PATTAMMAL AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 41 · Decided: 08-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

PAITAMMAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 8, 2005 
[ASHOK BHAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sec. 4(1), 18, 5l~A-Acquisition for the 
purpose of construction of stadium-Reference court enhancing 
compensation-Market value reduced by High Court on appeal-Adopting C 
the average method overlooking the comparable method-Held, reduction of 
market value based on average method incorrect. 
Some lands situated in Pondicherry, spread over 11 town survey numbers 
were sought to be acquired for the construction of a stadium to provide 
playground facilities for the students of Schools and Colleges situated at D 
Karaikal. Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), were published in the Official Gazette 
upon receipt of the approval of the Government 
The market value of the lands was fixed by the Collector at Rs. 2,550 
per acre upon treating the same as 'Wet' lands. Several claimants whose lands E 
were involved in the acquisition proceedings asked for references to be made 
under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court. The Reference Court 
classified the lands in question as having potential value as house sites and 
fixed the market value thereof at Rs. 13500 per acre. 
Union of India and the Referring Officer filed separate appeals in the F 
High Court High Court reduced the market value of the lands to Rs. 7000. 
Respondent filed a review petition which was dismissed. 
Appellants before this Court contended that the impugned judgments of 
the High Court were based on an erroneous appreciation of the law relating 
to the fixation of market value of lands acquired for public purposes; that the G 
law as explained in the case ofMeharban and Ors. and the two other judgments 
of this Court on which reliance had been placed by the High Court had, in 
fact, been reversed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Cement 
41 
H 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Corporation of India Limited v. Purya and Ors., reported in [2004) 8 SCC 
270; that it has been held that the view expressed in Meharban's case was not 
the correct interpretation and that under Section 51A of the Act, a 
presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of document is permitted 
to be raised without examination of the parties thereto, ifthe said presumption 
B is not rebutted by other evidence; that in the said cas,. this Court reiterated 
the views expressed by this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and 
Manda/ Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah, reported in [2001) 3 SCC 530; that 
the High Court had failed to consider the potential value of the lands for 
commercial exploitation, having regard to the location of the lands sought to 
be acquired; that the Land Acquisition Officer had himself admitted the steep 
C escalation in the market value of lands in the locality in a span of one year 
and that the market value was much higher than what was fixed by the High 
Court and had been paid for similar sited even more than one year prior to 
the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act; that, in any event, the High 
Court had erred in reducing the market value which had been fixed by the 
Reference Court after due consideration of all the cogent materials available 
D on record; and in complete disregard of the methods to be employed for fixation 
of market value and instead of relying upon the comparable method had chosen 
to adopt the average method which was without any evidentiary basis and also 
upon an erroneous construction of the law as contained in Section 51A of the 
Act; and that the judgments of the High Court were liable to be set aside and 
E the Awards of the Reference Court were liable to be restored. 
Respondents contended that the Reference Court had failed to take into 
consideration the fact that by the sale deed Exhibit A-I, some of the appellants 
had purchased land, which comprised a part of land which had been acquired, 
at the rate of about Rs. 377.90 per acre and in respect of same land 
F compensation was now being sought for at the rate of Rs. 13500 per acre; 
that in Exhibits A-12, A-13 and A-14 where the price of certain small house 
plots was fixed at Rs. 6,739 per acre and upto a maximum of Rs. 11,695.90 
per Acre; that Exhibit A-15 could not be taken as a yardstick, inasmuch as, 
by the said sale deed, the appellants had sold a small house plot, for the purpose 
G of 

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