Supreme Court of India
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS. versus N. SAVITHA on 22 March 2022
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.
v.
N. SAVITHA
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2052-2053 of 2022)
MARCH 22, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Compensation – Determinationof – s.4 Notification issued in the year 2008 for acquisition of landfor improvement of Bird Sanctuary– Award of compensation –Dissatisfied with quantum of compensation, land- owner filed appealbefore High Court – Land-owner relied upon document (Ex.P.17)by which for the land acquired in the year 2011, the amount ofcompensation was awarded @ Rs.60 lakhs per acre – Mainly relyingon Ex P.17 and thereafter on “guesswork” by impugned judgment,High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.40 Lakhsper acre – Aggrieved State filed instant appeal – Held: AwardEx.P.17, which was relied upon by the High Court was for theacquisition subsequent to the land acquired in the instant case, i.e.after a period of three years and, therefore, High Court ought notto have relied upon the same while determining the market price ofthe land acquired in 2008 – Moreover, Ex.P.17 was a consent award– The consent award ought not to have been relied upon and/orconsidered for determining the compensation in case of anotheracquisition – Even otherwise, High Court determined thecompensation relying upon Ex.P.17 mechanically – High Court didnot at all consider whether the lands acquired in the instant casewas similarly situated to the lands acquired in the case of Ex.P.17 –Matter remanded to High Court to decide the first appeals afresh inaccordance with law and on their own merits and thereafter todetermine the market price/compensation.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Comparable sales – There maybe different market prices/compensation with respect to differentlands, may be in the same village and/or nearby location – Theland, which is on a prime location and which is on the highwayand/or at a proximity to a highway may have a different marketprice than the land which is situated in a different location/interior
807
A
B
CDEF
G
H
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
Aof the village and which might not have a good potential fordevelopment.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court,the Court HELD: 1. The award – Ex.P.17 was a consent award andBwas in respect of the property acquired in the year 2011 and whichwas acquired for a different purpose, namely, for formation ofdouble line railway broad gauge between Bengaluru and MysoreCity. But in this case, Section 4 notification was issued in theyear 2008, i.e., three years before the land acquired in the caseCof Ex.P.17. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have reliedupon the same while determining the market price of the landacquired in 2008 considering the market price determined forthe lands acquired in the year 2011 and on the basis of some“guesswork”. [Para 4][810-F-H; 811-A]
D2. Even otherwise, Ex.P.17 was a consent award. Theconsent award ought not to have been relied upon and/orconsidered for the purpose of determining the compensation incase of another acquisition. In case of a consent award, one isrequired to consider the circumstances under which the consentaward was passed and the parties agreed to accept theEcompensation at a particular rate. In a given case, due to urgentrequirement, the acquiring body and/or the beneficiary of theacquisition may agree to give a particular compensation.Therefore, a consent award cannot be the basis to award and/ordetermine the compensation in other acquisition, moreFparticularly, when there are other evidences on record. Therefore,the High Court erred in determining the compensation @ Rs.40lakhs per acre relying upon the award – Ex.P.17 in respect of theland which was for the lands acquired in the year 2011.[Para 5][811-B-D]
G3. Even otherwise, the High Court determined thecompensation relying upon Ex.P.17 mechanically. The High Courtdid not at all consider whether the lands acquired in the presentcase was similarly situated to the lands acquired in the case ofEx.P.17. As per the settled position of law, there may be differentmarket prices/compensation with respect to different lands, mayH
be in the same village and/or nearby location. The land, which ison a prime location and which is on the highway and/or at aproximity to a highway may have a different market price thanthe land which is situated in a different location/interior of thevillage and which might not have a good potential fordevelopment. Therefore, also, the High Court committed a graveerror in solely relying upon Ex.P.17 to determine the marketvalue of the lands in the instant case. [Para 6][811-D-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2052-2053 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2021 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bengaluru in Misc. First Appeal No.7954 of 2014 (LAC)c/w Misc. First Appeal No.6429 of 2015 (LAC).
Nikhil Goel, AAG, Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Rakshit Jain,Vishal Banshal, Advs. for the Appellants.
