Ahmedabad
Municipal Corpn. Vs. Shardaben & Ors [1996] INSC 99 (19 January 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.Nanavati G.T. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (2) 453 1996 SCALE (2)311
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
We
have heard learned counsel for both sides. The notification under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act (Act 1 of 1894) (for short, 'the Act') was
published on September
23, 1980 acquiring a
large extent of land in different survey numbers for laying Ring Road around Ahmedabad City. The Land Acquisition Officer passed three awards relating
to two villages, Wadaj and Memnagar on three different dates, namely, September
29, 1984, December 31, 1985 and September 23, 1986 fixing compensation ranging
between Rs.50-80/- per square meter Dissatisfied therewith, the claimant sought
references under Section 18. The City Civil Court at Ahmedabad by three awards determined the compensation.
In the first award, the civil court enhanced the compensation to Rs.100/- per
square meter and in the next two awards, it confirmed the award of the Land
Acquisition Officer. In other words, he made nil award. On appeal under Section
54 of the Act, the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment
dated August 4/5, 1993 uniformly enhanced the compensation to Rs. 190/- per
square meter. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
Mr.
B.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that the
High Court was wrong in its view. When no specific evidence relatable to
particular survey number of comparable sale had been adduced by the parties,
the High Court was wrong in adopting the average and determining the
compensation on the basis of the average. Though we find force in the
contention of learned counsel for the appellants, one important distinguishing
feature which we have to notice in these appeals is that the acquisition
relates to small strips of lands comprised in different survey numbers cutting
into several lands for the purpose of laying a running Ring Road. In other
words, the acquired land does not consist of a compact block for determination
of compensation in which event the criticism of Shri Mehta would bear relevance
and would need closar scrutiny and examination. The burden is always on the
claimants to prove by adducing reliable evidence that the compensation offered
by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and the lands are capable of
fetching higher market value. It is the duty of the Court to closely scrutinize
the evidence, apply the test of prudent and willing purchaser, i.e., whether he
would be willing to purchase in open and normal market conditions of the
acquired lands and then determine just and adequate compensation.
In
these appeals we find that the claimants have adduced evidence regarding sales
of some lands in the locality. Though the evidence as regards comparability of
those lands with the lands under acquisition was general and not specific, it
could still be relied upon. So also, though the sale instances were of lands
situated near some of the lands acquired only, they could still be relied upon
as acquisition in these cases is of contiguous plots. In the very nature of
acquisition, it would be difficult to find evidence of sale of land identical
with each piece of land acquired. Under these circumstances, the High Court has
looked into the evidence generally and broadly and then determined the
compensation. Though this Court has repeatedly not approved of the principle of
determination of compensation on the basis of average, the conclusion reached
by the High Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases cannot
be said to be unreasonable. Under these circumstances, we do not think that
these appeals call for any interference for further enhancement of the
compensation to reduce the market value.
The
appellant-Corporation is directed to pay the balance amount and interest within
four months from today. Contempt Petition Nos.13-17 of 1995 and I.A.Nos.45-70
are dismissed.
These
appeals and cross-appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
