State of Madras Vs. A. M. Nanjan &
ANR [1976] INSC 23 (9 February 1976)
GOSWAMI, P.K.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
CITATION: 1976 AIR 651 1976 SCR (3) 356 1976
SCC (1) 973
ACT:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section
23-Compensation- Quantum of-Increasing the amount of compensation appreciating
the evidence oral and documentary, the admitted rise of prices of land, the
advantages and facilities of the land with reference to its location etc. is
within the well recognised principles of fixing the compensation and is not
based on speculation or con jecture-Awards for other lands are in the nature of
admission of the Value of the land and admissible in evidence.
HEADNOTE:
In respect of an area of 18.34 acres in
Mulligoor village, Nilgiris District belonging to the respondents and acquired
by the appellant for the purpose of hydro-electric scheme at Kundah in May 1957
the land acquisition officer awarded a compensation of Rs. 500 /- per acre as
against its purchase price of Rs. 230/- per acre in February 1951; but on a
reference the Subordinate Judge raised it to Rs. 1800/- per acre. On appeals by
the Appellant/State and the Respondent/Claimant, while dismissing the State
appeal and partly allowing the respondent's appeal, the High Court of Madras by
its common judgment raised the rate of compensation to Rs. 3000/- per acre.
In the two appeals by certificate, the
appellant State contended (i) that raising the rate of compensation was without
any basis and merely on speculation, (ii) that the rates at which the adjoining
lands were sold for house sites cannot be safe-guides; (iii) that allowing flat
rate of Rs.
3000/- per acre with out due regard to the
quality or classification of the land is bad in principles of fixing
compensation.
Negativing the contentions of the State and
dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: (1) The awards given by the Land
Acquisition Collector are at least relevant material and may be in the nature
of admission with regard to the value of the land on behalf of the State and if
the land involved in the awards is comparable land in the reasonable proximity
of the acquired land, the rates fund in the said documents would be a reliable
material to afford a basis to work upon for determination of the compensation
on a later date. The awards can be taken as safe guides. and are admissible in
evidence for the determination of compensation. [358EF] (2) In the instant
case, from an examination of the evidence and the documents and having regard
to the location, advantages and facilities of the land and the admitted rise of
price of the land between the years 1951 and 1957, it cannot be said that the
High Court either departed from any well recognised principle in determining or
committed an error in raising the amount of compensation.
[359A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 1212 and 1213 of 1968.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 2-5-1960
of the Madras High Court in Appeals Nos. 20 and 61 of 1960.
Lal Narain Sinha, Solicitor General, A. V.
Rangam and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.
M. Natesan and Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan for
Respondents.
357 The Judgment of the Court was delivered
by.
GOSWAMl, J.-The only question that arises for
consideration in these appeals by certificate of the High Court of Judicature
at Madras relates to the quantum of compensation with regard to acquisition of
18.34 acres of land in Mulligoor village, Nilgiris District, belonging to the
respondents. B The land in question was acquired for the purpose of a hydro
electric scheme at Kundah. A Notification under section 4(1) of the 5` Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, was duly published on May 1, 1957. This land was
purchased by the respondents' father by a sale deed (Ext. B-l) of February 22,
1951, for a consideration of Rs. 4218/4/ from the Nilgiris Wattle Plantations
Limited. The rate at which this purchase was made was Rs. 230/- per acre. The
Collector awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre. On a
reference at the instance of the claimants (respondents herein) the Subordinate
Judge raised the compensation to Rs. 1800/- per acre. The State as well as the
claimants appealed to the High Court against the judgment and decree of the
Subordinate Judge. By a common judgment the High Court dismissed the State's
appeal and partly allowed the claimants' appeal by raising the rate of
compensation to Rs. 3000/- per acre. That is how the two appeals are filed by
the State with certificate from the High Court.