Shanthkumar V. Mahale, P. Mahesh, Rajesh Mahale, Advs. forthe Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru inMiscellaneous First Appeal No.7954 of 2014 (LAC) and MiscellaneousFirst Appeal No. 6429 of 2015 (LAC) by which the High Court hasallowed the Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7954 of 2014 (LAC)preferred by the respondent herein – original claimant – originallandowner and has enhanced the amount of compensation in respect ofthe acquired land to Rs. 40 lakhs per acre and consequently has dismissedthe Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 6429 of 2015 (LAC) preferred bythe State, the State has preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are asunder:- 2.1 That the land of the respondent herein – original landowner –claimant situated at Bechark Revenue Village, Belagola Hobli,Srirangapattana was acquired by the appellants for a public purpose –
AB
C
D
EF
G
H
Afor improvement of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary. A notification underSection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued/published on 24.11.2008,which was followed by notification under Section 6 in the year 2009.The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 10.07.2010 fixing themarket value of the acquired land @ Rs.21,488/- per guntha. TheReference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.30,49,200/B- per acre, i.e., Rs.76,230/- per guntha.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and awardpassed by the Reference Court in determining the market price atRs.30,49,200/- per acre (Rs.76,230/- per guntha), the original claimantpreferred first appeal before the High Court and requested to enhanceCthe amount of compensation. Before the High Court, the original claimantheavily relied upon a document produced as Ex.P.17 – by which for thelands acquired in the year 2011 the amount of compensation was awarded@ Rs.60 lakhs per acre. Mainly relying on Ex.P.17 and thereafter on“guesswork”, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court hasDenhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.40 lakhs per acre with allconsequential statutory benefits.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court in enhancing the amount ofcompensation to Rs.40 lakhs per acre solely relying upon Ex.P.17 andEon “guesswork”, the State has preferred the present appeals.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length.
4. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in disputethat while enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.40 lakhs perFacre, the High Court has heavily relied upon Ex.P.17 – by which inrespect of the lands acquired in the year 2011 the compensation wasawarded @ Rs.60 lakhs per acre. However, it is required to be notedthat the award – Ex.P.17 was a consent award and was in respect ofthe property acquired in the year 2011 and which was acquired for adifferent purpose, namely, for formation of double line railway broadGgauge between Bengaluru and Mysore City. But in the present case,Section 4 notification has been issued in the year 2008, i.e., three yearsbefore the land acquired in the case of Ex.P.17. Therefore, the award –Ex.P.17, which has been relied upon by the High Court is for the acquisitionsubsequent to the land acquired in the present case, i.e., after a period ofHthree years and therefore the High Court ought not to have relied upon the same while determining the market price of the land acquiredin 2008considering the market price determined for the lands acquired in theyear 2011 and on the basis of some “guesswork”.
5. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that Ex.P.17 is aconsent award. Therefore, the consent award ought not to have beenrelied upon and/or considered for the purpose of determining thecompensation in case of another acquisition. In case of a consentaward,one is required to consider the circumstances under which the consentaward was passed and the parties agreed to accept the compensation ata particular rate. In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the acquiringbody and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition may agree to give aparticular compensation. Therefore, a consent award cannot be the basisto award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, moreparticularly, when there are other evidences on record. Therefore, theHigh Court has erred in determining the compensation @ Rs.40lakhsper acre relying upon the award – Ex.P.17 in respect of the land whichwas for the lands acquired in the year 2011.
6. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the presentcase, the High Court has determined the compensation relying uponEx.P.17 mechanically. The High Court has not at all considered whetherthe lands acquired in the present case is similarly situated to the landsacquired in the case of Ex.P.17. As per the settled position of law, theremay be different market prices/compensation with respect to differentlands, may be in the same village and/or nearby location. The land, whichis on a prime location and which is on the highway and/or at a proximityto a highway may have a different market price than the land which issituated in a different location/interior of the village and which might nothave a good potential for development. Therefore, also, the High Courthas committed a grave error in solely relying upon Ex.P.17 to determinethe market value of the lands in the instant case.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court determining thecompensation @Rs.40 lakhs per acre relying upon Ex.P.17 isunsustainable. However, at the same time, considering the fact that therewere other documentary evidences on record, which ought to have beenconsidered by the High Court, we deem it appropriate to remand thematter to the High Court to decide the first appeals afresh in accordancewith law and on merits and to determinethe market price/compensationconsidering the other evidences on record, if any.
A
BC
D
E
F
G
H
A
BC
D
E
F
G
H
A7.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Courtin Miscellaneous First AppealNo.7954 of2014 (LAC) andMiscellaneous FirstAppeal No. 6429 of 2015 (LAC)determining thecompensation @ Rs.40 lakhs per acre relying upon Ex.P.17 are herebyquashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court toBdecide the first appeals afresh in accordance with law and on their ownmerits and thereafter to determine the market price/compensationconsidering the other material/evidences on record (other than Ex.P.17,which as observed hereinabove, cannot be said to be comparable). Theaforesaid exercise be completed by the High Court within a period ofCthree months from the date of the receipt of the present order.
Both the appeals are allowed accordingly to the aforesaid extent.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
D
Devika Gujral
Appeals allowed.
E
F
G
H