1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2294-2295 OF 2011

Manimegalai  .... Appellant(s)

Versus

The Special Tahsildar  (Land Acquisition Officer) Adi Dravidar Welfare       .... Respondent(s)

                  J U D G M E N T

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1) The above appeals have been filed against the judgment

and  order  dated  06.11.2009  passed  by  the  High  Court  of

Judicature at Madras in A.S. Nos. 88 and 601 of 2001 and

Cross Objection No. 27 of 2007 whereby learned single Judge

of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent

while  dismissing  the  cross  objection  filed  by  the  appellant

herein.

2

2) Brief facts:

(a) On 15.09.1993, the Government of Tamil Nadu, issued a

Notification under  Section 4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition  Act,

1894 (in short ‘the LA Act’) for acquisition of dry lands for the

purpose  of  providing  house  sites  to  250  landless  poor  Adi

Dravidars  in  Acharapakkam  Village,  Madurandagam  Taluk,

Chengai,  MGR District,  Madras,  having  an extent  of  4.30.0

hectares or 10.62 acres.

(b) The lands belonging  to  the  appellant  herein  in  Survey

Nos. 300/2A2, 300/3, 302/1A, 302/4, 317/1B2, 302/2B2B

and 320/2C2 were  part  of  the  said  acquisition.   The  Land

Acquisition  Officer,  after  complying  with  the  formalities

required in connection with the acquisition of land under the

LA  Act,  passed  an  Award  dated  22.03.1995,  determining  a

sum of Rs. 400/- per cent as compensation to the appellant

herein.   

(c) Being  aggrieved  by  the  meager  compensation,  a

Reference under Section 18 of the LA Act was sought, seeking

market value for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-

3

per cent before the Subordinate Court, Madurantagam which

was filed as L.A.O.P. No. 120 of 1998.  Learned subordinate

Judge,  vide  judgment  and order  dated  27.03.2000,  granted

compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per cent together with

30% solatium and 12% additional  amount from the date of

issue of Notification dated 15.09.1993.       

(d) Respondent herein, being aggrieved by the judgment and

order dated 27.03.2000, filed A.S. No. 88 of 2001 before the

High Court.   Learned single  Judge  of  the  High Court,  vide

judgment and order dated 06.11.2009 allowed the appeal filed

by  the  respondent  herein  by  reducing  the  amount  of

compensation granted by learned subordinate Judge from Rs.

2,500/-  to  Rs.  1,670/-  with  solatium  and  other  statutory

benefits.

(e) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.11.2009,

the appellant has filed these appeals by way of special leave

before this Court.

3) Heard  Mr.  V.  Prabhakar,  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant.  None appeared from the side of the respondent and

perused the records.

4

Point for consideration:-

4) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the

case the decision of the High Court is just and reasonable in

reducing the compensation?

Rival submissions:-

5) Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  contended  that  the

compensation  awarded  for  the  acquired  lands  was  grossly

inadequate  and  abnormally  low  and  does  not  reflect  the

correct market value of the said lands.  He further contended

that the market value of  the acquired lands at the relevant

time was not less than Rs. 20,000/- per cent.  The potential

value  of  the  acquired  lands  and  rise  in  price  were  not

considered by the Land Acquisition Officer.  Learned counsel

finally contended that the High Court also erred in law while

computing  the  market  value  of  the  lands  in  question  and

interference by this Court is sought for in this regard.

6) It  was  the  stand  of  the  respondent  before  the  courts

below that the entire land belonging to the claimant was not

acquired  but  a  portion  of  it  alone  was  acquired.   The

5

remaining portion could be used by the claimant.  Further, the

respondent  is  not  entitled  to  pay  compensation  for  the

unacquired land. It was further the stand of the respondent

that the compensation awarded to the claimant is already on

the higher side as compared to the compensation awarded to

the lands in vicinity and no interference is sought for by this

Court in this regard.

Discussion:-

7) The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification for

the acquisition of dry lands, also known as punja lands, for

the purpose of providing house sites to the people.  Certain

punja lands belonged to the appellant herein in Survey Nos.

