LexHOOKIYAR SINGH ETC. ETC. versus SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MORADABAD AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c HOOKIYAR SINGH ETC. ETC. v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MORADABAD AND ANR. MARCH 14, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 24 Clause Fifthly. Land Acquisition-Determination of market value---l'dnciples of-Court should not indulge in feats of imaginati01t-Burden of proof of proving the market value-Lies on the claimant-Claimant required to refund the difference of of compensation amount-Held not a ground for confinna- D tion of amount detennined by Courts below-Future potentiality of land cannot be taken into account while detemiining contpensation. Land Acquisition-Compensation-Land Acquisition Officer class- ifying the land and accepting the sale deed awarding highest rate of Rs. 15,500 per acre-Reference Court enhancing compensation to Rs. 40, 000 per E acre-High Court accepted the sale deed and increased the market value to Rs. 50, 000 per acre on the ground that oral evidence of claimant revealed that they had paid much more than reflected in sale deed-Appeals against enhanced compensation-Sale deeds found not reflective of true and matket value-Keeping in view the facts that al/ lands were agdcultural claimants held F entitled to market value @ Rs. 35,000 per acre. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6821 of 1996 Etc. Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.95 of the Allahabad High G Court in F.A. No. 547 of 1990. S.B. Sanyal, R.D. Upadyay, for the appellants. Manoj Swarup and Mrs. Lalitha Kohli for the Respondents. H The following Order of the Court was delivered : 422 t ( HOOKJYAR v. SPL. LAND ACQN. OFFICER 423 Substitution allowed. A " ~ Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') acquiring an extent of 171.46 acres of Land situated in village Tigarea Bhoor, Tehsil Hansanpur, District Moradabad for Public B purpose, viz, UPSIDC, was published on September 28, 1981. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) classified the lands into several categories and accepting the sale deed, item 51, determined compensation at the highest rate of Rs. 15,500 and gradually reduced the Market value basing upon the classification. On reference under Section 18, the District Judge by his c award and decree dated May 22, 1989 increased the compensation to Rs . • 40,000 per acre Dissatisfied with the determination of the compensation, the claimants as well as the State filed appeals in the High Court. As seen, the High Court proceeded on the premise that the clas- sification of the lands was not warranted, the entire land commands same D value and that, therefore, uniform rate of market value is required to be adopted in determining the compensation. The High Court had accepted the sale deed relied on by the LAO and ou that basis it increased the market value by five times, holding that in the oral evidence of the claimants they had stated that they paid n;iuch more than what was E reflected as consideration in the sale deed and that there was no cross- examination in that behalf. It fixed the market value at Rs. 62,500 and ultimately determined the compensation ·in respect of all lands at Rs. 50,000 per acre. Thus these appeals by claimants and the State as well as the UPSIDC. F The question for consideration is : what is the just and adequate compensation to which the lands would command determination? We accept the finding of the High 'Court as the State did not seriously dispute in the High 'court that all the lands are of equal value and, therefore, compensation should be determined uniformly in respect of all lands. It is G seen that the market value of the lands varies from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 49,500 -~ per acre. But the sale deeds are of small extents of land. Only one sale deed in which large extent of land, i.e., one acre and odd was sold, appears -- to be related to one of the claimants and part of the transfer was in favour of his wife. The civil Court also pointed out that those lands are abutting the national highway and that they do not command the same market value H 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 3 S.C.R. A as the lands under acquisition. In view of those facts, we cannot accept the sale deed to be reflective of the true and genuine market value. But the ~ • fact remains that the LAO himself had adopted the highest rate of Rs. 15,500 and the H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.