SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER versus INDIAN STANDARD METAL CO. LTD.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 895 · Decided: 30-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 
v. 
INDIAN STANDARD METAL CO. LTD. 
SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
" 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Land Acquisition-Compensation-Claim 
for enhanced amount-Non production of documentary evidence showing 
purchase price of land by claimant-Claimant witnesses not proving the 
purchase price-Government produced document showing purchase price to 
be much lower-Development of the land was post Notification u/s 4-
Compensation enhanced by High Court in view of industrial growth in the 
vicinity-On appeal, held: When claimant had purchased the land, purchase 
price of the same was an important factor in determining the value of 
acquired land-Since High Court order was in disregard of documentary 
evidence, and in disregard of fact of non-production of sale deeds and 
witnesses, the same is set aside-Matter remitted back to High Court for 
reconsideration. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The land of the respondent-claimant was acquired by State 
Government by issuing Notification in February, 1970 under Section 4 
E 
of Land Acqui!>ition Act, 1894. A part of the acquired land had been 
given to the claimant by the Government after having acquired the 
same in 1967 and some part of the land was purchased by the claimant 
in 1964-65. Land Acquisition Authority passed an Award fixing the 
market value of the land. Claimant filed Land Reference. claiming 
enhanced compensation. In the Reference Claimant Witness No. 1, the 
F 
Power of Attorney Holder deposed that the entire development of the 
land was not prior to or in or about 1970 and the same was after the 
said period. Claimant Witness No. 2, the valuer of the land deposed that 
he was entrusted the work of valuation ofacquired lantl by the Company 
in 1986; and that in the area there was no industry aild no commercial 
G 
zone was formed before 1970. Reference Court in view of the fact that 
documents regarding purchase of the land in 1964-65 ought to have 
been produced by the claimant; and since according to Government the 
. land was purchased by the claimant at much lower price and the 
Government had relied upon Index Extract showing the price paid by 
the claimant in 1964-65 awarded a slightly enhanced compensation. 
H 
895 
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation claimant filed first appeal 
claiming further enhanced compensation. High Court awarded enhanced 
compensation holding that location of the land was near several important 
places and assessing the market value of those lands compensation had 
to be awarded in consonance with the industrial growth in the vieinity. 
B 
In appeal to this Court appellant-State co.-itended that amount of 
compensation is to be determined on the date of Notification u/s. 4 of the 
Act and not subsequent thereto; that the amount of compensation could 
not have been enhanced by High Court in view of evidence of two 
witnesses that the development was post 1970; and that the land in 
C 
question· being a large track of land, sale instances sought to be relied 
upon by the claimant in respect of small pieces of land were not relevant. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Relevant and germane consideration has not been taken 
into account by the High Court in deciding the appeal and enhancing the 
amount of compensation. High Court had not appreciated the evidence 
of witnesses for the claimant's property. By making the observations that 
the documents regarding purchase of land in the year 1964-65 ought 
to have been produced by the Company, the Reference Court has 
not committed any illegality. The High Court, has not considered this 
aspect in its proper perspective. The Reference Court also observed 
that according to the Government, some land was subject matter of purchase 
· by the Company in 1964-65 and price paid by the Company was much 
lower. The State also relied upon Index Extracts showing the price paid by 
the Company in 1964-65. (903-B-C; 900-G-H; 902-D-E-F] 
2. In the instant case, the acquisition of land is on a large scale and 
as such, sale instances of small pieces of land would not be of much 
assistance to the claimant. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have 
given undue importance to sale instances. (903-B-C] 
3. Since the High Court failed to consider documentary evidence.as 
also the fact of non-production of sale deeds by the Company and also the 
evidence of two witnesses f

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