Rajashekar
Sankappa Taradandi& Ors Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer
& Ors [1996] INSC 401 (15 March 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.Nanavati G.T. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 153 1996 SCALE (3)295
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
We
have heard the counsel on both sides.
Notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 (for short the 'Act')
acquiring 13 acres 29 gunthas of land near Dharwad city for extension of the
A.P.M.C. Yard, was published on December 20, 1979. The Land Acquisition Officer
in his award dated September
23, 1986 determined
the compensation at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per acre. On reference, the civil
Court, exhibiting its feats of imagination, and by award and decree dated April
24, 1992 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.12.90 per sq.ft., which
worked out to Rs.5,61,729/per acre. On appeal, in MFA NO.2455/92 by judgment
and order dated March
4, 1994 the Karnataka
High Court has reduced the compensation to Rs.65,000/- per acre. Thus this
appeal by special leave.
Shri Vidya
Sagar, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the High Court
having found that the lands are situated near developed area and also in view
of the evidence of the Commissioner appointed in this case, has committed
grievous error of law in reducing the compensation to Rs.65,000/- per acre. We
find no force in the contention, The evidence discloses that the developed area
was at a considerable distance. The nearest developed place central bus stand -
is situated at a distance of 1-1/2 to 2.00 k.m. from the acquired land. The
Commissioner appointed in this case has stated the existing features of the
year 1992. By the time of his inspection, i.e., between 1979 and 1992 much
development had taken place and, therefore, no reliance was rightly placed on
the evidence of the Commissioner. The High Court has considered the
circumstances that the lands had potentiality as non-agricultural land and that
their value has been determined on that basis. After considering all the
relevant aspects, the value of the lands was determined at the rate of Rs.65,000/-
per acre.
It is
settled law that the court has the duty to carefully evaluate the evidence and
determine the compensation which is just and adequate for the lands acquired
under compulsory acquisition. It is also settled law that the court has to sit
in the arm chair of a willing purchaser in an open market with prevailing
market conditions as on the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification
and to determine whether a willing purchaser, if offered the lands in an open
market for sale, would be prepared to purchase the land at the rate at which
the court is called upon to determine compensation on the basis of evidence on
record. Unfortunately, the Civil Judge had exhibited, as stated earlier, his
feats of imagination and determined the compensation at sky-high rate on the
basis of three sale deeds, Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10, of which two sale deeds relate to
small extents of 92 sq. yards and 128 sq. yards.
The
High Court, therefore, rightly determined the compensation by reducing the
value by 10% and fixed at 12.90 per sq. ft. This Court in [AIR 1990 SC 2192 at
2198, para 8] described the official conduct within the net of misconduct thus:
"In
appropriate cases it may be open to draw inferences even from judicial acts of
the misconduct.
The
rule of conduct spurned by this Court squarely put the nail on the official act
as a refuge to fix arbitrary and unreasonable market value and the person
concerned shall not camouflage the official act to a hidden conduct in the
function of fixing arbitrary or unreasonable compensation to the acquired
land." The High Court has rightly rejected the approach adopted by the
reference Court. In view of the fact that as on the date of the notification
there was no development in that area, though the lands were capable to be put
to non agricultural use and that Section 24, clause fifthly prohibits taking
into consideration of the future potentiality because of acquisition in
determining compensation, the High Court rightly had determined the
compensation at Rs.65,000/- per acre. As the State did not file any appeal, we
confirm the High Court order and find no justification to further enhance the
market value.
The
appeal is accordingly dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2