;
SRI SAUNU
A
v.
COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION
AUGUST 28, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. VENKATASWAMY, JJ.]
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Compensation-A. ward of by Land Acquisition Officer and confinned
by the Additional Disflict Judge and High Cowt-On further appeal for C
enhancement, held, sale deeds in respect of small extent of land do not fonn
reasonable basis to detennine higher compensation for vast land--Court to
adopt the test as to whether a willing pmdent purchaser in the open market
would be prepared to offer compensation at the rate which the Court proposes
to detennine in compulsory acquisition--ln the facts of the case, no inter-
! erence is called for.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3030 of
1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.82 of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court in R.F.A. No. 19 of 1970.
Chandra Prakash Pandey for the Appellant.
S. Wasim and A. Qadri for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
E
F
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of
1894) (for short, the "Act") was published on December 4, 1965 acquiring
221 bighas of land for the construction of approach channel to the Inlet
Portal of S.S. Tunnel by the Beas-Sutlej Link Project. The Land Acquisi-
tion Officer in his award dated June 26/27, 1968 classified the lands into 9 G
items (mentioned at page 4 of the Paper Book) and granted compensation
,.
at the rate varying between Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 5,000 per bigha. On reference,
the Additional District Judge confirmed the award of the Collector. On
appeal, in the impugned judgment dated December 31, 1982 the Division
Bench in RFA No. 19nO confirmed the same. Thus, this appeal by special H
313
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A leave.
Admittedly, the appellant's claim is for compensation at the rate of
Rs. 15,000 per bigha. The classification of the land and the amount
awarded by the Collector would indicate that in respect of Kohli I, Begicha
and Abadi Deh lands, he granted 2,000 per bigha; in respect of the lands
B B-1, he granted what was asked for, namely Rs. 1500 per bigha. For
Kohli-II he granted Rs. 1250 per bigha; for item 5 B-11, he granted Rs, 1000
per bigha; for banjar and uncultivated lands, he granted Rs. 500 per bigha.
It is one of the rarest cases where the Land Acquisition Officer has granted
fair compensation. The question, however, arises : whether it is a case for
C further enhancement? The appellant relied upon five sales instances of a
small extent of land ranging between 6 biswas and 18 biswas spoken to by
the witnesses as discussed by the High Court. These lands are situated in
the Abadi, namely village itself. Under those circumstances, those sale
deeds do not form any reasonable basis to determine higher compensation
for the vast eXtent of 221 bighas of land. The test that the Court is required
D to adopt is whether a willing prudent purchaser in the open market would
be prepared to offer compensation at the rate which the Court proposes
to determine in a compulsory acquisition. In this case, the courts have
adopted the correct standard and were not inclined to come to the con-
clusion that the lands would fetch higher than what was determined by the
E Land Acquisition Officer. Under these circumstances, the courts below
have not committed any error of principle of law in determining the
compensation, warranting interference.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances,
without costs.
G.N.
Appeal dismissed.
Lex