Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4(1), 5A, 18 – Part of appellant’s land acquired – Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 400/- per cent of land to the appellant – Subordinate Judge on reference u/s.18, granted compensation @ Rs. 2,500/- per cent – High Court reduced the compensation from Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 1,670/- – On appeal, held: In the instant case, the land in question is situated adjacent to the National highway and is also near a busy area with various facilities – Respondent determined the value of the land in question based on the sale deed which had happened five months prior to the date of acquisition of the land in question, wherein the land was sold @ Rs. 400/- per cent – Subordinate Judge correctly appreciated the fact that there is a railway track between such land which was taken as the data land and the acquired land and thus, both the lands cannot be considered as similar – Acquired land is in the midst of a railway track and national highway having capacity for higher potential – Further, lands adjacent to the land in question which were sold @ Rs. 4,919/- and Rs. 4,893/- in proximity within a very short time, amply prove its value in relation to the adjoining lands – Order passed by High Court set aside and that of Reference Court restored. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Fair and reasonable compensation – Meaning of – Held: Fair and reasonable compensation means the price of a willing buyer which is to be paid to the willing seller.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Purpose of acquisition – ‘Public Purpose’ – What is – Held: Public purpose is not capable of precise definition – It would broadly include the purpose in which the general interest of the society as opposed to the particular interest of the individual is directly and vitally concerned.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Factors for determination – Discussed.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Fair and reasonable compensation means the price of a willing buyer which is to be paid to the willing seller. Though the Act does not provide for “just terms” or “just compensation”, but the market value is to be assessed taking into consideration the use to which it is being put on acquisition and whether the land has unusual or unique features or potentialities. [Para 10][1092-B-C]
1.2 Similarly, public purpose is not capable of precise definition. Each case has to be considered in the light of the purpose for which acquisition is sought for. It is to serve the general interest of the community as opposed to the particular interest of the individual. Public purpose would broadly include the purpose in which the general interest of the society as opposed to the particular interest of the individual is directly and vitally concerned. Generally the executive would be the best judge to determine whether or not the impugned purpose is a public purpose. Yet it is not beyond the purview of judicial scrutiny. The interest of a section of the society may be public purpose when it is benefited by the acquisition. The acquisition in question must indicate that it was towards the welfare of the people and not to benefit a private individual or group of individuals joined collectively. Therefore, acquisition for anything which is not for a public purpose cannot be done compulsorily. 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. [Paras 11, 12][1092-D-F]
1.3 An assessment of the compensation payable for land acquired must take into account several factors, including the nature of the land, its present use and its capacity for a higher potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the use to which neighbouring land has been put to use, the impact of such use on the land acquired, and so on. In the case at hand, the respondent determined the value of the suit land based on the sale deed dated 15.04.1993 under which 26 cents in S.No. 294/A/1-B16 was sold at the rate of Rs. 400/- per cent which had happened five months prior to the date of acquisition of the suit land and that land was taken as data land. The Subordinate Judge very correctly appreciated the fact that there is a railway track between the data land and the acquired land and in that view of the matter, both the lands cannot be considered as similar. It is also evident that the acquired lands are in the midst of a railway track and national highway having capacity for higher potential. An extent of land in S.No. 323 which was adjacent to the suit land was sold at the rate of Rs. 4,919/- per cent on 20.11.1992. Similarly, under the sale deed dated 22.03.1993, an extent of 8 cents has been sold at the rate of Rs. 4,893/- per cent. 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. Further, 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. The Subordinate Judge was right in holding the potential value of the suit lands. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the Reference Court is restored. [Paras 15, 16][1094D-H; 1095-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.