STATE OF MADRAS versus A. M. NANJAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 09-02-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
356 
STATE OF MADRAS 
v. 
A. M. NANJAN AND ANR. 
February 9, 1976 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND s. MuRTAZA FAZAL Au, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 23-Compensation-Quantum of-
Increasing the an1ount of con1pe11sation appreciating the evidence oral and 
documentary, the admitted rise of prices of land,• the advantages and facilities 
of the land lvith reference to its location etc. is within the well recognised 
4 
principles of fixing the con1pensation and is not based on speculation or con· 
;ecture-Awards for other- lands are in the nature of admission of the value of 
the land and admissible in evidence. 
In respect of an area of 18.34 acres in Mulligoor village, Nilgiris District 
belonging to the respondents and acquired by the appellant for the purpose of 
hydro·electric scheme at Kundah in May 1957 the land acquisition officer 
awarded a compensation of Rs. 500 /- per acre as against its purchase price 
of Rs. 230/- per acre in February 1951; but on a reference the Subordinate 
Judge raised it to Rs. 1800/- per acre. On appeals by the Appellant/State and 
the Respondent/Claimant, while dismissing the State appeal and partly allow-
ing the respoftdent's appeal, the High Court of Madras by its common judg-
ment raised the rate of compensation to Rs. 3000/- per acre. 
In the two appeals by certificate, the appellant State contended (i) that 
raising the rate of compens·ation was without any basis and merely on specula-
tion, (ii) that the rates at which the adjoining lands were sold for house sites 
cannot be safe-guides; (iii) that allowing flat rate of Rs. 3000/- per acre with-
out due regard to the quality or classification of the land is bad in principles 
of fixing con1pe•sation. 
Negativing the contentions of the State and dismissing the apj,eals, 
the 
Court 
HELD ; (I) The awards given by the Land Acquisition Collector are at 
least relevant material and may be in the nature of admission \N'ith regard to 
the value of the land on behalf of the State and if the land involved in the 
awards is comparable land in the reasonable proxiriiity of the acquired 
land, 
the rates fund iil the said documents \vould be a reliable material to afford a 
basis to work upon for determination of the compensation on a later date. The 
awards can be taken as safe guides, and are admissible in evidence for the 
determination of con1pensation. 
[358EFJ 
(2) In the instant 
case, from an exan1ination of the evidence and the 
documents and having regard to the location, advantages and facilities 
of the 
lnnd and the admitted rise of price of the land between the years 1951 and 
1957, it cannot be said that the High Court either departed from any 
well 
recognised prin.:iple in determining or comn1itted an error in raising the amourit 
of compensation. 
[359A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1212 
and 
1213 of 1968. 
From the Judgment and Decree dated 2-5-1960 of the Madras 
High Court in Appeals Nos. ZO and 61 of 1960. 
H 
Lal Narain Sinha, Solicitor General, A. V. Rangam and Miss A. 
Subhashini for the Appellant. 
M. Natesan and Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan for Respondents. 
( 
I 
• 
MADRAS v. A. M. NANJAN (Goswumi, !.) 
357 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GosWAMI, J.-The only question that arises for consideration in 
these appeals by certificate of the High Court of Judicature at Madras 
relates to the quantum of compensation with regard to acquisition of 
18.34 acres of land in Mulligoor village, Nilgiris District, belonging to 
the respondents. 
The land in question was acquired for the purpose of a hydro-
electric scheme at Kundah. 
A Notification under section 4(1) of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1S94, was allfy published on May 1, 1957. 
This land was purchased by the respondents' father by a sale deed 
(Ext. B-1) of February 22; 1951, for a consideration of Rs. 4218/4/-
from the Nilgiris Wattle Plantations Limited. 
The rate at which this 
purchase was made was Rs. 230/- per acre. The Collector awarded 
compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre. 
On a reference at the 
instance of the claimants (respondents herein) the Subordinate Judge 
raised the compensation to Rs. 1800/- per acre. 
The State as well 
as the claimants appealed to the High Court against the judgment and 
decree of the Subordinate Judge. 
By a common judgment the High 
Court dismissed the State's appeal and partly allowed the claimants' 
appeal by raising the rate of compensation to Rs. 3000/- per ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.