SHAJI KURIAKOSE AND ANR. versus INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 14-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHAJI KURIAKOSE AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 14, 2001 
[Y.N. KHARE AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.] 
B 
land Acquisition : 
land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23-Compensation-Grant a/-
Reference Court enhanced compensation-High Court reduced C 
compensation-Held, justified-Dissimilarity between land covered by sales 
and land acquired with regard to locaiity, shape, site or nature of land-In 
such cases court can fa: compensation less than market value of land 
• 
Land acquisition Authority passed an award offering compensation for 
the land sought to be acquired. On reference, Additional Sub Judge enhanced D 
the compensation. On appeal by respondent, High Court reduced the 
compensation. Appellants filed cross-objections which were rejected. Hence 
the present appeal. 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that the High Court could E 
not fix the rate of compensation less than the market value of the land, when 
it had proceeded to give compensation on the basis of Comparable Sales 
Method of valuation of land; and that the court could not fix the rate of 
compensation of the acquired land on the basis of the valuation of the land 
on the capitalisation assessment of the land. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. If there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site 
or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open 
F 
to the Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land 
than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached G 
with the land. 1576-D, El 
1.2. In the instant case, there is dissimilarity in the land acquired and 
the land covered by Ex.A-4. The land covered by Ex. A-4 is not in the vicinity 
of the acquired land; land covered by Ex. A-4 is situated at place 'K' whereas 
573 
H 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A the acquired land is situated at a considerable distance. There is no access , 
to the acquired land. The land covered by Ex. A-4 is dry and acquired land 
is wet land. Further the land covered by Ex. A-4 relates to a small piece of 
land whereas the acquired land is much bigger which do not reflect the true 
market value of the acquired land. Therefore the High Court was justified 
B in lowering the rate of compensation for acquired land than the market value 
of the land covered by Ex A-4.1576-E, F, G, HJ 
2.1. Courts adopt Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land while 
fixing the market value of the acquired land. This is preferred over the 
Capitalisation of Net lncome Method or Expert Opinion Method. It furnishes 
C the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land and 
at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it has been 
sold in open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, this method is not always conclusive. 
Certain factors are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment, compensation 
can be awarded according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. 
D 
(575-G, 576-A, B( 
2.2. The High Court has granted compensation on the basis of 
Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land and the reference regarding 
Capitalisation Method of Valuation of the land was only by way of illustration. 
Therefore it cannot be said that once the appellants have accepted compensation 
E for their acquired land on the basis of Comparable Sales Method of valuation 
of land, it was not open to the High Court to fix the rate of compensation of 
the acquired land on the basis of the valuation of the land on the capitalisation 
assessment of the land. (577-A, 575-E, FJ 
F 
Printers House Pvt. ltd. v. Mst. Saivadan (deceased) by l.Rs. & Ors., 
(1994) 2 sec 133, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. J 190-3192/ 
2000. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.1998 of the Kerala High Court 
in L.A.A. No. 726/95 & Cross Objection, L.A.A.No. 991/95 & Cross Objection 
and L.A.A.No. 7/96 & Cross Objection. 
Mathai M. Paikeday, T.G.N. Nair, Roy Abraham and P.l. Jose for the 
Appellants. 
H 
Dushyant Dave, Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Mukesh Jain, Sushil Kr. Pathak, 
• 
SHAJI KURIAKOSE v. INDIAN OIL CORPN. LTD. [KHARE, J.] 575 
Ramesh Babu M.R. and Mahabir Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V.N. KHARE, J. A large track of land in the village Manakunnam in the 
district of Cochin was sought to be acquired for

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