300/2A2,  300/3,  302/1A,  302/4,  317/1B2,  302/2B2B and

320/2C2  were  also  part  of  the  said  acquisition.   In  the

proceedings  before  the  Special  Tahsildar,  a  notice  inviting

objections  was  published  in  the  village  on  18.10.1993.

Subsequently, in the enquiry under Section 5A of the LA Act,

the appellant herein submitted her objections to the proposed

acquisition  and  contended  inter-alia that  her  total  holdings

were 6.11 acres and out of the same, an extent of 4.63 acres

6

had been acquired, thereby, leaving a balance of 1.48 acres

and the same would be rendered useless. Hence, she prayed

that  even  the  said  extent  also  be  acquired.   However,  the

respondent herein affirmed the acquisition only in respect of

4.63 acres of land.  

8) An  Award  enquiry  was  undertaken  by  the  respondent

wherein appellant herein claimed compensation at the rate of

Rs. 20,000/- per cent for the land acquired.  The respondent

herein, on the basis of a sale deed dated 15.04.1993, wherein

an  extent  of  0.26  acres  had  been  sold  in  Survey  No.

294/A/1-B 16, proceeded to determine the value of the land at

Rs.  400/-  per  cent.   In  pursuance  of  the  same,  the  land

measuring 4.63 acres was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,85,200/-

along with 30%  solatium to the tune of Rs. 55,560/- and 12%

additional  market  value  to  the  tune  of  Rs.  33,540/-  thus

totaling  to  Rs.  2,74,309/-.   However,  it  was  held  that  no

severance compensation would be payable.   

9) Aggrieved  by  the  Award,  the  appellant  sought  for  a

Reference under Section 18 of the LA Act.  The appellant thus

made  a  Reference  to  the  Court  of  Additional  Subordinate

7

Judge, Chengalpattu which was numbered as LAOP No. 54 of

1995.  The appellant herein submitted her claim statement on

the  file  of  LAOP  No.  54  of  1995  contending  that  the

compensation  awarded  by  the  respondent  was  grossly

inadequate and abnormally low and did not reflect the correct

market value of the lands and that the correct market value of

the lands acquired was not less than Rs. 20,000/- per cent on

the date of the Notification and that the acquired lands were

situated in the midst of developed areas and is connecting the

major big areas in the vicinity.  LAOP No. 54 of 1995, which

was  pending  on  the  file  of  learned  Additional  Subordinate

Judge,  Chengalpattu  was  transferred  to  the  file  of  learned

subordinate Judge, Madurantagam and re-numbered as LAOP

No. 120 of 1998.  Vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2000,

learned  subordinate  Judge,  granted  compensation  to  the

appellant herein at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per cent together

with 30% solatium, 12% additional amount from the date of

Notification which was reduced to Rs. 1,670/- per cent with

solatium and other statutory benefits by learned single Judge

8

of the High Court in appeal vide judgment and order dated

06.11.2009.

10) Since the acquired lands are situated in different survey

numbers,  different  quantum  of  compensation  has  been

awarded  for  the  lands  so  acquired.  The  general  principles

which  have  been  followed  in  assessing  the  compensation

payable  in  all  these  matters  are  the  location  of  the  lands

sought to be acquired, their potential  for development, their

proximity  to  areas  which  are  already  developed  and  the

exorbitant  rise  in  the  value  of  the  lands over  the  years.  In

some of the cases, the authorities have taken recourse to the

comparison method in regard to the sale transactions effected

in respect of similar land in the area under the notifications

close  to  the  date  of  notification  by  which  the  lands  of  the

appellant were acquired. The courts have also taken recourse

to  assessing  the  value  of  the  lands  for  the  purposes  of

compensation  on  a  uniform  rate  in  respect  of  the  lands

acquired, making a special concession in respect of the lands

which are close to the roads and national highways where a

certain  amount  of  development  had  already  taken  place.

