LexSATISH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 11 S.C.R. 65 SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6230-6251 of 2002) JULY 16, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s. 23 - Compensation - Method of valuation - Relevant factors - Held: The market value of land, nature, quality and evenness, presence of fruit C bearing trees, location of the land, facilities for irrigation, closeness to any road or highway, existence of any building or structure, building potentiality are relevant factors to be considered while determining compensation - On facts, High Court without any valid and adequate reason refused to take D into consideration a large number of sale deeds which were relevant for arriving at the amount of compensation. A Notification under s.4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued on 6.9.1984, for setting up of thermal plant at E Sarna, Muradpur. The possession of the lands was taken on 16.11.1984. After considering number of sale deeds, the Collector relied on sale deed executed on 2.6.1983. The lands under the said sale deed were similar to the acquired lands. The circle rate for 'Dakar Doyat Khaki F · lands was determined at Rs.3.19p and for 'Dakar Doyat Aabi' lands at Rs.4.37p. The amount of compensation on the said basis was determined as Rs.60,189.72 per bighas for the former category and Rs.82,454.20 per bighas for the latter. Reference Court considered the reference cases in two bµnches. In the first group consisting of 22 G cases, compensation @ Rs.115 per square yards was awarded as market value of the ~cquired land irrespective of quality of land recorded in revenue 65 H 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A records. In the second group of references consisting of 25 cases, however the amount of compensation was determined @ Rs.155 per square yard. Aggrieved NTPC filed appeals before the High Court. The landholders did not appeal. High Court however opined that the Collector B rightly placed reliance on the deed ofsale dated 2.6.1983 as the other sale deeds were executed in respect of the lands which were measured in terms of square yards only. Aggrieved land owners filed these appeals. c Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. All the deeds of sale which were brought on record subject to the applicability thereof, therefore, should have been taken into consideration. The 'State' in acquiring land of another State or a private person D exercises its power of Eminent Domain which envisages that expropriation of one's property is permissible if it is in public interest and a reasonable amount of compensation a.s provided for in a statute is paid to the owner thereof. Keeping in view this principle in mfrrd, the E provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act laying down the factors enumerated therein must be taken into consideration. The first factor which the Parliament mandates to be relevant therefor is the market value of the land at the date of publication of the F notification under Section 4(1 ). Market value of .a land would mean a free seller of a land would transfer his right in tbe property to a free buyer. It is only for the said purposes, deeds of sale or other transfers made in respect of similar types of land in the sur~ounding areas G assume significance. [Para 21) [83-G-H; 84-A-D] H Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd. v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisilion)AIR 1~90 SC 731_; A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, Managing Director v. P. Venkaiah & Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 128; LandAcquisition Officer & Manda/ , SATISH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 67 .. Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530; Rao A Narain Singh (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 60; Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789; State of Bihar v.Madheshwar Prasad (1996) 6 SCC 197; A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, represented byMenaging Director B v. P. Venkaiah & Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 128; Land Acquisition . Officer & Manda/ v. V. Narsaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530; Cement ~ Corporation of India v. Purya & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 270; Special DeputyCollector & Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 41 andHindustan Oil Miffs Ltd. v. Special c Deputy Coffector (Land Acquisition) AIR 1990 SC 731, referred to. 2. For determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 23 of the Act, the methods of valuation D which can be. ad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.