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

PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT.  SHANTABHAI & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1995

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

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (2)  28 JT 1995 (2)   537  1995 SCALE  (1)850

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1. A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition  Act, 1894,  (for  short, ’the Act’) was published  in  the  State gazette on September 6, 1974 acquiring 22 acres 63  decimals of  the land situated in Village Rasoolpur of Devdas  Distt. of  M.P.  for  industrial  purpose.   The  Land  Acquisition Officer  in his award dated June 1975 determined the  market value at Rs. 1,500/per acre and given the compensation  with statutory  benefits.  On reference, the Civil Court  by  its award  and  decree  dated  October  22,  1980  enhanced  the compensation to Rs.4,900/- per acre which worked out to  Rs. 1,08,000/- in all.  At this stage it is relevant to  mention that  the respondent herself purchased the  entire  acquired land  under  registered sale deed dated September  4,  1974, just  two  days  earlier  to  the  date  of  publication  of preliminary  notification for a total sum of  Rs.1,08,000/-. The  respondent not being satisfied, carried the  matter  in appeal  to the High Court under s.54 of the Act.   The  High Court, by its impugned judgment in Transfer Appeal No.323/82 dated  November  1, 1983, enhanced the compensation  to  Rs. 10,000/per  acre.  In other words, the High Court awarded  a total compensation of Rs.2,27,000/- with statutory  benefits thereon.   Feeling aggrieved against  enhanced  compensation awarded by the High Court, this appeal by special leave  has been filed. 2. The High Court in our considered view, committed palpable and  manifest error of law in ignoring the sale deed of  the respondent  herself dated September 4, 1974 wherein she  had paid total consideration of a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- for  the acquired  land.  It is contended by learned  senior  counsel for  the respondent that this is an industrial area and  the very  purpose for which acquisition is sought to be made  is for  industrial purpose.  The respondent  herself  purchased the  property  for industrial purpose.  The High  Court  had rightly   taken   into  consideration   those   -facts   and

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

circumstances  and  enhanced the compensation.  We  find  no force  in  the contention- When the respondent  herself  had purchased  the property for the purpose of  establishing  an industry  and got the sale deed registered on  September  4, 1974, it would furnish ipso facto the sole basis for  deter- mination  of  market value of the self same land.   For  the property  purchased  by  paying a consideration  of  of  Rs. 1,08,000/-, no reasonable and prudent buyer, within two days thereafter,  would  purchase  the land by paying  a  sum  of Rs.2,27,000/- as determined by the High Court.  It is  quite unreasonable  and credulous to believe that a prudent  buyer in normal market conditions would agree to pay Rs.1,19,000/- more  within  two  days for the self same  land.   The  High Court,    therefore,   totally   ignored   these    relevant considerations while enhancing the compensation without  ap- Plication of mind on the basis of sale transactions of small bits of other lands.  In V. Salgoacar & Pvt.  Ltd. v.  Union of India (C.A. No.3800/89) dated January 11, 1995 on similar facts,  this  Court affirmed the judgment of High  Court  of Bombay  reversing  the  award of  the  reference  court  and awarded  at the rate purchased by the claimants  itself  The judgment  and  decree of the High Court is,  therefore,  set aside 539 and  that  of  the  Dist.   Judge  is  affirmed.  appeal  is accordingly allowed with costs. 3.   The  cross objections are consequently  dismissed  with costs.