LexINDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH versus T.N. SANIKOP & ANR. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 12 S.C.R. 242 INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. T.N. SANIKOP & ANR. ETC. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 10172-10175 of 2014) NOVEMBER 12, 2014 [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 4, 23, 54 - Land c· acquisition - Compensation enhancement - Acquisition of land measuring 40 guntas for establishment of Medical Research Centre by State Government - Award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10501- per gunta by the Land acquisition Officer which was enhanced to Rs. 7,0001- by the D Reference Court - Land owners seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation payable - High Court enhanced the compensation payable to the land owners from Rs. 70001 - per gunta to Rs. 99, 0001- per gunta being the fair market value of the acquired lands on the date of acquisition along E with the other statutory benefits - Justification of - Held: F Having regard to all the relevant factors, the fair market value - of the land reasonably worked out at Rs. 70,000/- per gunta in place of Rs. 99, 0001- per gunta which is just and reasonable - Thus, the award modified accordingly. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Having regard to the total scenario emerging from the record of the case, such as the location of land, its potentiality, surroundings, the rate at G which the developed small piece of land (4 guntas) in the adjoining area to the acquired lands was sold (Rs. 6,60,0001-) few months prior to the date of acquisition, the condition of the acquired undeveloped lands, the expenditure required to develop the acquired land to start H 242 - INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH v. T.N. 243 SANIKOP the construction for the project for which it was acquired, A percentage of deduction to be made, its proximity' to various places in the town, the fair market value of the respondents' land can reasonably be worked out at Rs. 70,000/- per gunta in place of Rs. 99,000/- per gunta which was determined by the High Court. The High Court was s not right in determining the fair market rate of acquired land at Rs. 99,000/- per gunta but instead it should have determined at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per gunta. [Para 20] [256-B-D] 1.2. The figure of Rs.70,000/- per gunta is arrived at C after applying all relevant factors laid down on the date of acquisition. The rate determined is just, reasonable and represents fair market value of the land in question. Indeed in such cases, one can never come to any exact figure of price of lands because in the very nature of D things. However, courts in such cases always exercise their discretion within the permissible parameters after appreciating the evidence on record and applying relevant legal principles. [Para 21] [256-E-G] 1.3. All other findings of fact recorded by the High Court on the issues are upheld, which are based on proper appreciation of evidence calling no interference in the jurisdiction under Article 136. [Para 22] [257-B] E Chandrashekar (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Land F Acquisition Officer and Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 390: 2011 (15) SCR 414 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2011 (15) SCR 414 Referred to Para 12 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10172-10175 of 2014. G From the Judgment & Order dated 23.03.2007 of th~ High H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 12 S.C.R. A Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFAs No. 5723, 5722, 6332 and 6868 of 2005. B WITH C.A. Nos. 10176-10179 of 2014. Raju Ramachandran, Deepak Yadav, Madhu Sikri, Anitha Shenoy, Neha Singh for the Appellant. Kiran Suri, S.J. Amith, Dr. Vipin Gupta, C.M. Angadi, C Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted. D 2. These appeals arise out of judgment dated 23.03.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA Nos. 5723/2005, 5722/2005, 6332/2005 and 6868/2005 which arise out of award dated 31.03.2005 passed by the Ill Addi. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Belgaum in L.A.C. Nos. 11/1999, 12/ 1999, 13/1999 and 14/1999. E 3. By the impugned judgment/decree, the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the first appeals filed by the respondents herein (land owners) and while modifying the award of the Addi. Civil Judge, Belgaum in respondents' favour F enhanced the quantum of compensation payable to the respondents for their lands which were acquired by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.