LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPN. ETC. ETC. versus SHARDABEN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 19-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPN. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
SHARDABEN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JANUARY 19, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMAWSAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1984 : 
Sections 4( 1), 18, 54-Award of compensation-Principle of detennina-
C tion of compensation on the basis of average-Generally not to be fol-
/owed-Difficulty i11 finding evidence of sale of land identical with each piece 
of land acquired-High Cowt looking into evidence generally and broadly and 
detennining compe11sation-ln the circumstance of the case, cannot be said 
to be unreasonable. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2950-
E 
2991 of 1996 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4/5.8.93 of the Gujarat High 
Court in F.A. Nos. 291-95, 1579-81, 1644-45, 1955-58, 1961-71/90, 2423, 
2425-28/92 and 371-82 of 1993. 
B.K. Mehta, R.F. Nariman, Prasant Desai, H.S. Parihar, K.S. Pathak, 
Aseem Mehrotra, A.K. Pandey, Anil B. Diwan, Ms. Indu Goswamy, S. 
Sanjannala, M.D. Jha, Vimal Dave, Gopinath Amin, Ms. Usha, S. Reddy, 
Ms. J.S. Wad, Ambrish Kumar, M.V. Goswami, Ms. Meenakshi Arora and 
F 
Ms. H. Wahi for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel for both side. The notification under 
G 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, 
H 1984, December 31, 1985 and September 23, 1986 fixing compensation 
820 
f 
r
) 
( 
AHMEDABADMUNICIPIXL CORPN. v. SHARDABEN 
821 
ranging between Rs. 50-80. per square meter. Dissatisfied therewith, the A 
claimants 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 
metre 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 com-
pensation to Rs. 190 per square metre. Thus, these appeals by special leave. 
B 
Mr. B.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently con-
tended that the High Court was wrong in its view. when no specific C 
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 appel-
lants, one important distinguishing feature which we have to notice in these D 
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 closer 
scrutiny and examination. The burden is always on the claimants to prove E 
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 scruitinise the 
evidence, apply the test of prudent and willing purchaser, i.e., whether he 
would be willing be purchase in open and normal market conditions of the F 
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 G 
., 
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 H 
822 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.