LexLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HYDERABAD ETC. versus MALE PULLAMMA AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\
t
r
.)
+
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HYDERABAD ETC.
v.
MALE PULLAMMA AND ORS. ETC.
MARCH 21, 1996
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 4(1) and 23.
Land Acquisition-Determination of compensation-Agricultural
lands-f'oultry fam1s set up in part of land!;-Acquisition of-Finding of Land
Acquisition Officer and Reference Court that there was no development in
the area or in the neighbourhood on the date of Notification--High Court
awarding compensation after making deduction towards developmental char-
ges-Held High Court was wholly wrong in .detern1ining the market value
treating the acquired lands as possessing potential value--Question of deduc-
lion would arise only when the lands are found to have potential value and
there is evidence of development in the neighbourhood.
Land Acquisition-Compensation-Sale deed executed just before the
notification was published under Section 4(1)--Held it coul<J not fonn the
sole basis for dete1111ination of compensation.
P. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Uroan Development
Authority, Hyderabad & Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 305, held Inapplicable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5250 of
1996 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order.dated 8.7.93 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in AS. No. 1176 of1991.
G. Prabhakar for the Appellants.
Venugopal Reddy, J.B. Dadachanji, M. Purshottarn· and A.Z.S. Pas-
rich for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
763
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996) 3 S.C.R.
A
Leave granted.
B
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, the 'Act') acquiring 89 acres, 37 gunthas of land situated in
Siddanti village of Shamshabad in Ranga Reddy District of Andhra
Pradesh was published on 16th October, 1982. The Land Acquisition
Officer in his award dated May 13, 1987 determined compensation @ Rs.
20,000 per acre. In addition, he also awarded Rs. 63,616 towards the value
of the structures constructed on the land in which poultry farms were set
up. On reference, the Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District by his
award and decree dated February 20, 1991 enhanced the compensation to
C Rs. 35,000 per acre. In addition, he also awarded Rs. 50,000 more then the
amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer towards the value of the
structures. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court in A.S. Nos.
1176 and 2077 of 1991 by order dated July 8, 1993 enhanced the compen-
sation to Rs. 14 per square yard which worked out to Rs. 67,800 per acre
D and remitted the case with regard to determination of value of structures.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
Shri Venugopal Reddy, learned senior counsel for the respondents,
{ ,
contended that this in P. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisitio11 Officer,
E Urban Developme11t Authority, Hyderabad & Ors., (1995] 2 SCC 305, con-
sidering various factors in evaluating the market-value, stated seven cir-
cumstances to be taken into consideration in determining the
compensation. The High Court accepted the sale instance ExA-4 dated
September 8, 1982 which is earlier in point of time than the date of the
F notification under which the land was sold at Rs. 30 per square yard. The
High Court, therefore, after giving deductions at 53% towards the develop-
mental charges etc. determined the market price as Rs. 14 per sq. yd. The
fixation of the market-value, therefore, is not vitiated by any error of law.
He also contended that the High Court has recorded a finding that the
lands are possessed of potential value. On that basis, deduction towards
G
further development was given and fJXation of the market-value cannot,
therefore, be said to be illegal.
We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the respondents
themselves had admitted during cross-examination that the lands were
H agricultural lands as on the date of the notification. They had set up a
\'
~
I
(
+
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. M. PULLAMMA
765
poultry farm in it and to that small extent it was being used as such. Both A
'
the reference Court and the Land Acquisition Officer found, as a fact, that
the lands are agricultural lands. The High Court has noted in the judgment
that some development had already taken place around the area and in the
neighbourhood there is a railway station, hospital and school etc. On that
basis the High Court has held thaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.