SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS. versus N. SAVITHA

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 807 · Decided: 22-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
807
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 807
807
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.
v.
N. SAVITHA
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2052-2053 of 2022)
MARCH 22, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Compensation – Determination
of – s.4 Notification issued in the year 2008 for acquisition of land
for improvement of Bird Sanctuary– Award of compensation –
Dissatisfied with quantum of compensation, land- owner filed appeal
before High Court – Land-owner relied upon document (Ex.P.17)
by which for the land acquired in the year 2011, the amount of
compensation was awarded @ Rs.60 lakhs per acre – Mainly relying
on Ex P.17 and thereafter on “guesswork” by impugned judgment,
High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.40 Lakhs
per acre – Aggrieved State filed instant appeal – Held: Award
Ex.P.17, which was relied upon by the High Court was for the
acquisition subsequent to the land acquired in the instant case, i.e.
after a period of three years and, therefore, High Court ought not
to have relied upon the same while determining the market price of
the land acquired in 2008 – Moreover, Ex.P.17 was a consent award
– The consent award ought not to have been relied upon and/or
considered for determining the compensation in case of another
acquisition – Even otherwise, High Court determined the
compensation relying upon Ex.P.17 mechanically – High Court did
not at all consider whether the lands acquired in the instant case
was similarly situated to the lands acquired in the case of Ex.P.17 –
Matter remanded to High Court to decide the first appeals afresh in
accordance with law and on their own merits and thereafter to
determine the market price/compensation.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Comparable sales – There may
be different market prices/compensation with respect to different
lands, may be in the same village and/or nearby location – The
land, which is on a prime location and which is on the highway
and/or at a proximity to a highway may have a different market
price than the land which is situated in a different location/interior
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
808
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
of the village and which might not have a good potential for
development.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court,
the Court
HELD: 1. The award – Ex.P.17 was a consent award and
was in respect of the property acquired in the year 2011 and which
was acquired for a different purpose, namely, for formation of
double line railway broad gauge between Bengaluru and Mysore
City. But in this case, Section 4 notification was issued in the
year 2008, i.e., three years before the land acquired in the case
of Ex.P.17. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have relied
upon the same while determining the market price of the land
acquired in 2008 considering the market price determined for
the lands acquired in the year 2011 and on the basis of some
“guesswork”. [Para 4][810-F-H; 811-A]
2. Even otherwise, Ex.P.17 was a consent award. The
consent award ought not to have been relied upon and/or
considered for the purpose of determining the compensation in
case of another acquisition. In case of a consent award, one is
required to consider the circumstances under which the consent
award was passed and the parties agreed to accept the
compensation at a particular rate. In a given case, due to urgent
requirement, the acquiring body and/or the beneficiary of the
acquisition may agree to give a particular compensation.
Therefore, a consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or
determine the compensation in other acquisition, more
particularly, when there are other evidences on record. Therefore,
the High Court erred in determining the compensation @ Rs.40
lakhs per acre relying upon the award – Ex.P.17 in respect of the
land which was for the lands acquired in the year 2011.
[Para 5][811-B-D]
3. Even otherwise, the High Court determined the
compensation relying upon Ex.P.17 mechanically. The High Court
did not at all consider whether the lands acquired in the present
case was similarly situated to the lands acquired in the case of
Ex.P.17. As per the settled position of law, there may be different
market prices/compensation with respect to different lands, may
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
809
be in the same village and/or nearby location. The land, which is
on a prime location and which is on the highway and/or at a
proximity to a highway may have a different market price than
the land which is situated in a different loc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.