S. SHANKARAIAH THR. GPA HOLDER & ORS versus THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PEDDAPALI KARIMNAGAR DIST. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 09-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
95
S. SHANKARAIAH THR. GPA HOLDER & ORS
v.
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER PEDDAPALI KARIMNAGAR DIST. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6821 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 09, 2022
 [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Purpose of acquisition of land
relevant factor for determining market value and deduction of
developmental charges – Deduction of developmental charges, when
not proper – Lands acquired for excavation of coal – Land
Acquisition Officer fixed the market value for the acquired lands –
Not satisfied with the compensation, the original land owners/
claimants sought references – Reference Court fixed the market
value at Rs.30,000/- and Rs.50,000/- per acre with compensation
@ Rs.15,000/- per acre towards sub-soil mineral rights – High Court
awarded compensation @ Rs.80,000/- per acre considering the
market value of the land at Rs.1,23,000/- per acre and thereafter
deducting 1/3rd, in addition High Court also awarded Rs.10,000/-
per acre as part of the market value for sub-soil rights – On appeal,
held: The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant
factor for determining the market value and the purpose for which
the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration – In the
present case, when the acquisition is solely for the purpose of
excavation of coal and the entire land is acquired on the basis of
the estimates of the coal reserve identified and the entire land is to
be mined and used and no further developmental activity is required,
the High Court erred in deducting 1/3rd towards developmental
activities – Further, additional amount of Rs.10,000/- per acre
awarded on account of coal deposits, not interfered with – Thus,
original claimants are entitled to the compensation for the lands
acquired at Rs.1,23,000/- per acre with other statutory benefits which
may be available under the Act – In addition, also entitled to Rs.10,000/
- per acre as awarded by the High Court on account of coal deposits –
Impugned judgment modified to the aforesaid extent.
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 95
95
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The purpose for which acquisition is made is also a
relevant factor for determining the market value and the purpose
for which the land is acquired must also be taken into
consideration. Thus, when the acquisition is solely for the purpose
of excavation of coal and the entire land is acquired on the basis
of the estimates of the coal reserve identified and the entire land
is to be mined and used and no further developmental activity is
required, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
Court has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards the developmental
activities. The additional amount awarded by the High Court at
Rs.10,000/- per acre on account of coal deposits is not required
to be interfered with more particularly when the same has been
confirmed by this Court in as much as the appeals preferred by
the respondents have been dismissed by this Court. The original
claimants shall be entitled to the compensation for the lands
acquired at Rs.1,23,000/- per acre with other statutory benefits
which may be available under the provisions of the Act, 1894. In
addition, the original claimants shall also be entitled to
Rs.10,000/- per acre as awarded by the High Court on account of
coal deposits. The impugned common judgment and order passed
by the High Court is modified to the aforesaid extent. [Paras 6.2,
6.3, 7 and 8][100-D; 101-C-E]
Nelson Fernandes & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer South Goa & Ors. (2007) 9 SCC 447 : [2007]
3 SCR 563 – relied on.
Basavva v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 9 SCC
640 : [1996] 3 SCR 500 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 3 SCR 563
relied on
  Para 3.1
[1996] 3 SCR 500
referred to
  Para 6.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6821
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal Suit No. 1634
of 2001 in O.P. No. 76 of 1988.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
97
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6823, 6824 and 6825 of 2022.
A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv., Sridhar Potaraju, Ms. Sindoora VNL,
Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Rajat Srivastava, P. Parmeswaran, Anurag Dayal
Mathur, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Sharan Thakur, Shantanu Singh,
Siddharth Thakur, Ravi Sehgal, Dr. Sushil Balwada, S. Udaya Kumar
Sagar, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Kr. Tyagi, P. Srinivas Reddy for
M/s. Venkat Pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.