S Shankaraiah Thr. Gpa Holder vs Land Acquisition Officer And Revenue ...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6821 OF 2022

S. Shankaraiah Thr. GPA Holder & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer Peddapali Karimnagar Dist. & Ors. …Respondents

with

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6823 OF 2022 with

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6824 OF 2022 with

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6825 OF 2022

Signature Not Verified JUDGMENT

Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2022.11.09 17:25:06 IST Reason:

M.R. SHAH, J.

1

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

common judgment and order dated 06.12.2013 passed by the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in respective first

appeals No. 1634 of 2001 and other allied appeals, the original

land owners/claimants have preferred the present appeals

seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation for the

lands acquired.

2. Large extent of land in different survey number in Adrial

Village of Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District came to be

acquired by the State Government for the benefit of Singareni

Collieries Company Limited. The lands were acquired for the

purposes of excavation of coal. Notification under Section 4(1)

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Act, 1894’) came to be issued on 13.05.1985. Declaration

under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was issued on 31.07.1985.

The Land Acquisition Officer passed the awards in the year

1987, fixing the market value for the acquired lands at

Rs.7,000/­ per acre for Category 1 – Dry Lands under

2 Cultivation and at Rs.6000/­ per acre for Category 2 – Dry

Lands Left Fallow. Not satisfied with the compensation

awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the land owners

sought references under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. The land

owners claimed the compensation at Rs.2 lakhs per acre. The

Reference Court fixed the market value at Rs.30,000/­ per acre

and Rs.50,000/­ per acre. The Reference Court also awarded

the compensation @ Rs.15,000/­ per acre towards sub­soil

mineral rights. By the impugned common judgment and order

the High Court has determined and awarded the compensation

@ Rs.80,000/­ per acre considering the market value of the

land Rs.1,23,000/­ per acre and thereafter deducting 1/3 rd.

The High Court has also in addition awarded Rs.10,000/­ per

acre as part of the market value for sub­soil rights.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

common judgment and order passed by the High Court

determining and awarding the compensation at Rs.80,000/­

per acre and Rs.10,000/­ per acre for sub­soil rights on

3 account of the coal deposits, the original claimants – land

owners have preferred the present appeals.

2.2 At the outset, it is required to be noted that against the

very impugned common judgment and order the beneficiary –

Singareni Collieries Company Limited approached this Court by

way of special leave petitions which have been dismissed. The

review applications are also dismissed. Therefore, the short

question which is posed for consideration before this Court is

whether the amount of compensation determined / awarded by

the High Court is required to be enhanced in the appeals

preferred by the original claimants/land owners?

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants

has submitted that while determining/awarding the

compensation the Hon’ble High Court has not appreciated that

the petitioners were the absolute owners of the land including

the sub­soil minerals and were not merely tenure holders. It is

submitted that therefore while determining the amount of

compensation for the land acquired claim for sub­soil minerals

4 rights was also required to be considered. It is submitted that

in the impugned judgment and order the Hon’ble High Court

has also specifically given the findings that the nature of

deposits existing on the surface or the sub­soil of a land would

play an important role and if there are any deposits of rare

minerals or precious stones, that would add to the market

value of the land. It is submitted that though the Hon’ble High

Court has observed that it is not proper for the Land

Acquisition Officer or the Civil Court to separately award the

compensation towards sub­soil mineral rights, thereafter it is

observed that it is permissible to take the fact or into account,

while determining the market value.

3.1. It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the land owners/claimants that even otherwise the

acquisition was solely for the purpose of excavation of the coal

and there was no other purpose for the acquisition and the

entire acquired land is being excavated on the basis of the

estimates of the coal reserves identified therein, the Hon’ble

5 High Court has erred in deducting 1/3rd towards the

development. It is submitted that since the entire land is to be

mined, there is no wastage of land on account of any

developmental activities, such as roads, sewage lines, parks etc.

which are required to be carved out in

industrial/commercial/housing layouts. It is submitted that

therefore, the deduction from the compensation determined

may not be permissible in absence of any justification for such

deduction as the entire land is having coal reserves. Reliance is

placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nelson

Fernandes & Ors. versus Special Land Acquisition Officer

South Goa & Ors. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 447.

4. Shri A. Mariarputham, learned Senior Advocate appearing

on behalf of the respondents while opposing the present

appeals has submitted that the amount determined by the

Hon’ble High Court which includes Rs.10,000/­ per acre

towards the coal deposits, the same is not required to be

interfered with by this Hon’ble Court.

6 4.1 Now so far as 1/3rd deduction made by the Hon’ble High

Court from Rs.1,23,000/­ per acre it is submitted that as per

the settled position of law there shall be an appropriate

deduction towards the development and therefore 1/3 rd

deduction can be said to be just and reasonable deduction

towards the development, which is not required to be interfered

with.

Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the

present appeals by further submitting that as such the appeals

preferred by the respondents ­ Singareni Collieries Company

Ltd. & Ors. have been dismissed by this Court and the

judgment and order passed by this Hon’ble High Court has

been confirmed by this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length.

7

6. By the impugned common judgment and order the High

Court has determined and awarded Rs.80,000/­ per acre. The

High Court has also granted/awarded Rs.10,000/­ for sub­soil

rights on account of coal deposits. Feeling aggrieved and

dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order

passed by the High Court, the original claimants/land owners

have preferred the present appeals seeking enhancement of the

amount of compensation.

6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that so far as the

appeals preferred by the respondents ­ Singareni Collieries

Company Ltd. & Ors., the same have been dismissed by this

Court.

6.2 While determining and awarding the compensation at

Rs.80,000/­ per acre the High Court has considered the market

value of the land in question at Rs.1,23,000/­. However,

thereafter has deducted 1/3rd towards the development charges

etc. and thereafter has awarded the actual amount of

compensation at Rs.80,000/­ per acre. It is the case on behalf

8 of the claimants/land owners that the lands in question have

been acquired for the benefit of the mining company/ Singareni

Collieries Company Ltd. which is to be used for excavation of

coal. The coal is already existed in the lands acquired. Since

the entire land is to be mined and the coal is to be excavated,

there is no wastage of land on account of any developmental

activities such as roads, sewage lines, parks etc. In that view of

the matter, there is no development required and therefore

1/3rd deduction is not warranted at all. Identical question

came to be considered by this Court in the case of Nelson

Fernandes (supra) and after taking into consideration the

earlier decision of this Court in the case of Basavva vs. Spl.

Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 9 SCC 640, in which this

Court has held that the purpose for which acquisition is made

is also a relevant factor for determining the market value and

the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken

into consideration, thereafter in paragraph 29 it is observed

and held as under:

9

“29. Both the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the District Judge and of the High Court have failed to notice that the purpose of acquisition is for Railways and that the purpose is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for fixing the compensation. In this context, we may usefully refer the judgment of this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 4 SCC 789 : JT (2005) 4 SC 282] . This Court held that the purpose for which the land is acquired must also be taken into consideration in fixing the market value and the deduction of development charges. In the above case, the lands were acquired because they were submerged under water of a dam. Owners claimed compensation of Rs 40 per sq ft. LAO awarded compensation ranging from Rs 35 to Rs 60 per sq m. Reference Court fixed the market value of the land at Rs 200 per sq m and after deduction of development charges, determined the compensation @ Rs 134 per sq m. In arriving at the compensation, Reference Court placed reliance on the comparative sale of a piece of land measuring 46.30 sq m @ Rs 270 per sq m. On appeal, the High Court awarded compensation of Rs 180 per sq m in respect of large plots and Rs 200 per sq m in respect of smaller plots. On further appeal, this Court held that since the lands were acquired for being submerged in water of dam and had no potential value and the sale instance relied was a small plot measuring 46.30 sq m whereas the acquisition in the present case was in respect of large area, interest of justice would be subserved by awarding compensation of Rs 160 per sq m in respect of larger plots and Rs 175 per sq m for smaller plots. In Basavva v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer [(1996) 9 SCC 640 : JT (1996) 5 SC 580] this Court held that the purpose for which acquisition is made is also a relevant factor for determining the market value.”

10 6.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid

decision to the facts of the case on hand and when the

acquisition is solely for the purpose of excavation of coal and

the entire land is acquired on the basis of the estimates of the

coal reserve identified and the entire land is to be mined and

used and no further developmental activity is required, we are

of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case,

the High Court has erred in deducting 1/3 rd towards the

developmental activities. The additional amount awarded by

the High Court at Rs.10,000/­ per acre on account of coal

deposits is not required to be interfered with more particularly

when the same has been confirmed by this Court in as much as

the appeals preferred by the respondents have been dismissed

by this Court.

7. In view of the above and for the reason stated above,

present appeals succeed in part. It is held that the original

claimants shall be entitled to the compensation for the lands

acquired at Rs.1,23,000/­ per acre with other statutory benefits

which may be available under the provisions of the Act, 1894.

11 In addition, the original claimants shall also be entitled to

Rs.10,000/­ per acre as awarded by the High Court on account

of coal deposits.

The impugned common judgment and order passed by the

High Court is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent.

Present appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall

be no order as to costs.

…………………………..J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………...J. (KRISHNA MURARI) New Delhi;

November 9, 2022.

12