LexMOHAMMAD RAOFUDDIN versus THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 864 '": A MOHAMMAD RAOFUDDIN v. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (Civil Appeal No. 2385 of 2009) B APRIL 13, 2009 • [D.K. JAIN AND R. M. LODHA, JJ.] < Land Acquisition Act, 1894: c ss.15, 23, 24 - Award of compensation by High Court- Scope of interference by Supreme Court - Held: Is very limited - Interference is warranted only if it is found that courts below applied wrong principles or omitted to take relevant factors affecting valuation - On facts, there is no ground to ..... interfere with the award of High Court as it took into .. D consideration an instance which was more closer to appellant's land in respect of the date of acquisition was in the same village and was acquired for the same purpose. Lands measuring 4 acres 2 guntas situated in Survey E No. 434, Manthoor village of Pulkal Mandal in Medak District of Andhra Pradesh were acquired for a public purpose, namely for submergence under the Singnoor project by issuing a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 15th July, 1987. Land Acquisition F Officer made an award fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,0001· per acre. Appellant sought reference under s.18 of the Act. The reference court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 20,0001- per acre. Appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court seeking G enhancement of compensation @ Rs.351- per square yard. Appellant relied on Ex. A.6 which was an order of the reference court in another case, in respect of land approximately 100 yards, away, which was acquired for ~ - the same purpose nearly two years before the acquisition H 864 ' MOHAMMAD RAOFUDDIN v. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 865 of the subject land whereunder compensation was paid A @ Rs.18/- per square yard. High Court preferred to rely on its earlier judgment and declined to rely on Ex. A.6, and dismissed the appeal. Hence the appeal. Dismissing ttw appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. Section 15 of the Land Acquisition Act mandates that in determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. C Section 23 contains the list of positive factors and Section 24 has a list of negatives factors. The first step is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of publication of s.4 Notification. One of the principles for determination of the market value of the acquired land D would be the price an interested buyer would be willing to pay if it is sold in the open market at the time of issue of s.4 Notification. But finding a direct evidence in this behalf is not an easy exercise and, therefore, the Court has to take recourse to other known methods for arriving E at the market value of the land acquired. One of the preferred and well accepted methods adopted for working out the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the comparable sales method. The comparable sales i.e. the lands sought to be compared must be F similar in nature and potentiality. Again, in the absence of sale deeds, the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to G determine the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Undoubtedly, an element of some guess work is involved in the entire exercise. While ascertaining compensation, H 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. )-, A it is the duty of the Court to see that the compensation so determined is just and fair not merely to the individual , whose property has been acquired but also to the public which is to pay for it. [Paras 9 and 12] [871-F-H, 872-A-E, 875-D-E] B • Pal Singh & Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh; (1992) .," 4 SCC 400; Shaji Kuriakose & Anr. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 650 and Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by LRs. v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789, referred to. c 2.1. If the judgment of the High Court revealed that it had taken Into consideration the relevant factors prescribed by the Act, then in appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution of India, assessment of market value made should not be disturbed by this Court. The scope of interference is very limited and it is only in cases where ~ D it is f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.