A.R. Rangamannar Naidu Vs. Sub Collector of Chidambaram
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.1210 of 1984
Petitioner: A.R. Rangamannar Naidu
Respondent: Sub Collector of Chidambaram
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.1210 of 1984
Judges: DR. T.K. THOMMEN, V. RAMASWAMI & S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 14, 1992
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Section 23 – Compensation – Compact area of 10 acres – Improvements on land – Held that the roads and drainage laid out do not reduce the value of acquired land rather such improvements enhance the value of the land – Judgment of the High Court reducing the compensation set aside.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Ten acres of land belonging to the appellant had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of one rupee one paise per sq. ft. On a reference under section 18 of the Act, the Court enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs.2.25 per sq. ft. On appeal by the State, the High Court by the impugned judgment reduced the compensation to Rs.2.00 per sq. ft.
2. The reason stated by the High Court for so reducing the rate of compensation was that the acquired area was a compact plot of 10 acres which was laid out as building sites with fully formed roads and drainage. The High Court held that since the roads and drainage occupied a part of the area acquired, proportionate deduction in compensation ought to be made.
3. Counsel for the appellant submits that what was acquired was a compact area of 10 acres. The fact that roads and drainage had been laid out does not reduce the value of the land acquired. In fact the appellant had incurred expenditure in preparing the land as building sites, and the High Court ought to have accepted his contention that he was entitled to higher compensation.
4. We see no reason why the High Court should have reduced the compensation awarded by the Reference Court on the ground that roads and drainage had been laid out. The fact that these improvements had been made on the land shows that what was acquired was more valuable than what it would have been without the improvements. The reason given by the High Court for reducing the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was wrong in principle. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Reference Court.
5. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No Costs.
1. Ten acres of land belonging to the appellant had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of one rupee one paise per sq. ft. On a reference under section 18 of the Act, the Court enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs.2.25 per sq. ft. On appeal by the State, the High Court by the impugned judgment reduced the compensation to Rs.2.00 per sq. ft.
2. The reason stated by the High Court for so reducing the rate of compensation was that the acquired area was a compact plot of 10 acres which was laid out as building sites with fully formed roads and drainage. The High Court held that since the roads and drainage occupied a part of the area acquired, proportionate deduction in compensation ought to be made.
3. Counsel for the appellant submits that what was acquired was a compact area of 10 acres. The fact that roads and drainage had been laid out does not reduce the value of the land acquired. In fact the appellant had incurred expenditure in preparing the land as building sites, and the High Court ought to have accepted his contention that he was entitled to higher compensation.
4. We see no reason why the High Court should have reduced the compensation awarded by the Reference Court on the ground that roads and drainage had been laid out. The fact that these improvements had been made on the land shows that what was acquired was more valuable than what it would have been without the improvements. The reason given by the High Court for reducing the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was wrong in principle. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Reference Court.
5. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No Costs.
