The Special Land Acquisition Officer,srirangapatnam vs Nagegowda
- SCC(1996) 10 SCC 368
- Neutral1996 INSC 936
- SCR[1996] Supp (5) SCR 191
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the Land Acquisition Officer relies on comparable property evidence (Ex. A-3) to support the compensation awarded, that evidence is irrelevant and must be rejected if it relates to land of a different character (in this case, land with coconut trees rather than agricultural land under acquisition) and if the amount awarded in that comparable case is itself subject to pending appellate proceedings under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the determination of compensation for acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the court may award reasonable compensation based on the circumstances of the case even where neither the Land Acquisition Officer's award nor the reference court's award is accepted, exercising its discretion to arrive at a just valuation between the parties.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
PETITIONER: THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,SRIRANGAPATNAM
Vs.
RESPONDENT: NAGEGOWDA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/08/1996
BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION: JT 1996 (7) 659
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 1996 Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik K.R.Nagaraja, Adv. for the appellant Shanta Kr. and K.K. Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent O R D E R The following order of the Court was delivered:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Srirangapatnam V. Nagegowda O R D E R Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Notification under Section 4 [1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on December 26, 1985 acquiring land admeasuring 5 acres 21 gunthas for the purpose of formation of Hemavathi left bank canal. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on February 23, 1988 @ Rs. 4800/- per acre. On reference, the civil Judge relying upon Ex.P-3 awarded compensation @ Rs. 20000/- per acre. He categorically rejected the contention of the claimant that he was growing sugarcane, hybride jowar and mulberry getting a full yield of Rs. 25000/- acre. On appeal, the High Court by impugned judgment dated August 18, 1994 in FA No. 1311/94 confirmed the same. Thus this appeal by special leave.
Having considered the facts and circumstances in this case, we think that reasonable compensation would be Rs. 10000/- per acre. The judgement referring to Ex. A-3 has been placed before us and it indicates that it related to land with coconut trees. Even the amount awarded by the civil judge in that case is now subject matter in the appeal before the District Judge filed under Section 54 of the Act. Under these circumstances, Ex. A-3 is absolutely irrelevant for determination of the compensation. Accordingly, the respondent is entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs. 10000/- per acre with solatium at 30% under Section 23 [2], interest under Section 28 9% for one year from the taking of possession and at 15% thereafter on enhanced compensation till date of deposit into court and additional amount under Section 23 [1-A] at 13% per annum from the date of issue of Section 4 [1] notification till date of the award.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free