REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.     1006        OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21490 of 2004)

Special Land Acquisition Officer …Appellant

Versus

Chandramma (dead) by Lrs. ...Respondents

WITH

Civil Appeal No.  1007    of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.21739/2004 Civil Appeal No.   1008    of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.21738/2004 Civil Appeal No.    1009    of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.21753/2004 Civil Appeal No.     1010  of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.21797/2004 Civil Appeal No.     1011  of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.22973/2004 Civil Appeal No.     1012   of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.22974/2004 Civil Appeal No.      1013   of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23009/2004 Civil Appeal No.       1014   of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23010/2004 Civil Appeal No.        1015  of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23011/2004 Civil Appeal No.        1016   of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23013/2004 Civil Appeal No.         1017  of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23014/2004 Civil Appeal No.    1018   of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23018/2004 Civil Appeal No.    1019    of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23019/2004 Civil Appeal No.     1020    of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23021/2004 Civil Appeal No.      1021    of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23022/2004 Civil Appeal No.     1022      of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23023/2004 Civil Appeal No.      1023    of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23025/2004 Civil Appeal No.     1024     of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23026/2004

Civil Appeal No.      1025     of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23027/2004 Civil Appeal No.       1026    of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23028/2004 Civil Appeal No.      1027     of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23030/2004 Civil Appeal No.       1028    of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23031/2004 Civil Appeal No.        1029     of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23033/2004 Civil Appeal No.      1030     of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23035/2004 Civil Appeal No.      1031    of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23036/2004 Civil Appeal No.       1032    of 2009 @ SLP (C) No.23037/2004 Civil Appeal No.      1033     of 2009 @ SLP (C) No. 638/2005 Civil Appeal No.       1034    of 2009 @ SLP (C) No. 464/2005 Civil Appeal No.        1035     of 2009 @ SLP (C) No. 1694/2007

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge  in  these  appeals  is  to  the  judgment  of  a  learned  Single

Judge of the Karnataka  High Court  dismissing the appeals   filed by the

appellant under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short

the  ‘Act’).  In  all  these  cases  the  judgment  and  award  passed  in  the

concerned land acquisition  case  by learned Principal  Civil  Judge (Senior

Division), Gulbarga, was questioned. The Reference Petition for enhanced

compensation was partly accepted. Before the High Court the stand was that

2

while evaluating the value of the structures no basis was indicated and by

roughly exorbitant estimation amount of compensation was fixed.  The High

Court did not find any substance in the plea and dismissed the appeals.  

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though some amount

of guesswork may be involved there has to be a rational basis indicated for

fixing the quantum. Therefore, when without any discussion and justifiable

data the Reference Court had fixed the amount of compensation in respect

of the structures the High Court should have interfered and, therefore, the

judgment is clearly unsustainable.  

4. Learned counsel for the respondent in each case however submitted

that in some cases involving similar dispute the appellant has not filed any

appeal and therefore these appeal deserve to be dismissed. Additionally, it is

submitted  that  there  was  no  material  before  the  Reference  Court  and

therefore estimation has to be made.   

5. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  referred  to  the  Schedule  of

Rates of Gulbarga specifically referring to various items and the units and

the rates in respect of particular items described in the Schedule. According

3

to  learned  counsel  for  the appellant,  the  same provides  a foundation  for

making a valuation. The Engineer who was examined had in fact referred to

such  documents  but  the  Reference  Court  without  any  basis  or  reasons

discarded the same.  

6. Learned counsel for the respondent in each case however submitted

that  they  may  provide  for  a  foundation,  but  the  valuation  done  by  the

Reference Court  cannot  be called to be arbitrary. When data is  available

from some sources, for example, Schedule of Rates adopted by PWD of a

particular  survey,  that  certainly  provides  a  foundation  for  making  the

valuation. In the instant case that does not appear to have been noticed. In

the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court

and remit the matter to the Reference Court to make the valuation on the

basis of Schedule of Rates of PWD, Gulbarga Circle for the relevant period.

Since the matter is pending since long, the Reference Court would do well

to make the valuation and make fresh award within four months from the

receipt of this order. The amount of interest payable would be consequential

to the determination of the award.  

4

7. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.          

……………………………………J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………………J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, February 13, 2009

5