G.M., O.N.G.C. LTD versus SENDHABHAI VASTRAM PATEL AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 08-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G.M., 0.N.G.C. LTD. 
v. 
SENDHABHAI VASTRAM PATEL AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 2005 
[ASHOK BHAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 54-State Government acquired 
the land for the appellant-Held, the appellant was a person aggrieved and 
appeal was maintainable at its instance. 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 2 3-Compensation, determination 
of-Respondent's land acquired by the government-Land Acquisition 
Collector taking into account deeds of sale fixed market value of the land 
at Rs. 1.50 per sq. m.-Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. JO 
relying solely on the basis of testimony of witness ignoring the deeds of sale 
produced before the LAC and on awards made in certain earlier cases which 
had not attained finality-Appellant's appeal to the High Court dismissed-
Held, High Court was not correct in dismissing the appeal-Best method 
would be the amount as may be evidenced by the deeds of sale-However, 
the Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 as financial 
implications of the present matters involved only a few thousand rupees in 
each case. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 136, 32, 226 & 142-Discretionary 
jurisdiction, scope of interference-Compensation for land acquisition-
He/d, equity jurisdiction under Aticles 32, 226, & 136 may not be exercised 
in appropriate cases-Despite the High Court order confirming enhancement 
of compensation by Reference Court being improper, no interference by the 
Supreme Court warranted where financial implication involved only a small 
amount. 
G 
Respondent's land was acquired by the state. Land Acquisition 
Collector fixed the rate ofcor;.pensation at Rs.1.50 per sq. m. on the basis 
of deeds of sale. Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs.IO per sq. m. 
relying solely on the testimony of a witness and on awards made in certain 
earlier cases. Appeal to Higl1 Court was dismissed thereby confirming 
H 
enhancement. Hence the present appeal. 
448 
G.M., O.N.G.C. LTD. v. S.V. PATEL 
449 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In determining the amount of compensation, the 
Reference Court and the High Court was bound to take into consideration 
the well-settled principles of law and the factors enumerated in section 
23 of the Land Acquisition Act. [454-E-F] 
1.2. While determining the amount of compensation payable in 
respect of the lands acquired by the state, indisputably, the market value 
therefor has to be ascertained. Although; there exists different modes for 
arriving at market value for the land acquired, the best method would 
be the amount which a willing purchaser of the land would pay to the 
owner of the land as may be evidenced by deeds of sale. In the absence 
of any direct evidence on the said point, the court may take recourse to 
other methods, viz., judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition 
of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a 
judgment and award in absence of any other evidence, however, would 
A 
B 
c 
have only evidentiary value. The Reference Court has to apply the 
D 
comparable sales method to be appreciated upon considering the question 
as to whether acquired land is similar to any land sold in the vicinity. 
[452-G-H; 453-A-B] 
1.3. In the opinion of Court, the Reference Court committed a 
serious error in passing the judgment solely relying on the basis of the 
testimony of a witness ignoring the deeds of sale which were produced 
before the Land Acquisition Collector. If the Referen"ce Court intended 
to differ with the opinion of the Land Acquisition Collector, it was bound 
to assign sufficient and cogent reasons therefor. [454-C-D] 
Shoji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., [2001] 7 SCC 650; 
P. Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, [ 1995] 2 SCC 305 and 
Panna Lal Ghosh v. Land Acquisition Collector, [2004] I SCC 467, relied 
on. 
E 
F 
2. Instances of sale in respect of the similar land situated in the same 
G 
village and/or neighbouring villages should have been taken as guiding 
factors by the Reference Judge as also by theHigh Court. In absenceofany 
better evidence, the Reference Judge as also the High Court could have 
made addition in the sale prices for the land as evidenced by the said deeds 
of sales. The High Court was not correct in dismissing the first appeal 
H 
450 
SUPREME COURT REPOP.TS [2005) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
preferred by the Appellants. Despite the findings aforementioned, these 
are not fit cases

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