RAO NARAIN SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 06-04-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
~ 
RAO NARAIN SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
~ 
APRIL 6, 1993 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition: 
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952: Ss. c 
7, S-Acquisition of requisitioned property--<:ompensation-Detennination 
, 
of-Valuation of land-'Comparable Sales MethodL../leld, when patties 
~ produce evidence of sales of lands in the vicinity of acquired land; 'com-
parable sales method' is a 'healthy criterion' for determining the market value. 
Rajasthan Land Acquisition Ac4 195~S.23(2) Solatiunr-To be paid D 
for land acquired under Requisitioning and Acquisition Ac4 1952 cannot be 
a benefit of solatium not available for a land acquired under Stute Act. 
The respondent-Union of India requisitioned certain properties or 
~ the land-owner-appellant comprising, a building and 1,38,117.20 sq. yards E 
or land appurtenant thereto and acquired the same In May, 1967 under 
the provisions of the Defence of India Act 1962. After the Defence of India 
....... 
Act ceased to have its force, the Collector exercising the powers under the 
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952 (the Act), 
offered to the appellant on 10.9.1968 a sum of Rs.S,32,594 as total compen-
sation for the acquired building and land. The appellant rejected the offer F 
)-· 
as inadequate. Consequently, an arbitrator was appointed under S.8(1)(b) 
of the Act. The appellant claimed Rs.2,S0,000 for the buildiflg and· Rs.10 
per sq. yard for the acquired land as compensation. 
The Arbitrator, by his award, fIXed the market value at Rs.2,S0,000 G 
of the building and Rs. 7.SO per sq. yi\rd of the land and Rs.2,000 as 
• 
damages for loss of access to appellant's nnacquired land. Solatium at the 
rate of 15 per cent on the market value of the land, and -interest at the rate 
of 6% per annum was also awarded. Two appeals - one by the land-owner 
seeking enhancement and the other by the Union of India seeking reduc-
lion in the amount of compensation-were filed before the High Court. 
H 
969 
A 
B 
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 2 S.C.R. 
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the land owner and partly 
allowed that of. the Union of India. It reduced the compensation to 
Rs.1,41,100 for the building and Rs.4 per sq. yard for the land. Solatium 
~ 
at a uniform rate of 10 per cent on the market value of the building and ":Jo' 
the land and interest at 4% per annum was (rovided. Aggrieved, the land 
owner liled the appeal by special leave. 
The appellant contended that the High Court erred in not awarding 
the compensation liable to be paid under s.8(3) of the Requisitioning and 
.,j
Acquisition Act inasmuch as the price of the property determined by the 
High Court fell far short of what the property would have fetched if it bad 
C been sold in the open market on the date of its acquisition; that the High 
Court did not take into consideration the prices fetched under sale deeds f 
of similar lands in the vicinity of the acquired land, and trend in price rise 
of lands; that solatium should have been awarded .at 15 per cent as 
permissible under the Central Land Acquisition Act and not at the rate of 
D 10 per cent under the Rajathan Land Acquisition Act. 
E 
Allowing the appeal in part, this fourt, 
HELD: 1.1. Method of valuation to be resorted to by a court in 
determining acquired land's just equivalent price has to necessarily"'-
depend on the nature of evidence adduced by parties in that regard. When, 
in a given case, the parties produce evidence of sales relating to the land 
or lands in the vicinity of the acquired land and require the concerned 
court to determine the compensation payable for such acquired land, the 
court can resort to 'the Comparable Sales Method' of Valuation of land 
which is a healthy criterion for determining the market value of an 
. F 
acquired land. [p. 975 C-E] 
'-1 
G 
Atmaram v. Collector of Nagpur, AIR 1929 P.C. 92, referred and 
Union of India v. Kamlabhai Harjiwandas Parekh & Ors., [1968] l SCR 463, 
relied on. 
1.2. The High Court was right in examining the sale deeds produced. 
as evidence of comparable sales and in relying upon the sale deeds marked 
as Ext.P-18 relating to sale of 26,733 sq. yards for Rs.3 per sq. yard which 
was a portion of the acquired land, and Ext.P-10 relating to sale of 5124 
sq. yards at the rate of Rs.3.50 per sq. yard situated to the close vicinity 
H of the acquired land, and taking the prices
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.