Supreme Court of India
A.S.KRISHNA AND CO. PVT. LTD. versus LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (DEPUTY COLLECTOR) HYDERABAD
- Decided
- 19 November 1991
- Judges listed
- RANGANATH MISRA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 375 · 1991 INSC 303
- Also cited as
- (1991) 2 SCALE 1186
- (1992) 1 SCC 141
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
RANGANATH MISRA, CJ. Special leave granted. By notification dated 12th January, 1973, under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as modified. by Notification of 27th July, 1978, 26 acres and 26 gunthas of land lOcated within the Hyderabad DistriCt was notified for acquisition for the Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority. A similar notification was published on 14th June, 1979 for acquisition of two acres and 29 gunthas. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award for both the properties on I 0th June, 1982 fixing the market value at Rs. 42,000 per acre with five per cent deduction towards development cost. Being dissatisfied with the awards passed by Land Acquisition Officer, a reference was sought and made under section 18 of the Act. The Claimants demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 200 per square yard. The Civil Court fixed the market value at Rs.200 per sq.yd. as demanded but directed deduction of 20 per cent towards development charges. The Land Acquisition Officer carried appeals against the escalation of compensation and the present appellants preferred cross objections. The High Court reassessed the entire evidence and came to hold.
p. 376, margin D
"Today the position of the acquired lands is altogether differ". ent. It is cominon knowledge that the prices started soaring high from 1980 onwards and this part of Hyderabad, namely, Gaddiannaram started developing from 1980 and today it is undoubtedly one of the important areas in Hyderabad. But we must consider the position as it stood in 1978 and 1979. Taking all the circumstances into account, we think it reasonable to fix the market value at Rs. 3 lakhs per acre. The Civil Court had given a deduction of 20 per cent towards development charges. The learned Advocate General contended that deduction should be enhanced to 337 l/3 per cent. We do not think that any interference is called for in this regard. The lands are abutting the highway. Evidence shows that there are roads on three sides. Hence, we maintain the deduction of 20 per cent and if so done, the market value comes to Rs.2,40,000 which works out at Rs. 50 per sq.yd. The Trial Court has awarded Rs.200 per sq.yd with a deduction of 20 per cent which comes to Rs. 160 per sq.yd. We are unable to sustain the order of the Court below on any justifiable grounds. We accordingly set aside the judgment and decree and determine the market value at the
pp. 376–377, margin G
rate ofRs.50 per sq.yd ....... "
p. 377, margin D
It is against this deduction in compensation that the claimants have come to this court in appeal.
p. 377, margin D
The Collector had adopted a deduction of five per cent. The referee court adopted the dedcution at 20 per cent and the High Court rejecting the claim of the Advocate General that deduction should be one-third put it at one-fifth. We find that the High Court did not go by the percentage of deduction. In fact, according to the High Court and particularly as the portion we have extracted above would show the appropriate market value per square yard was Rs. 50 and if a 20 per cent deduction from out of Rs. 3 lakhs per acre was accepted, it worked out that way. The Judgment of the High Court gives us the impression that in fixing the compensation, the High Court did not go by the percentage of deduction but kept in view the market value of the land at the time of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act. There is clear material and the High Court has accepted it that price went up in the area after 1980. The notifications are within a range of a year or two from that .time. Therefore, the valuation after 1980 is not the guideline. Having looked into the material accepted by the IJ>gh Court, we are not in a position to disturb the finding recorded by the H!igh Court. 'The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeals dismissed.
p. 377, margin E