Ahmed Sait & Ors. Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer, Uthagamandalam
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10133 of 1988.
Petitioner: Ahmed Sait & Ors.
Respondent: The Land Acquisition Officer, Uthagamandalam
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10133 of 1988.
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 30, 1988
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894:
Section 23 – Compensation – Valuation of land to be made taking into consideration the potentiality of the land on the date of acquisition.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Learned counsel appearing in support of the special leave petition raised two contentions:
(1) The Referee Court on remand would be faced with the difficulty of giving proper compensation in view of the observation in the judgment of the High Court:
“Therefore, it may be stated that in the present case the compensation has to be arrived at by treating the land as agricultural land only, considering the potential value of the land”; and
(ii) in the event of the remand being sustained the additional compensation of rupees thirty lakhs which the claimants have taken during the pendency of the first appeal in the High Court may be required to be refunded by way of restitution.
2. We do not find any justification for the apprehension on the first score. What the High Court has really meant in observing in the manner indicated above is that the valuation has to be made taking into consideration the potentiality of the land on the date of acquisition. Coming to the second aspect we direct that until the valuation has been made by the Court pursuant to the remand status quo as existing now may be continued and the claimant may not be called upon to make any refund. The Referee Court is directed to dispose of the proceeding keeping the direction of the High Court in view as early as possible and preferably within four months from today. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
1. Learned counsel appearing in support of the special leave petition raised two contentions:
(1) The Referee Court on remand would be faced with the difficulty of giving proper compensation in view of the observation in the judgment of the High Court:
“Therefore, it may be stated that in the present case the compensation has to be arrived at by treating the land as agricultural land only, considering the potential value of the land”; and
(ii) in the event of the remand being sustained the additional compensation of rupees thirty lakhs which the claimants have taken during the pendency of the first appeal in the High Court may be required to be refunded by way of restitution.
2. We do not find any justification for the apprehension on the first score. What the High Court has really meant in observing in the manner indicated above is that the valuation has to be made taking into consideration the potentiality of the land on the date of acquisition. Coming to the second aspect we direct that until the valuation has been made by the Court pursuant to the remand status quo as existing now may be continued and the claimant may not be called upon to make any refund. The Referee Court is directed to dispose of the proceeding keeping the direction of the High Court in view as early as possible and preferably within four months from today. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
