      The  High  Court  has  rightly  rejected  the  approach adopted by  the reference Court. In view of the fact that as on the  date of the notification there was no development in that area,  though the  lands were  capable to be put to non agricultural  use   and  that  Section  24,  clause  fifthly prohibits  taking   into   consideration   of   the   future potentiality   because   of   acquisition   in   determining compensation, the  High Court  rightly  had  determined  the compensation at  Rs.65,000/- per  acre. As the State did not file any  appeal, we  confirm the  High Court order and find no justification to further enhance the market value.      The  appeal  is  accordingly  dismissed,  but,  in  the circumstances, without costs.