Supreme Court of India
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND SUB-COLLECTOR, GADWAL versus SMT. SREELATHA BHOOPAL AND ANR.
- Decided
- 21 April 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
- Disposal
- Leave Granted & Allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 3 S.C.R. 875 · 1997 INSC 415
- Also cited as
- (1997) 9 SCC 628
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 2 other Supreme Court judgments 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.
Though notices have been served, respondents are not appearing either in person or through counsel.
p. 875, margin F
Leave granted.
p. 875, margin G
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on September 26, 1981 for public purpose, namely, establishment of Bus Depot/Stand in Gadwal Town of Mahaboobnagar District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated December 27, 1983 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per acre. On reference, the Civil Court by its award and decree dated November 15, 1985, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 20 per sq. yd. On appeal, the Division Bench of the A.P. High Court in Appeal No. 2391/86 by judgment and decree dated August 8, 1996 has confirmed the same. Thus, this appeal, by special leave.
pp. 875–876, margin G
The High Court has relied upon Ex. A-4 the sale wherein related to a small piece of land, and accordingly confirmed the market value @ Rs. 20 per sq. yd. It is now well settled legal position that small pieces of land cannot offer the same market value when a large track of land is purchased in an open market by a willing and prudent purchaser. It is settled legal position that the Court has to put itself in the armchair of a prudent purchaser and put the question to itself whether the land, in the given circumstances, would fetch the same market value as is likely to be dctermined by the court when small piece of land would be offered for sale. Unfortunately, the High Court has not adopted that principle; it has merely proceeded to rely open sale deed relating to a small piece of land. We have gone through the award of the Collector. The Collector referred to various sale deeds and ultimately he relied upon a sale transaction and held that the lands in the sale deed at SI. No. 120, pertaining to survey Nos. 854, which fetched the rate of Rs. 4,519-77 as on the date of the sale, namely, December 27, 1978 was comparable one. The Land Acquisition Officer noted that the lands therein were converted into non-agricultural lands and the lands in question still remained to be agricultural lands and were adjacent to Gadwal Town. Under these circumstances, he awarded the market value at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per acre. It is settled legal position that the burden is on the claimant to prove by adducing acceptable evidence for higher compensation. Having rejected Ex. A-4 relied on by the High Court, though the award of Land Acquisition Officer is not evidence stlicto sensu with a view to do substantial justice. We looked into it and considered the material collected therein. Having regard to the stale of evidence and large extent of the land in question as also and the facts, we think that the appropriate market value would be Rs. 20,000 per acre and would be just and reasonable compensation.
p. 876, margin B
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the reference Court as confirmed by the High Court is set aside. Instead, the award shall be substituted by Rs. 20,000 per acre with usual solatium at the rate of 30% and interest on enhanced compensation at the rate of 9%oPer annum from the date of taking possession to the date of payment of such enahnced compensation and al the rate of 15% thereafter till deposit of enhanced compensation into the court. No orders as to costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.
pp. 876–877, margin G