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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7678-7683 of 1997

PETITIONER: V.Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) By L.Rs.                       

RESPONDENT: The Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal R. Officer          

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/12/2003

BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA &  H.K. SEMA.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

SEMA,J.

       Parties are heard.  

On 30.9.1985, a chunk of land measuring 5 acres 39 cents  in Survey  no.386 of Pebbair Village, Mahaboob Nagar District, Andhra Pradesh, was  acquired by a draft Notification dated 30.9.85 under Section 4(1) of the Land  Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ’The Act’) for providing house-sites to the  poor.   Section 17(4)  Notification, by invoking urgency clause by which the  enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, was also issued.  Possession of the land was taken over on 10.3.1986.  Earlier draft  Notification, having lapsed, led to a fresh Section 4(1) Notification dated  28.2.1990. On 28.3.1991, the Land Acquisition Officer after holding an  enquiry fixed the market value of the land at Rs.45,000/- per acre, equivalent  to Rs.10/- per square yard.   Aggrieved by the Award, the claimants made a  reference application under Section 18 of the Act.  The learned Civil Judge  by its order dated 28.4.1992 determined the market value of the land at  Rs.78/- per square yard and after allowing deduction of 1/4th  of the acquired  area, which was required for developmental purposes, arrived at Rs.58/- per  square yard as net payable.   The Reference Court also awarded additional  amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act @ 12% per annum from the date of  subsequent publication of Section 4(1) Notification i.e. 28.2.1990 to the date  of Award i.e. 28.3.1991 and solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum  for one year from the date of taking possession i.e. 10.3.1986 to 9.3.1987  and @ 15% per annum from 10.3.1987 to the date of the Award i.e.  28.3.1991 along with costs.    Aggrieved by the Award of the Reference  Court, two sets of appeals were filed before the High Court  -  one by the  claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation from Rs.58/- to Rs.80/-  per square yard; and the other filed by the Land Acquisition Officer assailing  the enhancement.  Both sets of appeals were disposed of by the High Court  by a common order on 17.12.1996 allowing the appeals filed by the Land  Acquisition Officer and dismissing the appeals filed by the claimants.  In the  said order the High Court fixed the market value of the acquired land @  Rs.30/- per square yard.  The High Court also allowed  solatium @ 30% and  interest @ 9% for one year from 10.3.1986 to 9.3.1987 and @ 15% from  10.3.1987 till the date of payment.  The High Court held that the claimants  were not entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1-A) from the date  of Notification under Section 4(1) i.e. from 28.2.1990 upto the date of  Award dated 28.3.1991.  Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present  appeals have been preferred by the claimants.   Before the Reference Court, the claimants adduced evidence and  exhibited documents, which are sale instances of comparable land.  The  claimants also admitted that the land so acquired is about hundred yards  away from the National Highway No.7.  It is also the case of the claimants  that there are houses, shops, two petrol bunks and hotels on the north, south

