M.B. Gopala Krishna & Ors Vs. The Special Deputy Collectors Land Acquisition  INSC 204 (7 February 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.Hansaria B.L. (J)
1996 SCC (3) 594 JT 1996 (3) 595 1996 SCALE (3)132
O R D
have heard learned counsel on both sides. The notification under Section 4 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the "Act"] was
published in the State Gazette on October 9, 1980 acquiring large extent of
land admeasuring 105 acres for defence purposes. The Land Acquisition Officer
[LAO] awarded compensation @ Rs.30/- per square yard by his award dated July 16, 1982. On reference, the civil Court
enhanced the compensation by its award and decree dated March 31, 1986 to a sum of Rs.108/- per square
yard. Being dissatisfied with the award, the respondent filed the appeal. The
claimants also filed their cross objections. the High Court in the impugned
judgment and order dated March 31. 1992 made in CCCA Nos.60-64 of 1986 reduced
the compensation after the deductions to Rs.65/- per square yard in respect of
1 and abutting road and Rs.60/-per square yard in respect of other land.
Thereby, it allowed the appeal of the respondent and dismissed the cross-
objections against the order of the High Court reducing the compensation, these
appeals by special leave have been filed.
Mudgal, l earned counsel for the appellants, firstly contended that the High
Court has committed an error in relying upon another judgment reducing the
compensation to Rs.60/- per square yard wherein the High Court had relied upon
a sale deed Ex.A3. The lands of the appellants admeasure 17 acres and 17 gunthas,
while the lands covered in that appeal were of the extent of 21 acres and 18 gunthas
but all the lands are covered by the common notification.
these circumstances, the High Court with a view to maintain consistency has rel
Red upon a sale deed Ex.A3 produced therein which was accepted in CCCA
No.11/1985 and finally reduced the compensation to Rs.60;- per square yard We
need not go into the correctness of the High Court's relying upon a single sale
deed Ex.A3 in determining compensation at uniform rate since the State did not
come in appeal, Suffice it to state that Rs.60/- per square yard is just and adequate.
further contended by Shri Mudgal that value of the land does not get pegged
down on account of the land being in occupation of a tenant and the
circumstances in this behalf taken into account by the High Court, is
irrelevant. We find no force in the contention. A freehold land and one
burdened with encumbrances do make a big difference in attracting willing
buyers. A freehold land normally commands higher compensation while the land
burdened with encumbrances secures lesser price. The fact of a tenant in
occupation would be an encumbrance and no willing purchaser would willingly
offer the same price as would be offered for a freehold land. Under those
circumstances, the High Court would be right in its conclusion that the land
burdened with encumbrances takes lesser price than the freehold land. The
encumbrances would operate as a disabling factor to peg down the price when we
compare the same with freehold land.
in these perspectives, we hold that the reduction of the compensation from
Rs.108/- to Rs.60 and Rs.65/- per square yard is not unjustified.
are accordingly dismissed. No costs.