REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2672 of 2004

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER           ....Appellant  

VERSUS

MAHARANI BISWAL & ORS.                                ....Respondents

JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated  

04.10.2001 passed by the High Court of Orissa whereby the High  

Court, vide a common judgment, dismissed First Appeal No. 428  

of 1990 filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and partly  

allowed First  Appeal  No.  369 of  1990 filed by the Respondents  

herein.

Page 1 of 10

2. The  issue  that  falls  for  consideration  in  the  present  appeal  is  

whether  the  assessment  and  determination  of  compensation  

awarded  to  the  respondents  for  acquisition  of  their  land  and  

increasing it from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- per acre is on the  

higher side and is a proper reflection of the market price of the  

land.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present case are that Land  

measuring  Ac.  4.98  decimals  appertaining  to  Plot  Nos.  

6588/6861, 6567, 6576, 6565, 6561 to 6564, 6581, 5873, 6566  

and 6560 under Khata No. 88 situated in village Lodhani under  

Parajang Police Station in the District of Dhenkanal was notified  

to  be  acquired  for  Parajang  Distributory  as  per  Revenue  

Department  declaration  No.  9420  dated  18.02.1987.  The  Land  

Acquisition  Officer  vide  order  dated  02.03.1988  granted  

compensation  for  the  acquired  land  at  the  rate  of  Rs.  3100/-  

(Taila Land) and Rs. 5490/- (Sarad Land) per acre. The owner-

claimants received the compensation  so determined under protest  

and moved the Ld. Subordinate Judge by L.A. Misc. No. 37/88  

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter  

referred to as “the Act”) against the order of the Land Acquisition  

Page 2 of 10

Officer dated 02.03.1988.

4. The Ld. Subordinate Judge,  after receiving evidence,  by an order  

dated 06.09.1990, determined the compensation of the acquired  

land at the rate of  Rs. 10,000/- per acre.

5. Aggrieved by  the  aforesaid  order  of  the  Ld.  Subordinate  Judge  

dated 06.09.1990,   the  claimants  filed First  Appeal  No.  369 of  

1990 and the Land Acquisition Officer filed First Appeal No. 428 of  

1990 before the High Court of Orissa. The High Court vide order  

dated 04.10.2001, by a common judgment, dismissed First Appeal  

No. 428 of 1990 filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and partly  

allowed First Appeal No. 369 of 1990 filed by the claimants  and  

thereby  enhanced  the  compensation  of  the  said  land  from Rs.  

10,000/- per acre to Rs. 75,000/- per acre.

6. Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  order  dated  04.10.2001,  the  Land  

Acquisition Officer has filed this appeal, upon which, we heard the  

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  drew  our  

attention to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High  

Court  and  by  making  reference  to  the  same,   the  counsel  

submitted that despite clear findings recorded by the Reference  

Page 3 of 10

Court  determining  compensation  of  the  land  acquired  at  Rs.  

10,000/- per acre on proper appreciation of the documentary as  

also of oral evidence on record,  it was not justified for the High  

Court  to  enhance  the  compensation  to  Rs.  75,000/-  per  acre  

without properly appreciating the documents on record.

8. He also submitted that the High Court relied upon the sale deeds  

by which very small pieces of land were sold and transferred.   He,  

therefore, submitted that the price at which such small pieces of  

lands  were  sold  did  not  reflect  the  correct  market  value.  

Moreover, he submitted that the land was not much developed as  

there were hardly four or five houses in the vicinity.  He drew our  

attention to the evidence led before the court to substantiate his  

claim.   He  also  submitted  that  expenses  were  required  to  be  

incurred by the Government to make the acquired land fit for the  

purpose for which it was being acquired.  It was submitted that in  

that regard, deduction was required to be made as certain lands  

were going to be lost for which deduction was called for as has  

been repeatedly held by this Court, but  that was not done by the  

High Court in the present case and, therefore, the judgment and  

order is required to be set aside and quashed.

Page 4 of 10

9. Counsel  appearing  for  the  respondents  however,  refuted  the  

aforesaid  submissions  while  submitting  that  the  aforesaid  sale  

deeds relate to lands,  which are located near the acquired land  

and so they were the best guide to determine the compensation  

and, therefore, the High Court was justified in relying on the said  

sale deeds and arriving at a just and fair compensation.

10. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions of the counsel  

appearing  for  the  parties,  we  have  ourselves  scrutinized  the  

records.  The entire burden is placed on respondent to prove and  

establish that they are entitled to more than Rs. 3,100/- per acre  

which was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer.   In order  

to prove the said fact,  the respondent examined four witnesses  

and relied upon five sale deeds which were exhibited as Ext.  3  

which is dated 14.9.1988, Ext. 4 dated 15.4.1985, Ext. 5 dated  

25.5.1984,  Ext.  6  dated  15.7.1985,  whereas  the  Respondents’  

claimants also relied on Ext. 7 to show the location of G.P. Office  

and Grain Gola Office. The respondents also filed on record a map  

as Ext. 8 which discloses that a road runs in between the acquired  

land.   However, there is no evidence to show that the aforesaid  

road,  which  runs  in  between  the  acquired  land  is  a  national  

highway.  No such documentary evidence was placed on record to  

Page 5 of 10

prove  the  said  fact.    The  notification  under  Section  4  in  the  

present  case  was  issued  on  18.2.1987  and,  therefore,  market  

value as existing near about the said date and near about the  

same land  is  to  be  determined  and  assessed.    The  Reference  

Court  has  very  elaborately  and  minutely  discussed  the  entire  

evidence on record including the deposition of the witnesses and  

on  appreciation  thereof  has  come  to  a  definite  finding  and  

conclusion that the acquired land on the date of issuance of the  

notification under  Section 4  cannot  be valued and assessed at  

more than Rs. 10,000/- per acre.   Consequently, the said amount  

was  determined  by  the  Reference  Court  as  just  and  fair  

compensation for the land acquired.

