Gurlingappa & Ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarg
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.2846 of 1997
( CC – 821/97 )
(From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.1996 of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A.No. 190 of 1995)
( CC – 821/97 )
(From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.1996 of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A.No. 190 of 1995)
Petitioner: Gurlingappa & Ors.
Respondent: Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarg
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No.2846 of 1997
( CC – 821/97 )
(From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.1996 of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A.No. 190 of 1995)
( CC – 821/97 )
(From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.1996 of the Karnataka High Court in M.F.A.No. 190 of 1995)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD & G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 28, 1997
Appearances:
Mrs. Rajni K. Prasad, Advocate (T.C. Sharma) Advocate (NP), for the Petitioners.
Head Note:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Section 11 – Compensation – Held Court while deciding compulsory acquisition cases has to consider relative value of lands in neighbourhood, soil conditions and comparable prices – The High Court having considered other lands, no interference is called for.
Held:
We find no force in the contention. It is now well settled legal position that in compulsory acquisition, the Court would sit in the arm-chair of a willing purchaser and would ask whether as a reasonable prudent vendee, he would offer in the open market the rate of market value proposed by him in respect of the land under acquisition. The Court requires to consider the relative values of the lands in the neighbourhood, the soil condition and same or similar advantageous features on comparable prices. The High Court has pointed out in its judgment that there is no evidence to show that the lands referred to in those judgments bear any similarity to the lands in question. On the other hand, it is pointed out that for the same project and for the lands situated in the same village another award for a sum of Rs.6,320/- per acre was passed by the Additional Civil Judge and the same has been upheld by the High Court. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in October 1977 for construction of Amerja Project. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award under Section 11 awarded compensation @ Rs.3,000/- per acre. On reference, the District Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,300/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.9,820/- per acre for Bgayat Lands (cultivable lands). On appeal, the High Court dismissed the same and confirmed the award of the reference Court. Thus, this special leave petition.
3. It is contended for the petitioners that in similar circumstances, the Additional Civil Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs.12,000/- per acre for the irrigated land and Rs.8,000/- per acre for the dry lands and confirmed by the judgment of the High Court in RFA Nos.1160 and 1825/92 and, therefore, the petitioners also are entitled to the same compensation. We find no force in the contention. It is now well settled legal position that in compulsory acquisition, the Court would sit in the arm-chair of a willing purchaser and would ask whether as a reasonable prudent vendee, he would offer in the open market the rate of market value proposed by him in respect of the land under acquisition. The Court requires to consider the relative values of the lands in the neighbourhood, the soil condition and same or similar advantageous features on comparable prices. The High Court has pointed out in its judgment that there is no evidence to show that the lands referred to in those judgments bear any similarity to the lands in question. On the other hand, it is pointed out that for the same project and for the lands situated in the same village another award for a sum of Rs.6,320/- per acre was passed by the Additional Civil Judge and the same has been upheld by the High Court.
4. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the determination of the compensation warranting interference.
5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in October 1977 for construction of Amerja Project. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award under Section 11 awarded compensation @ Rs.3,000/- per acre. On reference, the District Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,300/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.9,820/- per acre for Bgayat Lands (cultivable lands). On appeal, the High Court dismissed the same and confirmed the award of the reference Court. Thus, this special leave petition.
3. It is contended for the petitioners that in similar circumstances, the Additional Civil Judge has enhanced the compensation to Rs.12,000/- per acre for the irrigated land and Rs.8,000/- per acre for the dry lands and confirmed by the judgment of the High Court in RFA Nos.1160 and 1825/92 and, therefore, the petitioners also are entitled to the same compensation. We find no force in the contention. It is now well settled legal position that in compulsory acquisition, the Court would sit in the arm-chair of a willing purchaser and would ask whether as a reasonable prudent vendee, he would offer in the open market the rate of market value proposed by him in respect of the land under acquisition. The Court requires to consider the relative values of the lands in the neighbourhood, the soil condition and same or similar advantageous features on comparable prices. The High Court has pointed out in its judgment that there is no evidence to show that the lands referred to in those judgments bear any similarity to the lands in question. On the other hand, it is pointed out that for the same project and for the lands situated in the same village another award for a sum of Rs.6,320/- per acre was passed by the Additional Civil Judge and the same has been upheld by the High Court.
4. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the determination of the compensation warranting interference.
5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
