Vs. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition)  INSC 798 (6 December 1995)
K.Ramaswamy, K.Faizan Uddin (J) Kirpal B.N. (J)
JT 1995 (9) 339 1995 SCALE (7)333
O R D
under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act")
acquiring a large extent of land for construction of Vengalarayasagar Project,
West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh, was published on September 20, 1979.
The Land Acquisition Officer in his award had determined compensation at the
rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre for wet land and had also granted value of the
coconut trees. The Subordinate Judge on reference under s.18(1) enhanced the
market value to Rs.22,000/- per acre. He relied upon two sale deeds and Ex.A2,
an agreement of sale dated December 15, 1976, for a large extent of land for a
consideration of Rs.15,000/-. One sale deed was executed under Ex.A3 on September 22, 1978. Another document, Ex. A1 was
executed on the same day for a sum of Rs.19,800/-. It has come on record that
the project was inaugurated on August 28, 1976.
The lower Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.22,000/- per acre relying upon
the above documents.
in another matter, a learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment
dated February 14, 1985 had confirmed the compensation in
respect of neighbouring lands acquired earlier, at Rs.22,000/- per acre. The
Division Bench, however, by the impugned order reduced the compensation to
Rs.20,000/-. Thus this appeal by special leave. Unfortunately, the State has
not come in appeal against the enhanced compensation.
only question is whether the appellant is entitled to compensation @ Rs.22,000/-
per acre. It is seen that when the Project was inaugurated on August 28, 1976, all these documents obviously had
been brought up for inflating the market value. Unfortunately, all these facts
were not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge when he confirmed
the compensation of the land at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per acre. It is settled
law that it is the duty of the court to consider the evidence in proper
perspective and to determine the compensation. In each case, the court sitting
in the arm chair of a * willing purchaser would as a prudent person offer the market
value when the owner offered the land for sale. Once the project was
inaugurated and the lands were acquired, no prudent person would come forward
and purchase the same at higher rates. It may be depressed sales in case of
acute necessity and urgency of the seller for money. Under these circumstances,
we hold that the sale deeds were brought up sales and the enhancement was not
justified. We do not propose to interfere with the matter and cannot also
enhance the market value.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.