11.As against the aforesaid findings giving cogent reasons, the High  

Court,  failed  to  indicate  as  to  how  the  aforesaid  findings  are  

unreasonable and unjustified fixing the compensation of the land  

at  Rs.  10,000/-  per  acre.   The  High  Court  enhanced  the  

compensation to Rs. 75,000/- per acre without any appreciation  

of  the  evidence  on  record  and  also  without  considering  the  

findings of the learned Reference Court and ultimately rejecting  

the same.   It was necessary for the High Court to give reasons for  

its  disagreement  with  the  findings  of  the  Reference  Court  but  

Page 6 of 10

nothing of that nature was done by the High Court and the High  

Court arrived at an abrupt decision raising the compensation to  

Rs. 75,000/- per acre.

12.In this regard, we may refer to the judgment of this Court in the  

case of Navanath and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported  

in  (2009) 14 SCC 480, in which this Court while discarding the  

findings  of  the  High  Court,  which  were  found  to  be  based  on  

surmises and conjecture, restored to the findings of the Reference  

Court  which  were  based  on  detailed  examination  of  materials  

brought on record held thus: -

“31.  ……………..The  Reference  Judge  had  taken  into consideration the evidences adduced on behalf   of  both  the  parties  not  only  with  regard  to  the   classification  of  the  land  but  also  the  number  of   trees, their age, the quality, etc. We may notice that   the  learned  Reference  Judge  determined  the   question in regard to the classification of land on the  basis  of  the  evidences  adduced  before  it  by  individual landowners; by way of example, having  regard to the fact that the claimants  had failed to   prove that the land had any irrigational facility, the  learned  Reference  Judge  classified  the  lands  as  jirayat lands. If the State was aggrieved thereby, it   was bound to show that the findings arrived at by  the  Reference  Court  is  not  sustainable  having  regard to the materials brought on record.

32. The finding of  fact  arrived  at  by  the  learned  Reference  Judge  on  the  basis  of  the  materials   brought  on  record,  in  our  opinion,  could  not  have  

Page 7 of 10

been  interfered  with  by  the  High  Court  on  the   surmises and conjectures……………”

The Court further observed: -

“46.  ………………..A  court  of  law  must  base  its   decision  on  appreciation  of  evidence  brought  on  record  by  applying  the  correct  legal  principles.   Surmises  and  conjectures  alone  cannot  form  the   basis of a judgment.”

With  regard  to  computation  of  the  amount  of  compensation  this  Court held as follows: -  

“44. Indisputably, for the purpose of computation of   amount of compensation a large number of factors  have to be taken into consideration, namely, nature  and quality of land, whether irrigated or unirrigated,   facilities  for  irrigation  like  existence  of  well,  etc.   presence  of  fruit-bearing  trees,  the  location  of  the  land,  closeness  to  any  road  or  highway,  the  evenness thereof whether there exists any building  or structure.”

13.Since the High Court has not considered the oral evidence and  

also not properly analysed the documentary evidence available on  

record, the judgment and order passed by the High Court cannot  

be sustained and has to be interfered with.   This is also because  

of the fact that the High Court proceeded on a wrong notion that  

the  sale  deeds of  tiny  pieces  of  land could  be  the  determining  

factor  as  the  land  acquired  in  the  present  case  is  Ac.  4.98  

Page 8 of 10

decimals as against the sale deeds by which not even 1 decimal of  

land was sold. There is total misreading of the evidence on record  

and also misinterpretation of the legal proposition settled by this  

Court.

14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we  

set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and  

we  are  of  the  considered  opinion  that  the  High  Court  should  

discharge  its  duty  and  responsibility  of  appreciating  the  entire  

evidence on record as it is the last court of appeal in view of the  

provisions  of  Section  54  of  the  Act.     The  High  Court  shall  

appreciate  the  entire  evidence  on  record  and  thereafter  give  a  

proper  finding  on  the  basis  of  both,  oral  and  documentary  

evidence by taking notice  of  the  observations made herein and  

thereafter  decide all  the  issues that  are  raised before it  by the  

parties.

15.We also desire that this case requires early disposal by the High  

Court and, therefore, we direct the parties to appear before the  

High Court on 15th September, 2011 for obtaining the dates in the  

appeal.

16.With  the  above  observations  and  directions,  this  appeal  is  

disposed of as allowed but leaving the parties to bear their own  

Page 9 of 10

costs.

          ............................................J                                          [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

............................................J                   [Anil R. Dave]

New Delhi August  24,  2011.  

Page 10 of 10