LexMUNUSAMY versus THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1 [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1 1 MUNUSAMY v. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (Civil Appeal No. 398 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 29, 2021 [M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Comparable sale – Land admeasuring 1.80 acres situated in village Anniyalam, Denkanikottai Taluk, District Dharamapuri, Tamil Nadu was proposed for acquisition – s.4 Notification was published on 27.09.1990/11.01.1991 – s.6 declaration was published on 12.12.1991 – Collector assessed compensation of said land at Rs.16000/- per acre – Reference court assessed market value at Rs. 2183.33 per cent relying upon the document/sale deed dated 11.01.1990 executed by the land owner himself by which the land suitable for construction of the houses and situated very close to the village Anniyalam was sold at Rs. 2977 per cent – High Court partly allowed the appeal and assessed compensation at Rs. 232.45 per cent – Aggrieved, original owner/claimant filed instant appeal – Whether the land owners are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation relying upon the document dated 11.01.1990 executed by the land owner himself by which the land admeasuring 5 ½ cent was sold for Rs.2977 per cent – Held: It is true that sale deed dated 11.01.1990 cannot be discarded solely on the ground that it was executed by the land owner in favour of his relative as nothing is on record that at the time when sale deed dated 11.01.1990 was executed the parties were aware that the land in question was going to be acquired in the nearby future – In absence of any comparable sale instances one has to consider sale deed dated 11.01.1990 – Even otherwise, sale deed dated 11.01.1990 can be said to be comparable instance having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle – However, at the same time one cannot lose sight of the fact that the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 was for the small parcel of the land i.e. 5 ½ cent only – In given case even a sale deed of comparable sales of small areas also can be considered by giving suitable deductions while fixing A B C D E F G H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R. market value – Therefore, considering the fact that sale deed dated 11.01.1990 was executed for sale consideration of Rs.16,375/- for 5 ½ cent which comes to Rs.2977 per cent and after deducting 60% (in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case) the market value can be determined at Rs.1191 per cent – Appellant-original claimant-land owner shall be entitled compensation for the land acquired at Rs.1191 per cent with all other statutory benefits. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: In absence of any comparable sale instances one has to consider the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1. Even otherwise Ex.C1 the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 can be said to be comparable instance having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. Even the land in question acquired for the housing project. However, at the same time one cannot lose sight of the fact that the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was for the small parcel of the land i.e. 5 ½ cent only. In given case even a sale deed of comparable sales of small areas also can be considered by giving suitable deductions while fixing market value. Therefore, having regard to the peculiar features, facts and circumstances of the case and interest of justice, date of compensation can be fixed considering the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 by giving suitable deductions i.e. 60 per cent deduction. Therefore, considering the fact that the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was executed for a sale consideration of Rs.16,375/- for 5 ½ cent which will come to Rs.2977 per cent and after deducting 60 per cent (in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case) the market value can be determined/assessed at Rs.1191 per cent. [Para 7.2][5-H; 6-A- D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.398 of 2010. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in A.S. No.1222 of 2001. Kumar Dushyant Singh, T. Meikandan, Ms. Pooja Singh, Ms. Subasri Jaganathan, K. K. Mohan, Advs. for the Appellant. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG, D. Kumanan, Sheikh Fakhruddin Kalia, Advs. for the Respondent. A B C D E F G H 3 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in AS No.1222 of 20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.