LexTHE GENERAL MANAGER, OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. versus RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11S.C.R.927
).r
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
A
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
v.
"
----.,.
RAME!:>HBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL & ANR. ·
(Civil Appeal No. 5192 of 2002)
JULY 31, 2008
B
~
, [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH
PANTA, JJ]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
c
~
ss. 23, 23(2) and 23(1-A) - Acquisition of land - Quan-
..,..
tum of compensation - Determination of - Comparable sale
method ·- Land acqµired in 1992 - Sale instance of 1987 -
, Annual increase in market price - At cumulative rate - HELD:
Court should avoid determination of market value with refer-
D
ence to subsequent/future transactions - In the instant case,
~
acquisition being in a rural area and there being no evidence
of out-of-ordinary developments or increase in price in the
area, an escalation of 7. 5% per annum over and above the
1987 price of sale instance would be appropriate to arrive at E
market value of acquired lands - As percentage of increase
is always with reference to previous year's market valtJe, ap-
propriate method is to calculate the increase cumulatively and
not at flat rate - For calculation of increase in price, the year of
relied-upon transaction would be excluded - Rate of relied-
F
upon transaction being Rs. 10 in 1987, market price by in-
crease in 1992 would be 14. 35 per sq. m. - Deducting Rs. 1. 35
towards distance factor, market price would be determined at
Rs.137- persq. m. - Claimants would, thus, be entitled to com-
pensation at the rate ofRs. 131- per sq. m., with additional G
amount u/s 23(1-A) and solatium uls 23(2) and interest th~reon
@ 9% for one year and 15% thereafter as awarded by re.fer-
ence court- Interest. [Pq_rf;l 13-15, 17-18, 20] [935 0-F; 936 A;
. I
937 C-G; 938 C-FJ
927
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A
Sunder vs. Union of India 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 176
= 2001 (7) SCC 211; Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. vs. Spe-
cial Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. LAO 2007(2) SCC 341
- relied on.
Ranjit Singh vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 1992(4)
B SCC 659; Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional
Officer vs. Ramanjulu & Ors. 2005(9) SCC 594; and Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswom vs~ Bipin Kumar 2004(2)
sec 283 - distinguished.
c
D
ONGC Ltd. vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & Ors. 2005
(2) Suppl. SCR 448 =2005(6) SCC 454 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
2005 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 448
1992(4) sec 659
2005(9) sec 594
referred to.
Para 7
distinguished para 9
distinguished para 9
2004(2) sec 283
distinguished para 9
2001 ( 3 ) Suppl. SCR 176 relied on
para 19
E
2007(2) sec 341
relied on
para 19
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CivilAppeal No. 5192
of 2002
From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.6.2001 of
F
the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No.
1510 of 20.01
.,
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 5193, 5194, 5195, 5196, 5197 and 5198
G of 2002
H
Mohan Parasaran, A.S.G., K.R. Sasiprabhu, R.
Chandrachud, Bindu~K Nair, Kavin Gulati, Jatin Zaveri, H~rish
J. Jhaveri, Prashant Kumar, Mis. l.M. Nanavatl Associates,
~emantika Wahi, Pinky and Somnat for the appearing parties.
' ,
i..
T .
I
l
-'
'
y
' .
THE GEN. MANAGER, OIL & NATURAL GAS CORP. LTD. 929
v. RAMESHBHAI JIVANBHAI PATEL & ANR.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
A
R. V. RAVEENDRAN J., 1.These appeals by special
leave are by the beneficiary of acquisition (ONGC), aggrieved
by the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents.
2. An extent of 13 Hectares 78 Are and 97 sq.m. in ljapura
B
Village, District Mehsana, Gujarat, was acquired for one of
ONGC installations, namely "Influent pit-Santhal I', under pre-
liminary notification dated 15.9.1992 issued under section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short) followed by
final notification dated 31.3.1993 under section 6 of the Act. c
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, ONGC, passed an Award
dated 16.11.1994 determining the market price as Rs.2 .10 per
sq.m. The respondents - land owners, sought reference to civil
court claiming Rs.30 per sq.m.
3. Before the Reference Court, the respondents did not D
place any evidence by way of contemporaneous sale transac-
tions· in the neighbourhood. But they placed reliance on some
awards passed by the said Court in other acquisition cases, in
particular, the following two awards:
(i)
Ex. 15 - relating to acquisition of lands for ONGC, in
E
the neighbouring Santhal village under preliminary
notification dated 6.1.198Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.