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

and west of the acquired land.  While interfering with the enhancement of  the compensation made by the Reference Court, the High Court held that the  Reference Court accepted the sale instances of comparable land without  discussing and without assigning any reasons.  The Reference Court relied  on the Exhibit X-1, which is a certified copy of the Award dated 21.7.1989  made by the Assistant Collector relating to the acquisition of land bearing  Survey No.1071/2 measuring 2 acres and 5 guntas situated in Pebbair village  for construction of  APSRTC bus stand for which the draft Notification  under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 23.7.1987.   The land so acquired by the aforesaid Notification was admittedly abutting  the National Highway No.7.  Since the land for which the Award has been  made by Exhibit X-1 is abutting the National Highway No.7, such Award  cannot be comparable with the land acquired, which is admittedly away  from the National Highway about 100 yards.                     The claimants examined PWs 1,2 and 9 and also tendered documents - Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-18 and A-19.  PW-1 deposed that village Pebbair is  situated on National Highway No.7 between Hyderabad and Kurnool.  He  also stated that the acquired land bearing Survey No.386 and the National  Highway no.7 are intervened by a petrol bunk and the premises of State  Bank of India.  He further stated that the acquired land is about 100 yards  away from the National Highway no.7.  PW-2 deposed that Exhibit A-1  dated 12.1.1985 was sanctioned by the Sarpanch of Pebbair village for  converting the land into house sites.  He also stated that the acquired land is  at a distance of 100 yards from Nethaji’s statute and one furlong away from  National Highway no.7.  PW-9 also deposed in the same way.  RW-1, in  cross-examination, admitted that the acquired land is at a distance of one  furlong from Nethaji’s statute.  Evidence of all the PWs would also reveal  that there is developmental activity only on Kurnool side and there is no  such developmental activity on Hyderabad side.  Exhibit A-18 is the plan  showing the acquired land and the surrounding Survey numbers.  It  corroborates the statements of the witnesses that the distance from Nethaji’s  statute to the acquired land would be about one furlong.  It is also clear that  Survey no.390 is in between National Highway No.7 and the acquired land  which is Survey no.386.           For the enhancement of market value of the land acquired, the  claimants relied on sale instances of comparable land Exhibits A-4, A-14  and A-15. Exhibit A-4 is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 14.9.1987  which shows the land measuring 133.33 square yards in Survey No.391 was  sold for Rs.20,000/- which works out to Rs.150/- per square yard.  PW-4  deposed that he sold the land in 1987 for a consideration of Rs.20,000/-.  It  will be seen from Exhibit A-19 (Map) that Survey no.391 is abutting the  National Highway no.7.  The land acquired is at a distance of one furlong  from the National Highway no.7.  Therefore, by no stretch of imagination  the sale instance of Exhibit A-4 can be taken as comparable land with the  present land acquired.   It is now well established principle of law that the  land abutting the National Highway will fetch far more higher price than the  land lying interior.   Exhibit A-14 is a certified copy of the sale deed dated  22.11.1991.  The sale instances at Exhibits A-14 and A-15 are with regard to  the sale deed in Survey No.1070.  In both the Exhibits -  A-14 and A-15, the  land so sold was abutting the National Highway No.7.  So also, the sale  instances of the land at Exhibits A-13 and A-16 were abutting the National  Highway no.7.   The sale instances at Exhibits A-7, A-8, A-10 and A-11 are  also filed by the claimants.  The transactions were effected few months prior  to the present draft Notification.  It is an admitted fact that the plots covered  under Exhs. A-7 and A-11 were not abutting the National Highway No. 7.   Ex. A-8 is the sale deed dated 2.2.1989 where a plot measuring 277.7 sq.  yards, in Survey No. 1069, was sold at the rate of Rs. 45/- per sq. yards,  which was abutting the National Highway No. 7, but the plot sold was not  abutting the National Highway.  In other words,  Survey No. 1069 was  abutting the National Highway but the plot so sold under the sale deed was  not abutting the National Highway.    In all those sale transactions the  consideration amount works up to Rs.45/- per square yard.                 The High Court, in our view, therefore, was right in taking the sale  instances of Exhibits A-7, A-8, A-10 and A-11 at the rate of Rs.45/- per  square yard, as the basis for the determination of market value of the

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

acquired land.   After making 1/3rd deduction on account of laying out of  roads and for other developmental purposes, the High Court has worked out  the value of the acquired land at Rs.30/- per square yard.  In the facts and  circumstances stated above, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion  reached at by the High Court.           It is contended by Dr.Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the  appellants that the land so acquired has high potentialities. The National  Highway no.7 is being intervened by the petrol bunk and the premises of the  State Bank of India.  There are houses, shops and hotels on the north, south  and west of the acquired land.  The developmental activities are towards  Kurnool where the land at Survey No. 386 has been acquired.  The learned  Senior counsel, therefore, urged that the sale instances relied upon by the  Reference Court ought not to have been disturbed by the High Court.     We  are unable to sustain this submission of the counsel.  The land may be  having high potentialities or it may be proximate to the developed land, but  that itself would be no ground for not deducting the developmental charges.    This Court in a recent judgment reported in Kasturi and others  vs.  State of  Haryana,  (2003) 1 SCC 354, held that it is well settled that in respect of  agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing  or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be  deducted  out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land  subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of  expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and  other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for  residential or commercial purposes.  This Court also pointed out that there is  difference between a developed area and an area having potential value,  which is yet to be developed.  It was further pointed out that the land is  developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every  land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or  plot.  The facts of the present case are exactly the same as the situation in  which this Court has made the above observation.   In the present case, the  undisputed facts on record would show that the acquired land with National  Highway no. 7 is intervened by a petrol bunk and the premises of the State  Bank of India.  There are also houses, shops and hotels on the north, south  and west of the acquired land.  The acquired land is also about 100 yards  away from the National Highway no.7.  No doubt, the acquired land may be  having high potential value but that itself per se cannot be claimed to be a  developed land.  Lots of developmental activities are to be undertaken like  laying of roads, sewerage facility, water supply etc. so that the land would  be made fit for construction of houses for the needy people, which would  require enormous amount of expenditure.    We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the High  Court, which would warrant our interference.  These appeals are,  accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.