Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Saramma Mathew & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition No. 13232 of 1987.
Petitioner: Kerala State Electricity Board
Respondent: Saramma Mathew & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition No. 13232 of 1987.
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA, G.L. OZA & M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 01, 1987
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Valuation of land – Fixation of compensation – Distinction between valuation of large property and small property – The facts of the case being very special the High Court rightly adopted the valuation for a smaller property – Claim of solatium and interest – Benefit of Amending Act of 1984 – Question examined by the Constitution Bench of the Court and decision awaited – In the event of judgment going in favour of the contention of the petitioner, it would be entitled to obtain review from the High Court.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Two questions are raised in support of the special leave petition:
1) that the High Court while agreeing that the acquisition is of a larger area has utilised the valuation indicated in a later sale for a smaller property as the measure of compensation and
2) the benefit of the Amending Act of 1984 has been given to the claimants in regard to solatium and interest contrary to the provisions of that Act.
2. So far as the first question is concerned, while we agree on principle that there is distinction between the valuation of small property and large property in the matter of fixing compensation, the facts involved here are very special and the High Court has given reasons as to why the valuation as accepted has been adopted by it. So far as the application of the benefit of the Amending Act of 1984 is concerned, the question has been examined by the Constitution Bench of this Court and the judgment is awaited. In the event of the judgment going in favour of the contention of the petitioner, it would be entitled to obtain review from the High Court notwithstanding the fact that the High Court has made the impugned order on the basis of the decision of this Court. Special leave petition is disposed of.
Petition partly allowed.
1. Two questions are raised in support of the special leave petition:
1) that the High Court while agreeing that the acquisition is of a larger area has utilised the valuation indicated in a later sale for a smaller property as the measure of compensation and
2) the benefit of the Amending Act of 1984 has been given to the claimants in regard to solatium and interest contrary to the provisions of that Act.
2. So far as the first question is concerned, while we agree on principle that there is distinction between the valuation of small property and large property in the matter of fixing compensation, the facts involved here are very special and the High Court has given reasons as to why the valuation as accepted has been adopted by it. So far as the application of the benefit of the Amending Act of 1984 is concerned, the question has been examined by the Constitution Bench of this Court and the judgment is awaited. In the event of the judgment going in favour of the contention of the petitioner, it would be entitled to obtain review from the High Court notwithstanding the fact that the High Court has made the impugned order on the basis of the decision of this Court. Special leave petition is disposed of.
Petition partly allowed.