The learned Solicitor General appearing on
behalf of the State submits that the High Court erred in law in raising the
rate of compensation without any basis and merely on speculation. He
particularly draws our attention to an observation of the High Court in the
judgment to the effect:
".... the Court has necessarily to
speculate as to how much the value has increased. Sometimes the Court is
obliged to indulge in fair measure of conjecture in regard to the fixation of
values......" However, when we read the entire observation of the High
Court with regard to the aspect of compensation we are unable to hold that the
High Court based the compensation on mere speculation or conjecture. The High
Court has clearly observed that- ".... fortunately in this case-our
decision need not depend upon mere speculation- or conjecture as there are
materials which as far as possible afford a correct basis for fixing the
approximate market value".
The learned Solicitor General next draws our
attention to the various sale deeds produced in the case and took objection to
the High Court's placing undue importance on two awards (Exts. B-l0 and B-ll)
dated September 27, 1956 and March 30, 1957, respectively. According to the
learned Solicitor General these two awards are with regard to land at a place
called Kil Kundah about ten miles from the acquired land and cannot be said to
be comparable land for the purpose of assessment of compensation. According to
the first award 358 (B-10) the rate per acre was Rs. 3000/- and according to
the second one (B-11) the rate awarded was Rs. 5263/- per acre.
He also submits that the Sale deed (Ext. A-7)
of September 27, 1955, which appertains to land in the identical village
Mulligoor and which shows the consideration of Rs. 5000/- for one acre of land
should not have been taken as a guide in view of the fact that the area was
small with a large number of wattle trees and it was a speculative transaction.
There are three other sale deeds which the
High Court took into consideration, namely, Exts. A-8, A-9 and A-l0 which were
transactions between March 1956 and June 1956.
The land involved in these transactions was
situated in Bikatti village about four miles from the acquired land. The
village itself is only 2 to 4 furlongs from Mulligoor. The rate per acre for
these lands in 1956 was Rs. 6000/-. The learned Solicitor General submits that
these lands were sold as house sites and therefore cannot be safe-guides for
the type of the land acquired. The learned Solicitor General also objected to
the flat rate of Rs. 3000/- granted by the High Court without due regard to the
quality or classification of the land. He points out that even in the award
Ext. B-l0 all the lands were not priced at the same rate per acre. The rates
varied from "Rs. 300/- to Rs. 5263/- per acre considering the fertility of
the soil of the fields, their location, importance and registration statistics
.... ". Even so, the Land Acquisition officer fixed the value of the land
at Rs. 3000/-per acre in the said award taking into consideration several sale
deeds. He even fixed Rs. 5000/- per acre for..30 acres of land having regard to
the bona fide sale transaction of a portion of the land covered by the same
survey number.
We are unable to accept the submission that
the awards in question cannot be taken as safe-guides in the matter of
determination of compensation. As a matter of facts these awards given by the
Collector are at least relevant material and may be in the nature of admission
with regard to the value of the land on behalf of the State and if the land
involved in the awards is comparable land in the reasonable proximity of the
acquired land, the rates found in the said documents would be a reliable
material to afford a basis to work upon for determination of the compensation
on a later date. The awards, therefore, cannot be dismissed as inadmissible for
the purpose of determination of the compensation.
Mr. Natesan, learned counsel for the
respondents, has taken us through the evidence of the witnesses examined on
behalf of the appellant and we find from a perusal of the same that the High
Court cannot be said to take an erroneous view when it observed as follows:-
"But witnesses examined on the side of the Government have admitted that
even close to Survey No.
9/1 the acquired land, there are facilities
like bus- stops, shops etc. From the evidence it is fairly clear that Mulligoor
area is not less prominent than Kil- Kundah or Bikatti area Kil-Kundah, Bikatti
and Mulligoor are within short distance 359 of one another and, it would not be
proper to weigh the comparative value of the lands in the locality on delicate
scales. It could reasonably be said that they are all of about equal
value".
We are satisfied after examination of the
evidence and the documents that having regard to the location, advantages and
facilities of the land and to the admitted rise of price of land between the
years 1951 and 1957, it cannot be said that the High Court was far wrong in
raising the compensation to Rs. 3000/- per acre in this case. We are also
satisfied that the High Court has not departed from any well recognised principles
in determining the compensation.
In the result the appeals fail and are
dismissed with one set of costs. C S. R. Appeals dismissed.
Back
