G. RAMESAN versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 31-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

O. RAMESAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
MARCH 31, 1997 
. [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
B 
. Kera/a Land Acquisition Act, 1860: Sections 3(1) and 18. 
Land acquisitio11--Detem1ination of compensation-Adopting being 
procedure-Validity of-Land acquired for construction of Kera/a Road C 
Transpo1t Corporation Depot-Award of compensation for-Classification of 
land into two categories by High Court-First category abutting the 
roa~Second category was low lying area below one meter to the first category 
of lan~Award of lesser compensation for second category of land-Held 
depending upon the nature of the land and the location thereof, the belting 
procedure could be adopted 011 the principle that no willing buyer in an open D . 
market would be prepared to purchase the lands abutting the road and the 
lands beneath the ·road being a low lying area at the same rat~High Court 
has rightly adopted the belting system in detennining the compensation for 
the reason that no willing prndent buyer in the open market would off er the 
same rate for two types of lands-Rejection of co11te11tio11 that at best tlie E 
expenses to be incurred for filling up of one metre depth of the area is required 
to be deducted for detennination of the compensation on par with· the lands 
abutting the main road-High Court has not committed any error of principle 
of law warranting inte1f erence. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2669 of F 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.96 of the Kerala High 
Court in L.A.A. No. 414 of 1986. 
. 
' 
T.L.V. Iyer· and K.M.K. Nair for the Appellant. 
G 
G. Prakash for the Respondent No. 1. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
H 
453 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the Kerala High Court, made on January 22, 1996 in L.AA. No. 
414/86. 
Notification under Section 3 (1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 
B 1960 was published on March 26, 1976, acquiring 17 acres of land in 
Tampanoor which is part of the Trivandrum city, for construction of the 
Kerala Road Transport Corporation Depot. One acre is equivalent to 2.47 
cents. Possession was taken on August 6, 1976. The award was made on 
the said date and the sum of Rs. 8,250 per cent was determined by the 
C Land Acquisition Officer. On reference, under Section 18, the Civil Court 
by award and decree dated July 21, 1986 enhanced the compensation to 
Rs. 25,000 per· cent. On appeal, the learned Judges made two categories 
of land. The first category consisted of 9 .54 acres abutting the road, and 
another 7.60 acres interior to the lands covered by the first category, which 
is low!ying area below one metre to the first category land. Consequently, 
D they determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 61,750 per acre for 
the lands a abutting the main road and Rs. 43,035 per acre for the low-lying 
lands. To that extent, the learned Judges reversed the decree and award 
of the reference Court. As against the reversal in respect of the low-lying 
land this appeal has come to be filed. 
E 
Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant, contends 
that the distinction made by the Division Bench between two belts of land 
is not correct in law. The belting procedure adopted by this Court relates 
only to large extents of lands. But the land in question being of a small 
p extent and situated in the heart of the to\vn, the belting principle is not 
valid in law. We find no force in the contention. It is settled legal position 
that depending upon the nature of the land and the location thereof, the 
belting procedure could be adopted on the principle that no willing buyer 
in an open market would prepare to purchase that lands abutting the road 
and the lands beneath the road being a low lying area at the same rate. 
G Under these circumstances, the Court sitting in the arm chair of a willing 
purchaser would always orders itself the above question and determine the 
proper and correct market value. The learned Judges, therefore, rightly 
have adopted the belting system in determinin11 the i:ompensation for the 
reason that no willing prudent buyer in the open market would offer the 
H same rate for two types of lands. 
G.RAMESANv. STATE 
455 
Shri Iyer contends that at best expenses to be incurred for filling up A 
of one meter depth of the area is req

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