2018 (4) TMI 1697 - SC - Indian Laws

Amount of Compensation - acquisition of Dry lands - Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - HELD THAT - In the case at hand, it is a matter of record that the said land is fit for using the same for house sites and situated adjacent to the National highway and is also near to the busy area with various facilities. During the course of proceeding, various sale deeds of adjacent lands were brought to our knowledge. It is also undisputed fact that the entire land belonging to the Appellant herein was not acquired but a portion of it alone had been acquired. It is the grievance of the Appellant that the acquisition of land to the extent of 4.63 acres out of total holding of 6.11 acres, rendering the balance land to be an uneconomical holding for the purpose of continuing agriculture operations. There is no doubt that the land owners have to suffer when their lands acquired under the LA Act. Hence, they must be compensated properly in lieu of their lands to do proper justice. There is no doubt that the lands which are situated adjacent to the main road will fetch good market value than the lands which are situated beyond the road. Though learned single Judge of the High Court was of the opinion that there was no basis of granting ₹ 2,500/- per cent for the suit lands, we are of the considered opinion that on the basis of the alleged sale deeds which were done in the proximity within a very short time amply prove its value in relation to the adjoining lands. Learned subordinate Judge was right in holding the potential value of the suit lands.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Justification of the High Court's reduction of compensation for the acquired land.
2. Adequacy and correctness of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
3. Consideration of the potential value and market value of the acquired lands.
4. Evaluation of the public purpose and its impact on the compensation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the High Court's Reduction of Compensation:

The primary issue for consideration was whether the High Court's decision to reduce the compensation from ?2,500/- per cent to ?1,670/- per cent was just and reasonable. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in reducing the compensation. The learned subordinate Judge had rightly assessed the potential value of the suit lands and awarded ?2,500/- per cent based on various sale deeds and the proximity of the lands to developed areas. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's reduction was not justified and restored the compensation to ?2,500/- per cent as awarded by the subordinate Judge.

2. Adequacy and Correctness of the Compensation Awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer:

The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation at ?400/- per cent, which the Appellant contended was grossly inadequate. The learned subordinate Judge, after considering the objections and the evidence presented, determined that the compensation should be ?2,500/- per cent. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment, noting that the Land Acquisition Officer had failed to consider the potential value and the rise in prices of the acquired lands. The compensation determined by the subordinate Judge was deemed fair and reasonable.

3. Consideration of the Potential Value and Market Value of the Acquired Lands:

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering the potential value and market value of the acquired lands. The learned subordinate Judge had considered various sale deeds of adjacent lands, the proximity to the national highway, and the potential for development. The Supreme Court noted that the acquired lands were fit for housing purposes and situated in a prime location, which justified the higher compensation. The market value was assessed based on the use to which the land was being put on acquisition and its potentialities.

4. Evaluation of the Public Purpose and Its Impact on the Compensation:

The acquisition was for providing house sites to landless poor Adi Dravidars, which was a public purpose. The Supreme Court highlighted that public purpose includes the general interest of the community and not just the interest of individuals. The acquisition was deemed to serve the welfare of the people. The Court also noted that the landowners must be compensated properly to do justice, considering the impact of the acquisition on their remaining land holdings.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 06.11.2009 and restored the order passed by the Reference Court dated 27.03.2000, which granted compensation at the rate of ?2,500/- per cent. The appeals filed by the Appellant were allowed, and the cross objection by the Respondent was dismissed with no order as to costs. The judgment underscores the importance of fair compensation that reflects the true market value and potential of the acquired lands while serving a public purpose.