LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, A.P. versus KAMANDANA RAMAKRISHNA RAO AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 07-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

, 
\ 
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, A.P. 
A~ 
v. 
KAMANDANA RAMAKRISHNA RAO AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 7, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
"' 
Land Acquisition: 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; ss. 4(1) and 18/Notification dated c 
3.01.1980 issued thereunder: 
Acquisition of land by State Government for a project-Compensation-
Enhancement of-Reference Court enhanced the compensation on yield basis 
of crops by applying multiplier of 20 years capitalisation-High Court 
enhanced it further on the basis of market value of Land--On appeal, Held: D 
·. High Court did not commit any illegality in not deducting the amount of 
.... 
expenses for cultivation from compensation so enhanced as the claimant was 
-( 
entitled to compensation at a higher rate than what has been awarded after 
enhancement-,-Though High Court did not indicate any reason while 
enhancing the rate of compensation but the pith and substance of the order 
cannot be found fault with-Jn the facts and circumstances of the case, rate E 
of award of compensation so enhanced, is adequate, just and reasonable and 
not excessive. 
State of Andhra Pradesh issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of lands admeasuring 385.46 
Acres, which include tands of claimant-respondent, for submersion of a F 
Reservior Scheme under a Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded 
compensation at the rate of Rs.1026/- per acre to the claimants. The claimants 
received the amount of compensation under protest and submitted applications 
under Section 18 of the Act requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to refer 
the matter to Court. The Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate G 
of Rs.6000/- per acre. The claimants, being still dissatisfied with the 
r 
., 
'~ 
enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court, 
filed two separate appeals under Section 54 of the Act before the High Court. 
The High Court observed that for similar lands acquired for the same purpose 
327 
H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A prior to the issue of the Notification in the present cases, the compensation 
,_. 
was fixed at Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The High Court awarded the amount of 
compensation at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre to the claimant. Hence the 
present appeals. 
Appellant contended that the High Court has committed an error of law 
B in not deducting amount towards cost of cultivation and no reasons whatsoever 
are given by the High Court in its order for enhancement of the compensation 
from Rs. 6,000/- per acre to Rs. 22,000/- per acre; and that the Reference 
Court had erroneously applied multiplier of20 for capitalizing the income. 
)-
Such multiplier should not be more than 10. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:l.1. In the facts and circumstances, the ratio laid down in Rama 
Rana's 1:ase would not strictly apply in the present cases in as much as in 
fruit growing trees, expenses would not be 50% as held by this Court. 
D Moreover, the High Court also considered an important fact that the 
claimants-respondents would be entitled to much more than Rs. 25,000/- per 
acre on yield-basis but has fixed the market value of the land at the rate of 
>-
Rs. 22,000/- per acre. It, therefore, cannot be said that by not deducting the 
~ 
amount of expenses for cultivation, the High Court had committed any illegality. 
[Para 13] [332-D-E] 
E 
State a/Gujarat v. Rama Rana, [1987] 2 SCC 693, held in applicable. 
1.2. The High Court committed no error of law or any perversity in 
awarding the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre to 
the claimants-respondents. It is no doubt true that the High Court has not 
F given adequate and proper reasons in its order, but the pith and substance of . 
the order cannot be found to be faulty. [Para 18] [333-F] 
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. AdinaraYan Setty, 
[1959) Suppl. 1 SCR 404:AIR (1959) SC 429; Smt. Tribeni Devi v. Collector 
G 
of Ranchi, (1972) 1 SCC 480; Special Land Acquisition, Davangere v. P. 
Veerabhadarappa & Ors., (1984) 2 SCC 120; Special Land Acquisition Officer 
v. Virupax Shankar Nadagouda, (1996] 6 SCC 124; Krishi Utpadan Mandi 
i 
Samiti v. Malik Sartaj Wali Khan & Anr., (2001] 10 SCC 660 and Assistant 
, 
Commissioner-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bellary v. S. T. Pompanna Setty, 
[2005) 9 sec 662, relied on. 
H 
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, A.P. "· KAMANDANA RAMAKRISHNA RAO (LOK
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.