KUMMARI VEERAIAH AND ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 28-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
KUMMARI VEERAIAH AND ORS. 
A 
v . 
.,. 
( 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
FEBRUARY 28, 1995 
[K RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1) & 23(1)-Notijication u/s 
r-
4( 1 }-Detennination of compensation-Comparable sales-Certified copies 
J,1 
of sale deed-Admissible in evidence as secondary evidence-Vendor or ven-
dee to be examined as witness-Nature and situation of respective lands are c 
~levanl-When suitable deduction to be made. 
~ertain land to the extent of 69 acres and 25 gunthas was acquired 
to provide ho-use-sites. Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 
was published on March 4, 1985 and possession was taken dispensing With 
D 
the inquiry u/s S·A. The Land Acquisition Officer determined compensa-
tion between Rs. 6000 to Rs. 10,000 per acre. Petitioners claimed compen· 
-)-
sation at the rate of Rs. 40 per Sq. yd. On reference u/s 18, the Subordinate 
Judge determining compensation at Rs. 10 per sq. yd. d~ducted Rs. 3 
towards developmental expenditure ~nd then fixed the market value at Rs. 
7 per sq. yd. Dissatisfied, the petitioner as ftll as the State filed the E 
appeals in the High Court. The High Court dismissed both the appeals 
and held that raxation of compensation by the reference court was fair and 
reasonable and that the certified copies of the sale deeds brought as 
evidence on record did not reflect the true and correct market value. 
,-\ 
In this appeal the petitione~ admitted that all the sale deeds ad-
F 
duced were of small extents as the lands were situated within the municipal 
-< 
limits, but those sale transactions furnished the basis to determine the 
compensation of Rs. 40 per sq. yd. and they could not be rejected as being 
of small extents. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
G 
--
HELD: 1. It is true that certified copies of the sale deeds are 
admissible in evidence as secondary evidence under s.51A of the Land 
Acquisition Act since owners would be reluctant to part with their original 
sale deeds. But unless the vendor or vendee has been examined as a witness H 
379 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 2 S.C.R. 
A to testify to the consideration paid, their specific knowledge and the 
circumstances in which the sale deed came to be executed, nearness to the 
lands etc., the sale deeds cannot be relied on to determine market value of 
the acquired lands. The true nature and situation of the respective- lands 
. are relevant and germane as comparable sales for determination of the 
compensation and are required to be brought on record through admis-
B sible evidence and tested on the anvil of common experience. The High 
Court was right in its finding that Ex.A-2, ihough related to the same land, 
was brought into existence just few days prior to the date of tlie publication 
of the notification under s.4(1) and other similar documents also came to 
be registered during the said period to boost up the prices. (383-E-HJ 
c 
2. Suitable deduction may be made to the value based on the sale 
deeds and compensation may be determined on that basis. But, first it is 
to be ascertained whether the document is genuine. Then, under what 
circumstances it came to be executed and the special advantageous feature 
for which the sale came to be made. if the documents are genuine and the • 
D acquired land possessed of the same or similar special· advantageous 
features, then reasonable price is required to be determined. Similarly, it 
must be shown that land is situated in a developing area etc. When such 
evidence is adduced, it is required to be considered on the touchstone of _ 
potentiality of the land, human conduct and probabilities. If the court 
E finds that the land possessed those potentialities and could be purchased 
as house site, then only suitable deduction needs to be made considering 
the relative extent of the land covered by the sale/sales and the land under 
acquisition. True market value is required to be determined, it must not 
be on feats of imagination. Since such evidence was not brought on record, 
F the evidence of sale transactions render little assistance in determining the 
market value of the acquired lands. Moreover, as the two colonies were in 
slum area, but for the acquisition, there would be no scope for develop-
ment. (384-D-H, 385-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
G No. 4021 of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.93 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in A.No. 2698 of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.