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

PETITIONER: THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERDHARWARD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. TAJAR HANIFABI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             AND                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11388 OF 1996         [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 200_23 of 1994]                          O R D E R      Impleadment allowed.      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties.      These appeals by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated June 16, 1993 made in  MFA No.  1395 of  1995. The admitted facts are that notification under  Section 4  (1) of  the Land  Acquisition Act, 1894  [for short,  the "Act"] was published on March 7, 1985 acquiring  six acres  of land near Chikodi municipality for industrial  development. The  Land  Acquisition  Officer [LAD]   granted    compensation   on    acrage   basis.   On reference,relying upon  the sale  deed Ex.P-8  in respect of land of  an extent of 40’ x 40’ situated one and a half kms. away from the acquired lands which worked out to Rs.12/- per square foot,  the Civil  Judge enhanced  the compensation to Rs.6/- per square foot which worked out to Rs.2,66,360/- per acre. On  appeal, the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.4.50 per  square foot  which worked  out to Rs.1,96,020/- per acre.      The only  question for  consideration is:  whether  the compensation determined  by the High Court and the reference Court is  in accordance  with law?  It is seen that the sole basis worked  out by  both the  reference Court and the High Court was  Ex.P-8 spoken to by the vendor PW-2 in respect of land of  an extent  of 40’  x 40’  in the  developed area in which case  the compensation  worked out  to Rs.12/-  square foot. Since  six acres  of land was sought to be acquired in two survey  numbers, admeasuring 1.15 gunthas in RS No.407/2 and 4.25  gunthas in  RS No.417/1,  no prudent  and  willing vendee would  offer that rate for purchase of land on square foot  basis.   The  High  Court  and  the  reference  Court, therefore, committed obvious error of law in determining the compensation on  square foot basis relying solely on Ex.P-8.

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

It is  seen that  Ex.P-8 is  in respect of a small extent of land admeasuring  40’ x  40’ situated  at a  distance of 1.5 kms.  within  the  developed  municipal  area.  Under  those circumstances, PW-8 offered no comparable sale.      The question  then is:  what would  be  the  reasonable compensation for  the acquired  lands? Though  the reference Court has  noted that it has a potential value, obviously it is a  wrong finding  given by it. On going through the award of the  Collector we  find, as  specifically stated  by him, that he  had inspected  the lands  on August 11, 1986 before determination of  the compensation;  he found that the lands were cultivated  and certificate  to that  effect  was  also obtained from  the Sub-Tehsildar. Under those circumstances, the finding  that the lands are possessed of potential value is obviously  illegal.  It  is  seen  that  the  respondents themselves had  sold plots  of land  admeasuring 60’  x  40’ which were  part of the acquired lands, in the year 1985 for a sum  of Rs,6,000/- per plot, It would be obvious that this document was  brought in  existence to  inflate  the  market value which  worked out  to Rs.1,89,000/-. From the totality of the  facts, particularly  that the lands are agricultural lands, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.45,000/- per acre would be reasonable compensation for the acquired lands.      The appeals  are accordingly allowed. The claimants are entitled to  solatium under  Section 23  [2] @  30%  of  the enhanced compensation  and interest under Section 28 @ 9% of the enhanced compensation from the date taking possession of the land  for one  year and  thereafter @  15% till  date of deposit into  Court. They  are also  entitled to  additional amount under  Section 23 [1-A] @ 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 [1] till date of award under Section 11 or of taking possession, whichever is earlier. No costs.