A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, Represented by Managing Director Vs. P.Venkaiah & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.3404 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3541 of 1994)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16-08-1993 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.No. 2064 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3541 of 1994)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16-08-1993 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.No. 2064 of 1996)
Petitioner: A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad,
Represented by Managing Director
Represented by Managing Director
Respondent: P.Venkaiah & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.3404 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3541 of 1994)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16-08-1993 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.No. 2064 of 1996)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3541 of 1994)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16-08-1993 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.No. 2064 of 1996)
Judges: K.RAMASWAMY & D.P.WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 28, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. B. Parthasarthy, Advocate with him for the Appellant.
Ms. C.K. Sucharita and Mr. B. Kanta Rao, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
Compensation enhanced by Reference Court without examining vendor or vendee of comparable pieces of land and relying only on sale documents – Held applying State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad that the High Court and reference Court acted illegally in enhancing compensation without examining persons connected with comparable sale – Order set aside and case remitted to reference Court for disposal after opportunity is given to respondent to adduce evidence.
Cases Reffered:
1. Kumari Veeraiah & Ors. v. State of A.P., (1995) 4 SCC 136.
2. State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad, (1996) 6 SCC 197.
2. State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad, (1996) 6 SCC 197.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Substitution allowed.
2. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’) was published on July 7, 1977, acquiring 14 acres 32 guntas of land of Bachiragh village near Suryapet Nalgonda District (A.P.) for the purpose of constructing a Bus Stand Complex. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.7,500/- per acre. The sub-Court on reference awarded the considerated compensation @ Rs.3.60 lacs per acre. The High Court reduced it to Rs.2,25,000/- per acre. It is now not in dispute that Exs.A-2, A-9 and A-11 were relied on to enhance the compensation. Admittedly, none of the persons connected with the documents, namely, neither the vendee nor the vendor has been examined. This Court in Kumari Veeraiah & Ors. v. State of A.P. ((1995) 4 SCC 136) held that in the absence of adduction of any evidence through the vendor or the vendee, the document per se cannot be relied upon. This was reiterated in State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad ((1996) 6 SCC 197). Acceptance of certified copy of the sale deed under Section 51-A relates only to the production of the original sale deeds but it does not dispense with proof of the contents of the documents, relative features vis-a-vis 193, the land under acquisition. All is needed to be proved by examining the persons connected with the same and parties to the document. Following the above ratio, we hold that the view taken by the High Court and that of the reference Court is entirely illegal.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and award of the reference Court as modified stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the reference Court for disposal the matter afresh after an opportunity is given to adduce evidence afresh and the same is considered. No costs.
1. Substitution allowed.
2. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ‘Act’) was published on July 7, 1977, acquiring 14 acres 32 guntas of land of Bachiragh village near Suryapet Nalgonda District (A.P.) for the purpose of constructing a Bus Stand Complex. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.7,500/- per acre. The sub-Court on reference awarded the considerated compensation @ Rs.3.60 lacs per acre. The High Court reduced it to Rs.2,25,000/- per acre. It is now not in dispute that Exs.A-2, A-9 and A-11 were relied on to enhance the compensation. Admittedly, none of the persons connected with the documents, namely, neither the vendee nor the vendor has been examined. This Court in Kumari Veeraiah & Ors. v. State of A.P. ((1995) 4 SCC 136) held that in the absence of adduction of any evidence through the vendor or the vendee, the document per se cannot be relied upon. This was reiterated in State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad ((1996) 6 SCC 197). Acceptance of certified copy of the sale deed under Section 51-A relates only to the production of the original sale deeds but it does not dispense with proof of the contents of the documents, relative features vis-a-vis 193, the land under acquisition. All is needed to be proved by examining the persons connected with the same and parties to the document. Following the above ratio, we hold that the view taken by the High Court and that of the reference Court is entirely illegal.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and award of the reference Court as modified stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the reference Court for disposal the matter afresh after an opportunity is given to adduce evidence afresh and the same is considered. No costs.
