LexKARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD versus K.S. GANGADHARAPPA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 250
A
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE
BOARD
v.
K.S. GANGADHARAPPA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2547-2553 of 2009)
B
APRIL 15, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
•
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
c
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 23, 24 and 25 -
Compensation for land acquisition - Value of the potentiality
of the land acquired - Determination of - Held : Generally
\•
rates fixed for small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of
rate for large area - But when there is no material available,
0 such comp.9rison can be done by the court - However, in
such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be
made - While determining potentiality there is bound to be
some guess work - Market value has a definite concept and
cannot be EWaluated without any foundation or basis - On
E facts, High Court has determined the compensation, without
any basis, hence directed to decide the matter afresh and
indicate a basis for fixation of market value at a definite figure.
In land acquisition proceedings, appeals were filed
F' by the respondent- claimants (Land owners) seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by Reference
Court. Appeal was also filed by the appellant-State
challenging the award of Reference Court. High Court
dismissed the appeal of the State, while it allowed those
G
filed by the claimants.
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that
High Court did not indicate any basis for determining the
value at Rs. 4,00,0001- per acre; and that small plots of
land could not provide a foundation for determining the
H
250
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD v. 251
K.S. GANGADHARAPPA & ANR.
i
market value of large ·area.
A
"
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is a trite proposition that prices fetched
for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of
large tracts of land as the two are not comparable B
properties. It cannot be laid down as an absolute
...
proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot
be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where
there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be
open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the ,C
price paid for small plots of land. However, in such caseJt
necessary deductions/adjustments have ~ be made
·'
while determining the prices. [Para 6 and 9] [256-A~B;
257-F-H]
Sahib Singh Ka/ha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust D
1982(1) sec 419, relied on.
Bombay Improvement Trust v. Mervanji Manekji Mistry
AIR 1926 Born 420; The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban
Chandra Dutta AIR 1971 SC 2015; Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead)
E
by Lis. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., AIR 1977
SC 1560; Smt. Kausa/ya Devi Bogra and Ors. etc. v. Land
Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Anr. AIR 1984 SC 892;
Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional
Officer, Vizagapatam, AIR 1939 P.C. 98 and Suresh Kumar F
v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal, 1989 (1) SVLR (C) 399,
referred to
2. Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act enumerates the
matters to be considered in determining compensation.
The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the G
)
market value of the land on the date of the publication of
the notification u/s. 4 (1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act
enumerates the matters which the Court shall not take
into consideration in determining the compensation: A
safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the
H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009) 6 S.C.R.
A amount of compensation to be awarded by the court shall
not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector
under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be
determined on such materials as are available and without
Indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability of
B determining the potential value is writ large in almost all
cases. There is bound to be some amount of guess work
involved while determining the potentiality. [Para 10] (258-
0-G]
3. The element of speculation is reduced to minimum
C if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with
reference to comparable sales are made : (i) when sale
is within a reasonable time of the date of notification uls
4 (1); {ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii) it should
be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land
D acquired; and (iv) it should possess similar advantages.
It is only when these factors are present, can it merit a
consideraExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.