LexTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. ETC. versus SRI SIDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
f
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. ETC.
A
v.
SRI SIDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI AND ORS. ETC.
OCTOBER 27, 1994
[K. RAMASWAMY, S.C. AGRAWALANDN. VENKATACHALA,JJ.]
B
Land Acquisition Act 1894, Ss. 11 (2), (3) and 12-Evidentiary value
of award covering lands under same notification-Collector making award
for 240 acres @ Rs. 4,000 per acre by agreement with owners-Later
· making award for remaining 60 acres on basis of market value@ Rs. 4,000 C
and 4,500 per acre for agricultural and non-agricuitural land
respectively-Civil Court on reference enhancing compensation to Rs.
60, 000 per acre on basis of sale deed of small bit of land and valuation
report of retired engineer-Held, Civil Court wrong in ignoring altogether
award earlier made by Collector; cannot grant enhanced compensation
without first recording finding of inadequacy of award amount-Karnataka D
Industrial Area Development Act 1966, S. 29 (2).
Land Acquisition Act 1894, Ss.11 (2) and II (3) -Determination of
market value-Acquisition of 300 acres of land for industries-Civil Court
on reference enhancing compensation to Rs. 60,000 per acre on basis of
market value of small bit of land and valuation report of retired engineer- E
Hi!ld; Court was wrong in determining compensation on basis of sale deed
of small extent of land and on expert report based on such sale deed
300 acres of land in Belgaum were sought to be acquired under
S.28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (the F
'KIAD Act') for the purpose of industries. Pursuant to an agreement
with the State Government, owners of240 acres accepted compensation
determined at Rs. 4,000 per acre under an award made by the
Collector in that behalf. The owners of the remaining 60 acres did not
agree to receive the above compensation and it became necessary to
take recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 G
('Act') for determining the compensation payable to them. The Land
Acquisition Officer (LAO) awarded Rs. 4,000 per acre for agricultural
land and Rs. 4,500 per acre for non-agricultural land on the basis of
market value. The LAO referred to the earlier award in respect of 240
acres and to the price fetched for large extent of similar lands.
H
207
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
The Civil Court on a reference sought by tht: owners of the 60
acres, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 60,000 per acre relying upon a
solitary sale deed for a small extent of land and the valuation report of
a retired engineer based on the said sale deed. Not satisfied with the
reduction by the High Court of the compensation to Rs. 52,000 and Rs.
36,000 per acre for
non-agricultural and agricultural lands
respectively, the State Government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The Civil Court had wholly ignored the settlement
reached by the owners of about 240 acres of land which was similar to
the (pO acres of acquired lands and formed four-fifth of 300 acres of the
acquired lands. When 240 acres of lands acquired, for which Rs. 4,000
per acre ~as received as compensation by agreement and 60 acres of
lands acquired for which Court had to determine compensation were
similar, no merit could be found in the argument that these lands
should be granted higher compensation. (221-E-Ff
1.2. The evidentiary value of the award made under S.11 (2) of the
Act ought to increase depending on the proportion which the area of
the lands covered by the award may be are to the total area of the land
covered by the notification for acquisition. Such being the evidentiary
value of an award made under S.11 (2) of the Act, the Court
determining the compensation payable for other acquired lands
covered by the same notification cannot ignore altogether from its
consideration such award. (216-G-H)
Bangaru Narasingha Rao NaidJ v. R.D.O., Vizianagaram, (1980) 1
SCC 75 and Krishna Yachandra Bachadurvaru v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, (1979) 4
sec 356, referred to.
1.3. The Court which is required to decide the reference under S.18
of the Act, cannot determine the amount of compensation payable to
the claimant exceeding the amount determined in the award of the.
Collector made under S.11 for the same land,. unless it gets over the
finality and conclusive evidentiary value attributed to it under S.12, by
recording a finding on coExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.