NELSON FERNANDES AND ORS. versus SPL. L.A.O. SOUTH GOA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 563 · Decided: 02-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

NELSON FERNANDES AND ORS. 
A 
ic 
SPL. L.A.O. SOUTH GOA AND ORS. 
MARCH 2, 2007 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
.... 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 (/), 22, 23, & 24-Land 
Acquisition Officer granting separate compensation for land and trees-
Reference Court enhancing compensation for the land but rejecting the c 
compensation for the trees-High Court rejecting the valuer's report and 
reducing the compensation-Correctness of-Held, High Court was wrong in 
reducing the compensation without giving any reasons-Hence, on the basis 
of evidence on record and valuer's report, reasonable compensation awarded 
for land and trees separately. 
D 
A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
published by Land Acquisition Officer for acquisition of land of appellants-
claimants for respondent-Railways. The Land Acquisition officer passed an 
award granting compensation for the land and trees separately. Refemce Court 
increased the compensation for the land but rejected any Compensation for E 
the trees on the land. The High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents 
by reducing the compensation for the land and dismissed the appeal of the 
appellants. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the High Court 
has not considered the provisions of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act F 
' 
while fixing compensation for the land; that no cogent reasons were given by 
~ 
the High Court for reduction of the compensation; that the High Court cannot 
substitute its own views and reject the expert valuer's report and other evidence 
on record; that the lands are of high commercial value and is well connected 
to other cities; that the trees existed on the land were of high value and hence, G 
separate compensation should be given for the trees; that the courts did not 
consider the future prospects of the development of the land; and that the High 
~ ' 
Court erred in not assessing the damages that the appellants are bound to 
sustain by the acquisition of the land. 
563 
H 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent-Railways contended that the land of the appellants were 
acquired for public purpose and not for any commercial exploitation and hence 
the High Court was justified in reduction of the compensation to the lands; 
that the High Court rightly rejected the valuer's report it is not based on any 
known method of valuation and is without any reasons in support of the 
B valuation; that the price fetched for small plots cannot be the basis to fix the 
value of the lands; and that the High Court rightly made certain deductions 
and fixed the value of the land. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
C 
HELD: I.I. The High Court has adopted a rough and ready method for 
making deductions which is impermissible in law. No reason whatsoever was 
given by the Reference court or by the High Court as to why the report and 
e~·idence of the valuer cannot be relied on. The High Court had no basis 
whatsoever and was not supported by cogent reasons and that it did not consider 
the future prospect of the development of the land in question. The High Court 
D also did not assess the injury that the appellant is likely to sustain due to 
loss of his future earnings from the said land and also did not assess the 
damage already suffered due to diminution of the profits of the land between 
the time of publication of the notice and time of the Collector taking 
possession. The High Court has miserably erred in passing the order thereby 
E reducing the rate of compensation and in utter mis-reading of the evidence 
on record and acted in a flagrant error of law and facts. The High Court erred 
in passing the order by holding that the opinion of the government approved 
valuer was not based on any method of valuation but solely on the basis of 
facilities available to the land. The government approved valuer is an expert 
in his field and the opinion of such an expert ought not to have been rejected 
F shabbily. [Para 28( (575-G, H; 576-A-C] 
1.2. In the instant case, land was acquired for laying a railways line. 
Therefore, the question of development thereof would not arise. In view of the 
availability of basic civic amenities the claim of compensation should 
G reasonably be fixed. The appellants shall be entitled to all other statutory 
benefits such as solatium, interest etc. The appellants will be entitled to 
comjJensation for the trees standing on the said la

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.