LexK. DEVAKIMMA & ORS. versus TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 759 K. DEVAKIMMA & ORS. v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 5768 of 2006 etc.) APRIL 23, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Acquisition of land - C Compensation for - Determination of - Reference Court awarded compensation by fixing the rate between Rs. 801- to Rs. 1001- per sq. ft. - In appeal by beneficiary ofthe acquisition, High Court reduced the rate to Rs. 301- per sq. ft. - Held: Where there is no evidence of any D contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisition of comparable lads, recourse can be taken in appropriate cases to the mode of determining the market value of the acquired land by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years -The E Reference Court rightly relied on the rates determined by it in relation to adjacent lands acquired in the past years and applied the principle giving escalation - It was all the more because no sale deeds were available due to the statutory F ban imposed bys. 123 of Andhra Pradesh Act- However, the Reference Courlwas not right in fixing varying rates from Rs. 801- to Rs. 1001- - Hence the rate of compensation is fixed at Rs. 901- per sq. ft. - Compensation - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and G Endowments Act, 1987- s. 123. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Recourse can be taken in appropriate 759 H 760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A cases to the mode of determining the market value of the acquired land by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisition of B comparable lands in neighborhood. The percentage of escalation may vary from case to case so also the extent of years to determine the rates. The Reference Court, therefore, rightly relied on the rates determined by it in relation to adjacent lands and applied the C principle of giving escalation to the rates determined yearly and worked out the rates between 801- to 1001- per square feet. It was not in dispute that the public purpose for acquisition of both the lands was the same 0 and secondly, all these lands were in the close proximity with each other being situated in Tirumala. [Paras 25 and 26) [773-B-C, E] General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr. (2008) 14 SCC 7 45: E 2008 (11) SCR 927 & Valliyammal & Anr. Vs. Special Tahsifdar (Land Acquisition) & Anr. (2011) 8 SCC 91: 2011 (11) SCR 293 - relied on. 2. The High Court having rightly held that the F Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam has acquired immense potential due to its pilgrimage status in the country, was not right in holding that its potentiality cannot be taken' · into consideration for holding that the prices of the land are also escalated due to such reason. The escalation G in price of the land which depends upon the nature of land and its surrounding, its benefit should have been given for determining the price of the land in question by taking into account the rate of land fixed by the H Reference Court in relation to land acquired in past K. DEVAKIMMA v. TIRUMALA TIRUPATI 761 DEVASTHANAMS years as was rightly done by the Reference Court. It A was all the more because no sale deeds were available for filing due to peculiar reason that there was a statutory ban imposed by Section 123 of the Andhi'a Pradesh Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987, for sale of private land in the B area in question. It was for this reason, no private sale had taken place of any parcel of land at the relevant time barring one or two. [Para 27] [773-F-G; 774-A-B] 3. The High Court further erred in finding fault in the C orders/awards which were rightly relied on by the Reference Court. The High Court failed to see that they were not hearing the appeals arising out of those orders/ awards to examine their legality or/and correctness which had become final and were also given effect to. D The High Court was required to see as to whether the land involved in those cases was similar to the one which was the subject matter of present proceedings and secondly, what was the rate fixed therein by the Reference Court for the lands. The appellants E (landowners) were, therefore, justified in filing the cop
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.