N. NATESAM PILLAI versus SPL. TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, TIRUCHY

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 11-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 10 S.C.R. 1 
N. NATESAM PILLAI 
v. 
SPL. TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, TIRUCHY 
(Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2004) 
AUGUST 11, 2010 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R~ DAVE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 (1) and 18·- Land 
acquisition - Fixation of market value of the acquired land -
Reference court awarding compensation at Rs. 171- per sq. 
C 
feet - However, High Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 
91- per sq feet - Justification of - Held.· Acquired land has all 
the potentiality to be used as building sites, even in the 
immediate future - It is abutting the main road and is 
surrounded by schools, Panchayat,_ union office, shops and D 
residential buildings in all three sides - Even on giving a 
discount in respect of the acquired land being a large tract -
as compared to the small portion of land sold under the sale 
deed, rate of Rs. 11 /- is adequate and fair - Thus, land owner 
entitled to compensation at Rs. 111- per sq. ft. for the acquired E 
land with additional compensation and solatium on the 
amount enhanced and fixed, including payment of interest. 
The State Government acquired certain land for 
providing house sites. The Land Acquisition Officer 
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.72 per sq. ft. 
F 
to the land owners, for the acquired land. At the instance 
of the appellant-land owner, reference was made uls. 18 
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the reference court. 
He adduced evidence in the form of Sale Deeds-Exs. A1 
to A4. The reference court fixed the market value of the G 
acquired land at Rs. 17/- per sq. feet. However, the High 
Court reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 9/- per 
sq. feet. Therefore, the appellant-original owner filed the 
instant appeal. 
-
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1: 1 The first clause of Section 23 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 clearly provides that the amount of 
compensation awarded for the land acquired is required 
8 
to be determined on the basis of market value of the lard 
at the time of publication of the Notification under Section 
4 of the Act. Therefore, it is the duty of both, the Land 
Acquisition Officer as also of the court, to determine the 
actual compensation payable for the land acquired by 
referring to evidence regarding fair and just 
C compensation near about the proximate date or on the 
date itself of the publication of the notification under 
section 4 of the Act. At times, irl order to prove the actual, 
fair and just compensation for the land acquired, sale 
deeds of the adjacent land or nearabout adjacent land are 
D produced to indicate the trend of the value of the land 
within the near vicinity of ,the acquired land. Such sale 
deeds are taken notice of generally when they are prior 
in point of time to the date of Notification, and any sale 
deed which is dated post Notification is generally 
E ignored, unless evidence is led to show that there was 
no increase in price despite such acquisition. As a result 
of such acquisition, the market value of the adjacent land 
would generally, and in most cases, go up and, therefore, 
such post notification transaction may not be a sound 
F criterion to determine and assess the value of the 
acquired land. (Paras 12 and 14] (8-F-H; 10-C] 
1.2 In the instant case, the appellant has not adduced 
any evidence to show that the market value of adjacent 
G land has not increased in the interregnum. Ex. A1 and Ex. 
A4 are sale deeds executed subsequent to the date of 
notification under Section 4(1) and for this reason, the· 
High Court held these to be irrelevant for the purpose of 
determin.ing compensation. The reference court and the 
High Court were justified in rejecting these sale deeds 
H 
N. NATESAM PILLAI v. SPL. TAHSILDAR, LAND 
3 
ACQUISITION, TIRUCHY 
from consideration. Therefore, the said sale deeds must A 
not be considered while assessing and determining the 
just and fair compensation for the acquired land. Ex. A2 
is also a sale deed but the same also is not a safe guide 
as the price for the land covered therein was later on 
increased to make- it in parity with the government B 
prescribed rate. [Para 14] .[10-C-E] 
Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi 
(1988) 2 sec 150, referred to. 
2.1. The small area of land measuring 1710 sq. ft. was C 
sold for Rs. 20,000/- as per Ex. A3 dated 15.7.92 which 
works out to a value of Rs. 11/- per sq. ft. A comparison
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.