Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  9688         OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.22163 OF 2010)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  9689-9690      OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.25939-25940 OF 2010)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    9691       OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.3568 OF 2011)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    9692        OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.3570 OF 2011)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   9693       OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.3969 OF 2011)

K.R. SUNDRAM @ SUNDARARAJAN & ORS.     ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER  & SPC. TAHIS                                              ..... RESPONDENTS

Page 2

2

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  have  been  preferred  against  common  

judgment  dated  21st December,  2009  of  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature  at  Madras  arising  out  of  the  proceedings  for  

determination  of  compensation  for  the  land  acquired  by  the  

Tamil  Nadu  Housing  Board,  Coimbatore  Housing  Unit  in  

pursuance of Notification dated 18th August, 1983 under Section  

4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”).  In the group  

of  cases  heard  by  the  High  Court,  in  some  of  the  cases  

Notifications under Section 4 of the Act are dated 25th February,  

1983, 7th March, 1983 and 7th September, 1983.  

3. The  Collector,  vide  Award  dated  25th November,  1988,  

determined  the  compensation  @  Rs.200/-  per  cent.   The  

Reference  Court  gave  six  separate  awards.   In  four  of  the  

awards, compensation was determined @ 6,000/-  per cent.  In  

fifth award,  the rate fixed was Rs.400/-  per cent  while  in the  

sixth award, the rate fixed was Rs.7,000/- per cent.  High Court  

determined market value to be Rs.2,000/- per cent, apart from  

other statutory benefits.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. From the impugned judgment of  the High Court,  we find

Page 3

3

that in A.S. No.780 of 2004,  the Reference Court relied upon  

sale  instance  at  Serial  No.123  in  Exhibit  R  2  dated  30 th  

September, 1981.  At Serial No.124  sale of 50 cents of land was  

for Rs.1,21,212/-   @ Rs.6,06,060/-  per acre.    The High Court  

pointed out that an error was committed in treating the value to  

be Rs.1,71,211/- instead of Rs.1,21,212/-.  On that ground, the  

High Court left out the said sale instance from consideration and  

by  excluding  the  said  material,  determined  compensation  @  

Rs.2,000/- per cent.

6. It is pointed out that the mere mistake was no ground to  

exclude  the  sale  instances  from  consideration  and  after  

correction of the said mistake the transaction should have been  

considered.   Since  undisputed  value  disclosed  in  the  said  

instance was Rs.6,06,060/- per acre, the compensation should  

be held to be Rs.6,000/- per cent as determined in the four of  

the six awards of the Reference Court.

6. It has also been pointed out that the acquired land was of  

prime location and was easily accessible to facilities like railway  

station, bus stand, market etc.  There were lot of industries and  

other  educational  institutions  in  the  vicinity.   The  land  was  

acquired  for  the  housing  colony.   These  aspects  ought  to  be  

given due consideration.

7. We notice the following finding in the impugned order of  

the High Court :

Page 4

4

“However, it has to be noted that having regard to the   location  of  the  lands,  which  is  easily  accessible  to   various other facilities, like railway station, bus stand,   market etc., it cannot be held that there is a total lack   of facilities or amenities relating to the land.  In fact,   the evidence let in before the Court below disclose that   in the vicinity of the acquired land there were lot of   industries and other educational institutions.”

8. We  have  also  noticed  the  discussion  in  the  impugned  

judgment excluding the crucial evidence which has been relied  

upon on behalf of the land owners, which is as follows :

“Mr.  S.  Parthasarathy,  learned  senior  counsel   appearing for the respondent in A.S. No.780/2004, in  his  submissions,  pointed  out  that  the  court  below  relied upon Serial No.123 in Ex. R.2.   Learned senior   counsel pointed out that the said sale was in respect of   the  land  in  S.No.59  and  the  sale  was  also  on  30.09.1981 conveying 20 cents of lands for a sum of   Rs.1,71,211/-.   Learned  senior  counsel  therefore   contended that  when in  a  part  of  the acquired land   viz., the land in S.No.59, there was a sale more than  one year prior to the acquisition and with reference to   the said sale when there was no dispute,  there was   every justification in the court below having adopted  the value of the said sale for the purpose of arriving at   the  market  value  to  pay  the  compensation.   We  examined Ex. R.2.  As against Serial No.123, we find   that while the document number is 219/28, the sale   was on 28.01.1981 and the Survey number was 58.   The sale value was Rs.20,000/- and the value per acre   was Rs.8,000/-.  The total extent of land was 2 acres   and 50 cents.    On further examination, we find that in   Serial No.124, there was a sale of land in S.No.226 on   30.09.1981 by Document No.256.  That was a sale of   50 cents  of  land for  a  value of  Rs.1,21,212/-,  which   works  out  to  Rs.6,06,060/-  per  acre.   In  fact,  there   appears to have been an obvious mistake committed   by the court below while referring to the details of the   sale mentioned in Serial No.123.  Though Serial No.123  related to S. No.58, which is part of the acquired lands,   which has been correctly noted by the court below, the   court  below  seems  to  have  recorded  the  sale   mentioned in Serial No.124 and even while recording

Page 5

5

the  purchase  value,  the  court  below  seem  to  have   committed  an  error  in  that,  instead  of  mentioning  Rs.1,21,212/-, it has mentioned Rs.1,71,211/-.   We are   therefore convinced that the reference to Ex.R.2 and  the details  mentioned in Serial  No.123 were obvious   mistakes and therefore we are not inclined to accept   any  conclusion  reached  by  the  court  below  on  that   basis.”

9. We are of the opinion that even if mistake pointed out by  

the  High  Court  that  value  of  transaction  at  Sr.  No.124  was  

wrongly  mentioned  as  Rs.1,71,211/-  instead  of  Rs.1,21,212/-  

which worked out to Rs.6,06,060/- per acre was correct, the view  

taken by the Reference Court in determining compensation @  

Rs.6,000/- per cent did not call for any interference.

10. Accordingly,  we  allow  these  appeals  and  enhance  the  

compensation  for  the  acquired land  to  Rs.6,000/-  per  cent  in  

addition to statutory benefits.

11. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

……..…………………………….J. [ V. GOPALA GOWDA ]

.….………………………………..J. NEW DELHI          [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ] October 14, 2014