IYASAMY & ANR. versus SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LANO ACQUISITION

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 489 · Decided: 30-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 12 S.C.R. 489 
IYASAMY & ANR. 
V. 
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LANO ACQUISITION 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1760-1761 of 2004 etc.) 
SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, 
JJ.] 
A 
B . 
LAND Acau1smoN Acr, 1894 - ss. 4, 23(2) and 23(1A) -
Land acquired -
Compensation awarded -
Quantum of C 
compensation determined by High Court - In some cases 
interest on solatium u/s 23(2) and additional compensation 
u/s 23(1A) were denied - On appeal, held: The quantum of 
compensation determined by High Court is correct- However, 
claimants are entitled to interest on solatium and additional 0 
interest. 
Land of the appellants was acquired under Land· 
Acquisition Act, 1894. Compensation was awarded by· 
Land Acquisition Officer. The Reference Court enhanced 
the compensation and fixed it @ Rs.61- per sq. ft. Appeals 
were preferred before High Court. The High Court 
remanded all the appeals to the Reference Court, except 
one, wherein it fixed the compensation at Rs.6/- per sq. 
E 
F 
ft. However, it rejected the claim of interest on solatium 
u/s 23(2) and additional compensation u/s 23(1A) of the 
Act. The Reference Court, after the remand, fixed the 
compensation at Rs.6/- per sq. ft .. In other remanded 
matters in respect of the neighbouring lands, the 
Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs.13-14/- per 
sq. ft.. In appeal, the High Court reduced the G 
compensation of Rs.13-14 to Rs.6.25 per sq. ft., and in 
respect of other appeals, the compensation fixed at Rs.6/ 
- per sq. ft. by the Reference Court, was upheld. 
Therefore, the instant appeals were filed, questioning the 
489 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A quantum of compensation and also questioning denial of 
interest on solatium and additional compensation. 
Dismissing the appeals questioning the quantum of 
compensation and partly allowing the appeals with 
B respect to interest on solatium and additional 
compensation, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 There is no merit in the instant appeals 
to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded 
by the High Court. The compensation at the rate of Rs. 
C 6/- per sq. ft. is upheld, in respect of the instant lands as 
awarded by the High Court. The High Court by its 
impugned judgment considered Exhibit C3 which is a 
sale deed in which the sale of the adjoining land was 
made at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq ft. If the market value 
D of the land is assessed on the basis of Ext. C3 and 1/3rd 
is deducted towards development charges, it comes 
approximately to Rs. 6.25 per sq ft. As far as Ext. 15, 16 
and 17 are concerned, in those documents, transaction 
were made at the rate 20/- per sq. ft. But the lands 
E pertaining to those sale deeds are lands of better quality, 
and better location with better connectivity. Besides, 
these are small pieces of land compared to a large tract 
of land acquired in the instant case. Therefore, a 
deduction of 65% of land value appears to be just and 
F appropriate. For quality and location of land, if deduction 
is permissible at 1/3rd valuation and for smaller piece of 
land pitted against large tract of land also another 1/3rd 
deduction is permissible, the same would again amount 
to valuation being fixed at Rs. 6/- or Rs. 6.25/-. This 
G amount of compensation was awarded by the High Court 
in respect of acquired neighbouring lands. The 
neighbouring lands have good connectivity, however, 
such advantages are not available to the land in the 
instant case, as the same are landlocked plots. [Paras 6, 
H 8 and 12] [495-H] [496-A] [496-C-E] [498-B] 
IYASAMY & ANR. v. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND 
491 
ACQUISITION 
Smt.Kausalya Devi Bogra and Ors. vs. Land Acquisition 
A 
Officer, Aurangabad and Anr. (1984) 2 SCC 324; Kasturi and 
Ors. v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354 - relied on. 
1.2 There is also other guidance available on record 
to determine the valuation in the form of various awards 
8 
with respect to acquisition of adjoining lands. These. 
awards are important piece of evidence for arriving at the 
market value of the acquired land. [Para 9] (496-G] 
Mohammad Raofuddin vs. Land Acquisition Officer 
(2009) 14 sec 367 - relied on. 
c 
2. As regards the interest on solatium and additional 
compensation, since the impugned order which was 
challenged in the instant appeal, was pronounced prior 
to judgment in Sunder vs. Union of India*, and the instant 
0 
appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, therefore, 
the ratio of Sunder's case would entitl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.