STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. versus KANSHI RAM & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 14-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
v.
KANSHI RAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6308 of 2019)
AUGUST 14, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND R. SUBHASH REDDY]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss.4, 6 – Gram panchayat made
a request to State for construction of road from Namhol to
Bahadurpur – For the purpose of construction of road, possession
of land was taken in the year 1988 – Some of the owners of the
land whose land was utilized for construction of road approached
High Court complaining that their land was utilized without
acquisition of land in accordance with law – Pursuant thereto, State-
appellant initiated land acquisition proceedings to acquire 18-15
bighas of land situated in Tepra village – Land Acquisition Officer
categorized the land into 5 categories and fixed Rs.61,666 per bigha
– Reference Court fixed the compensation by awarding uniform
rate at Rs.7 lakhs per bigha based on the sale deed dated
24.11.2004 – Aggrieved, State filed appeals before High Court –
Respondents preferred cross objections claiming interest from the
date of taking possession to the date of publication of s.4(1)
Notification – By the impugned judgment, High Court dismissed the
appeals filed by the State and allowed the cross objections by
awarding interest @ 15% p.a. on the market value of the land fixed
by the Reference Court, from 1.1.1989 till the date of Notification
issued under s.4(1) of the Act – State and claimants  filed appeals
respectively – Held: Under the sale deed relied on, Ex.PW-1/A,
only one biswa of land was sold by PW-2 to PW-3, for a
consideration of Rs.50,000/- – PW-2 is also a claimant in these
proceedings – When the total land admeasuring 18-15 bighas of
land was acquired, the Reference Court and the High Court
committed error in accepting document in Ex.PW-1/A, as a
comparable sale for the purpose of fixing  market value of the
acquired land at the rate of Rs.7 lakhs per bigha – As no other
documentary evidence is available on record and further in view of
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 608
608
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
609
the allegation of the appellants that the sale deed in Ex.’RA’ dated
04.05.2001 under which 4-51 bighas of land in adjoining village
was sold in the year 2001, is not considered without assigning valid
reasons, State’s appeals remitted to reference court for consideration
afresh – The additional interest awarded @ 15% P.A. from the date
of Notification is also set aside.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Compensation, determination of
– Comparable sale – Large extent of land – Sale deed of small
chunk of land relied on – If no other comparable sales are available
in the same village, it is always open to the Reference Court to
consider sales in the adjoining villages during the relevant period
– In the instant case, vendor in the sale deed relied on was the
claimant in the instant land acquisition proceedings also – Such
sale could not be considered as a comparable sale for the purpose
of fixing the market value of large extent of land i.e. 18-15 bighas.
Allowing the State’s appeals and remitting the matter to
Reference Court, the Court
HELD : Under the sale deed relied on, Ex.PW-1/A, only
one biswa of land was sold by PW-2 to PW-3, for a consideration
of Rs.50,000/-. PW-2 is also a claimant in the land acquisition
proceedings in the impugned judgment. When the total land
admeasuring 18-15 bighas of land was acquired, the Reference
Court and the High Court committed error in accepting document
in Ex.PW-1/A, as a comparable sale for the purpose of fixing the
market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per
bigha. As no other documentary evidence is available on record
and further in view of the allegation of the appellants that the
sale deed in Ex.’RA’ dated 04.05.2001 under which 4-51 bighas
of land in adjoining village was sold in the year 2001, is not
considered without assigning valid reasons, these appeals filed
by the State are to be allowed by remitting the matter for fresh
consideration by the Reference/District Court. As much as PW-2
is the vendor under Ex.PW-1/A, who is no other than one of the
claimants in the land acquisition proceedings, such sale could
not have been considered as a comparable sale for the purpose
of fixing the market value of large extent of land i.e. 18-15 bighas.
If no other comparable sales are available in the same village, it
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. KANSHI RAM
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
610
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C

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