LexSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. versus M.K. RAFIQ SAHEB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011] 8 S.C.R. 1088 SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. v. M.K. RAFIQ SAHEB ·(Civil Appeal No. 1086 of 2006) JULY 05, 2011 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 252 Compensation - Determination of market value of land - Comparative sales method - High Court relied upon exemplar Ex.PS to determine the market value of compensation - Ex. P-5 related to a small piece of land, D whereas the acquisition was of a larger piece of land - Whether Ex. P5 could be used to determine the market value of land - Held: It is not an absolute rule that when the acquired land is a large tract of land, sale instances relating to smaller pieces of land cannot be considered - There are certain circumstances when sale deeds of small pieces of E fand can be used to determine the value of acquired land which is comparatively large in area -The sale of land containing large tracks are generally veiy far and few - This limitation of sale transaction cannot operate to the disadvantage of the claimants - Thus, the Court should look F into sale instances of smaller pieces of /anq while applying reasonable element of deduction - In the present case, the land acquired was 34 guntas and the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 17. 7. 1994 - The Reference Court had relied upon the compensation awarded for G acquisition of land in the neighbouring villages, which had occurred 5 years pn·or to the present acquisition - However, the market value of the land acquired in the present case is much better reflected by exemplar Ex. P-5, which relates to sale of land just 2 kms. away from the acquired land and is H 1088 SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. v.1089 M.K. RAFIQ SAHEB just a little over a year before the issuance of the s. 4 A notification in the present case - Thus, the sale deed Ex. P- 5 was rightly relied upon by the High Court in determining · compensation - However, High Court made 50% deduction since the sale instance Ex. P-5 related to a smaller piece of land - The said deduction should be increased to 60%, which B would be fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances - Judgment of High Court modified to the extent of the said deduction. Nature of acquired land - Whether the land in question was agricultural land or had it ceased to be so - Held: That C the land had ceased to be agricultural land and was capable of being used as a residential or industrial site is a concurrent finding of fact by both the Courts below (Reference Court and the High Court) and is amply supported by the evidence on record - Appellant did not file any appeal impugning the D finding of th:J}eference. Court. that _the land cou~d not be . treated as agrJCultural land - Not havmg done so, it was not open to the appellant to question the finding of the High Court , that the land is not agricultural land "'"" Otherwise also, in light · . of the fact that the land in question was situated by the side E of a residential locality and was in the midst of a highly developed industrial locality, the acquired land was capable of being used for non-agricultural purposes and should be considered as non-agricultural land in determination of compensation. F A notification was published under section 4(1) ·of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the respondents' land measuring 34 guntas (i.e. a large tract of land). The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) concluded that the lands in question were agricultural G and passed award granting compensation at Rs.1,30,000/ • per acre along with statutory benefits. Dissatisfied by the award of the SLAO, the respondent filed a reference under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court concluded that H 1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. A though the land in question remained agricultural land on the records, it could not be said that the said land was agricultural land for all practical purposes since it was situated by the side of a residential locality and was in the midst of a highly developed industrial locality and no B agricultural activities could be carried out on it. Relying upon sale instances in the neighbouring villages, which had occurred five years prior to the present acquisition, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre and also awarded statutory c benefits. The respondent, sti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.