LexTHE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE BY ITS SECRETARY ETC. versus THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A . THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE B c BY ITS SECRET ARY ETC. v. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ANR. ETC. SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Compensation-Awarded by Land Acquisition Office1~Enhanced by Reference Cowt-Reduced by High Cowt-On appeal held, no prudent pur- chaser in open market would offer to purchase the land on Sq. ft. basis that too on the basis of few small sale transactions-Small extents of land would D always fetch higher market value-Large eJ.1ent of land would never command such high p1ice-Such instances of sale of small extent not comparable sa/e3~Awards and decrees of the Reference Cowt and High Cowt set aside-Matter remitted to civil cowt for decision afresh after giving oppor- tunity to the pa1ties and then to decide the market value-Additional amount under S.23 ( 1-A) awarded by High Cowt also set aside since land Acquisition E Officer made the award before the Amendment Act came into f 01:ce. F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12883 of 1996 Etc, From the Judgment and Order dated 7.10.92 of the Karnataka High Court in M.FA. No. 837 of 1987. KM. Reddy, N.D.B. Raju, G. Prakbhakar and M. Veerappa for the appellants. G Ranjit Kumar, P. Mahale and K.K. Gupta for the Respondents. The following Order of the IS:ourt was delivered : Leave granted. H We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 662 AGRICULTURALPRODUCEMKf. COMMITIEE v. lAND AQSN. OFFlCER 663 Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 A (for short, the 'Act') was published on April 14, 1977 acquiring an extent of 3 acres 34 gunthas, 1 acre 2 gunthas for extension of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Gadag in Dharwad District ,of Karnataka State. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) by his award dated January 23, 1982 determine the compensation of the rate of Rs. 0.76 per sq. ft. On reference, the Civil Judge, Gadag in his award dated November 29, 1982 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8.50 per sq. ft. On appeal under Section 54, in the impugned judgment dated October 7, 1992 and November 4, 1992 in MFA No. 837/87 and MFA No. 1962/87 respectively, the High Court of Karnataka reduced the compensation to Rs. 7 per sq. ft. Thus, these appeals by special leave. The reference Court and the High Court relied on three sale instan- ces of an extent of 38. 4 sq. ft. and 87.35 sq. ft. which worked out at the B c rate of Rs. 8 and Rs. 19.98 per sq. ft.; another sale deed of 78 sq. ft. was worked out at the rate of Rs. 31.25 per sq. ft. The question is whether the D principle adopted by the courts below is correct in law? It is now settled legal position by catena of decisions of this Court that the Civil Court has to sit in the arm chair of a willing prudent purchaser and put a question to itself and answer whether such a willing prudent purchase would off er to purchase in the open market at the rate Court proposed to determine as compensation. When a total extent of 7 acres and odd is sought to be acquired no prudent purchaser in open market would offer to purchase the open land on sq. ft. basis that to·o on the basis of few small sale transactions and small extents would always fetch higher market value and the same will never command such price in respect of large extent. This Court had always rejected such instances as being not comparable sales. Therefore, the Civil Judge adopted feats of imagination and determined the compensation on the basis thereof. Unfortunately, the High Court ·a1so E F fell into the same grave error in determining the compensation on the same basis but deducted l/3rd towards developmental charges. The principle adopted by the courts below is obviously erroneous and, therefore, it G cannot be sustained on that basis. However, when we asked t)le learned counsel for the parties to produce the evidence, the appellant has produced certain . documents indicating therein that for the same purpose they ap- peared to have negotiated and purchased the properties for others at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per acre and registered sale deed came to be executed. They are produced for the first time. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel H 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A for the respondents, contended that the documents were not placed either ' in the reference Court or in the High Court. He also says that location o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.