Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kheda & ANR Vs. Vasudev Chandrashankar
& ANR  INSC 408 (8 April 1997)
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
O R D
E R Delay condoned.
under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on August 14, 1986 acquiring 12 Hectares, 95 are 88
sq, metres of the land for the construction of Ahmedabad-Baroda Express Highway. The land are situated in village Marida,
Tal. Nadiad, District Kheda. Land Acquisition officer awarded compensation in
his award dated 1.4.1987 at the rate of Rs. 250/- per Are. Dissatisfied
therewith, the respondents sought for enhancement and reference was made under
section 18. The learned Assistant District Judge, by his award and decree dated
August 26, 1992, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,500/- per Are which was
affirmed by the High Court in the impugned judgment dated July 4, 1995 in First
Appeal Nos. 1125-1150/95. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
have heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is not necessary to go into
all other documents. Suffice it to state that in another award of the Reference
court under ex.43, relating to the same village, the land was acquired by
notification dated may 3, 1979. The reference Court awarded compensation at the
rate of Rs. 2,100/- per Are. The appellants did not carry in appeal against the
award. Thus, the award become final. The lands in question also situated in the
same village but on different survey numbers. some of the claimants also are
the claimants in the earlier acquisition as well, as stated in the note
appended to the time lag of 8 years, the reference Court awarded compensation
at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per Are.
question, therefore, is: whether the assessment of the compensation made by the
reference court is vitiated by any error of principle of law warranting
interference. It is now settled legal position that the award of the reference
court relating to the same village of the similar land possessed of same
quality of land and potential offer a comparable base for determination of the
compensation. The reference Court also noted in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the
similarities of the lands under acquisition and that they were covered by EX.
43. No doubt, the lands under acquisition are situated at the outskirts of the
village. In the absence of any tangible material brought on record, as regards
the distinctive features of differentiation between the quality of the land
situated, The land , subject matter of Ex.43 and the lands under acquisition Ex.48,
it is difficult to find out whether the reference Court has applied any wrong
principle of law in determination of the compensation. In the light of the
findings recorded by the reference Court in paragraphs 18 and 19 , we think
that, in the absence of any distinct material brought on record, even in
cross-examination of the witnesses, we cannot hazard to conclude that they
offered no comparable value, in particular, when the award earlier has already
attained finality. Under these circumstance, we think that there are no
circumstances warranting interference.
appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.