O. JANARDHAN REDDY AND ORS. versus THE SPL. DY. COLLECTOR, L.A. UNIT-IV LMD, KARIMNAGAR, A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 30-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

0. JANARDHAN REDDY AND ORS. 
v. 
THE SPL. DY. COLLECTOR, L.A. UNIT-IV LMD, 
KARIMNAGAR, A.P. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1994 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act 1894 : 
A 
B 
Land Acquisition-:Agricultural land with inigation wells-Acquisition C 
of-Compensatiolt-fJetermination of market value-Held the inigation well 
in an acquired agricultural land cannot .have a vame apart from the vahle of 
the agricultural land itself-Where compensation was enhanced on such a 
basis by Civil Court and High Court, grant of further enhanced by compen-
sation-By Supreme Court-Held unwammted. 
D 
Several extents of agricultural lands belonging to the appellants were 
acquired. In some of those agricultural lands, there were Irrigation wells, 
as well. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded separate compensation for 
the agricultural lands and irrigation wells. The nature of crops grown on 
the lands was made the basis to determine the market value of agricultural E 
lands while estimate of the cost of constrnctlon of each Irrigation well 
prepared by the Public Works Department was made the basis to deter-
mine the market value of Irrigation wells. However, on reference, the Civil 
Court enhanced not only the market value of lands but also the market 
value of some of the irrigation welhi according to the cost of constrnctlon F 
of each of them as estimated by a retired Town Planning Supervisor, as 
against their market value determined by the Land Acquisition omcer on 
the basis of their estimates prepared by the Public Works Departinent and 
or the remaining Irrigation wells by Increasing their market value as 
determined by the Land Acquisition Officer by 75 per cent. The said award 
of the Civil Court was. questioned by the Land Acquisition Officer in an G 
appeal before the High Court. The market value of the agricultural lands 
as enhanced by the award of the Civil Court was not Interfered with by the 
High Court. As regards market value of Irrigation welt.s enhanced by the 
Civil Court, the High Court found that such enhanced market value for 
the wells ought not to have been given by the .Civil Court on the basis of H 
103 
104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP.4 S.C.R. 
A estimates of costs of wells prepared by a retired Town Planning Super-
visor. Consequently, it refused to uphold the enhanced market value given 
for the irrigation wells by the Civil Court. Yet, on its own, the High Court 
enhanced the market value of the irrigation wells by 75 per cent of their 
market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer finding justifica-
B tion for such enhancement on the basis of another award of the Civil Court 
wherein such enhancement for the market value of the irrigation wells had 
been given. 
Being dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation granted by the 
High Court the land owners filed the present appeal which was restricted 
C to the consideration of grant of enhanced compensation for their irrigation 
wells. It was contended on their behalf that when the Civil Court had 
determined the market value of the irrigation wells on the basis of estimate 
of cost of each well prepared by a private engineer with reference to 
prevailing construction cost on the basis of the data of Public Works 
Department and awarded compensation therefor, the High Court ought 
D not have interfered with the compensation so awarded by the Civil Court 
for such irrigation wells. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD : 1. Since estimated construction costs of irrigation wells of 
agricultural lands cannot form the basis for awarding compensation for 
such irrigation wells independently of the compensation awardable for the 
agricnltural lands for the benefit of which such wells existed, the 
appellants' claim for grant of enhanced compensation for the irrigation 
wells reference to estimated costs of construction of such wells prepared 
F 
by engineers, do not commend acceptance. [108-B-C] 
2. The advantage which an agricultural land may have because of the 
irrigation facility it had from the irrigation well, could only enhance the 
value of agricultural land depending upon the water yield from the well. 
Again when the agricultural land, the irrigation of which was possible from 
G the. water of the irrigation well, is acquired, the value of the land so 
acquired will have to be determined taking into consideration the Irriga-
tion facility it had from the well. In this sitnation the irrigation well in an

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