G. NARAYAN RAO versus THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 584 · Decided: 15-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
G. NARAYAN RAO 
v. 
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 
JULY 15, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1) and23. 
Land Acquisition-Compensation-Principles for determillation 
C of-Factors to be taken into account-Comparable sale-Land adjacent to 
the land acquired-Sale deed-Relia!lce on-Vendor or vendee should be 
examined in proof of the sale-Nature of land and genuineness of document 
should be examined-No reliance should be placed on untested docu-
ments-Evidence of Land Acquisition Officer regarding land sold to public 
auth01ity--Docwnent not made pwt of record-No one examined in proof of 
D the circu111stances in which sale canie to be n1ade-Held such evidence was 
1ightly not accepted for detenniaation of compensation. 
Potential value-Land in question nnlsf possess potential value on the 
date of notification under section 4( 1 )-Development in the neighbourhood 
E and absence of statut01y impediments like obtaining sanction for layout held 
relevant factors--Detennination of co111pensation n1ust be just and adequate. 
17ie Collecto1; Raigmii v. Dr. Hwisingh 17iakur and Anr., AIR (1979) 
SC 472; 17te Teltsildw; Land Acquisitioll Vishaklwpatnam v. Slui P. Nar-
singh Rao & Ors., (1985) 1APW99;Acquisition Office1; Elum & On·.v. Smt. 
F Jasti Rohini and Anr., [1995] 1 SCC 717; P. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land 
Acquisition Offiw; Hyderabad Urban Development Autho1ity, Hyderabad & 
Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 305, referred to. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 12895 of 1996. 
From the .T udgment and Order dated 30.8.95 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in A. NO. 6 of 1987. 
D. Prakash Reddy and Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Petitioner. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
584 
G.N. RAO v. LAND ACQN. OFFJ.CER 
585 
The petitioner questions the correctness of the judgment and order A 
dated August 30, 1995 made in Appeal No. G/87 by the Division Bench of 
Andhra Pradesh High Court, Hyderabad. Petitioner's land in an extent of 
7 acres 25 guntas situated in Nizamabad town was acquired by the Govern-
ment to provide house sites to the poor by publication of the notification 
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act'). 
On September 22, 1976, the petitioner claimed compensation @ Rs. 300 
per sq. yd. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded @ Rs. 30,000 per acre. 
On reference, the Additional District Judge, Nizamabad had enhanced the 
compensation at Rs. 63 per sq. yd, and after deducting 1/3 for development 
charges awarded Rs. 46. per sq. yd. by his award and decree dated June 
25, 1986. The High Court reversed the ·decree and awarded compensation 
@ Rs. 32,000 per acre with additional benefits under Amendment Act 68 
of 1984. Shri Prakash Reddy in his usual thorough preparation and 
vehemence contended that the Division Bench was not right in refusing to 
remit the matter to the Court for fresh trial. As per the law then existing, 
B 
c 
it was not necessary for landlord to examine the witnesses connected with D 
the sale deeds Exhibit A-21 and A-22 relied on and accepted by reference 
Court which were proximate to the point of time and adjacent to the land 
offering comparable rate to award compensation. He also contended that 
the lands are possessed of potential value as building sites since they are 
situated in the municipal limits of Nizamabad. The potential value should 
be considered and market value determined on that basis. He further 
contended that the Land Acquisition Officer had himself admitted in his 
evidence that a small sale deed to an extent of 200 sq. yd. sold to statutory 
bodies had secured a rate worked out at Rs. 47 per sq. yd. That would 
provide basis to determine the market value after due deduction. At any 
rate, as requested for in the High Court, the High Court would have 
remitted the matter for decision afresh. Having given our due consideration 
to the forceful contentions of the counsel, we find no merit in any one of 
the contentions. 
E 
F 
It is seen that, admittedly, neither the vendor nor the vendee of the 
sale deeds, Exhibit A-21 and A-22 was examined. It is settled law from the G 
decisions of this Court starting from The Collector, Raigarh v. Dr. Harisingh 
Thakur and Anr., AIR (1979) SC 472 and that of the A.P. High Court in 
77ie Tehsi/dar, Land Acquisition Vishakhapatanam v. Shri P. Narsingh Rao 
& Ors., (1985) 1 APLJ 99 that either the vendor or the vendce s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.