9

Therefore, value which has to be assessed is the value to the

owner who parts with his property and not the value to the

new  owner  who  takes  it  over.  Fair  and  reasonable

compensation means the price of a willing buyer which is to be

paid to the willing seller. Though the Act does not provide for

“just terms” or “just compensation”, but the market value is to

be assessed taking into consideration the use to which it is

being put on acquisition and whether the land has unusual or

unique features or potentialities.

11) Similarly,  public  purpose  is  not  capable  of  precise

definition. Each case has to be considered in the light of the

purpose for which acquisition is sought for. It is to serve the

general interest of the community as opposed to the particular

interest  of  the  individual.  Public  purpose  broadly  speaking

would include the purpose in which the general interest of the

society as opposed to the particular interest of the individual

is directly and vitally concerned. Generally the executive would

be the best judge to determine whether or not the impugned

purpose is a public purpose. Yet it is not beyond the purview

of judicial scrutiny. The interest of a section of the society may

10

be public purpose when it is benefited by the acquisition. The

acquisition in question must indicate that it was towards the

welfare of the people and not to benefit a private individual or

group of individuals joined collectively. Therefore, acquisition

for anything which is not for a public purpose cannot be done

compulsorily.  

12) In the case at hand, it is a matter of record that the said

land is  fit  for  using  the  same for  house  sites  and situated

adjacent to the National highway and is also near to the busy

area with various facilities. During the course of proceeding,

various  sale  deeds  of  adjacent  lands  were  brought  to  our

knowledge.  It  is  also  undisputed  fact  that  the  entire  land

belonging  to  the  appellant  herein  was  not  acquired  but  a

portion of it alone had been acquired.  It is the grievance of the

appellant  that  the  acquisition of  land to  the  extent  of  4.63

acres out of total holding of 6.11 acres, rendering the balance

land  to  be  an  uneconomical  holding  for  the  purpose  of

continuing agriculture operations. There is no doubt that the

land owners have to suffer when their lands acquired under

11

the LA Act. Hence, they must be compensated properly in lieu

of their lands to do proper justice.   

13) Since  the  point  of  consideration  before  this  Court  is

related to the amount of compensation, we confine ourselves

to that point only.  Learned subordinate Judge, vide judgment

and order dated 27.03.2000 rightly held as under:-

“….There is a railway track in between the data land and acquired  land.   Therefore,  while  considering  on  the  said angle, the nature of the acquired land and the data land are not similar.  On considering the plan marked on behalf of the claimant and on behalf of the respondent i.e. Exh. B-2, it is evident that acquired lands are situated in between the national highway and railway track.  The acquired lands are nearer  to  the  National  highway.   The  respondent  has admitted in the cross examination that the acquired lands are acquired for housing purpose, as it  is fit  for using as housing  plots.   As  the  acquired lands are  fit  for  housing purpose, the claimants have relied on sale transactions that are sold nearer to the acquired land, i.e.  Exh. A-1, a sale deed dated 20.11.1992 relating to land in S.No. 323, under which 9374 sq ft. of land has been sold for Rs. 1,03,200/- at the rate of Rs. 4,919/- per cent.  Similarly, under the sale deed dated 22.03.1993, an extent of 8 cents have been sold for Rs. 39,150/- at the rate of Rs. 4,893/- per cent.  Under Exh. B-3 sale deed dated 09.07.1993 an extent of 3 ½ cents in  S.No.  326/1W2 and 325/1A4A have  been sold  for  Rs. 22,900/- at the rate of Rs. 6,545/- per cent.

14) Learned subordinate Judge, further held as under:-

13) In Exh.B-4, an extent of 2 cents of land in S. No. 123 has been sold for Rs. 4,752/-.  The above sale transactions took place prior to the notification issued under Section 4(1) but the said transactions have been considered and rejected by the respondents.  The reason for rejecting Exh. B-3 is that the land is a house site  situated adjacent to the national

12

highway.   While  considering  the  reason  for  rejection  is acceptable or not, the respondents themselves have admitted that the acquired lands are fit to be converted as house sites. As  the  acquisition  of  land  is  for  house  sites,  the  non acceptance of value of the house site and acceptance of the value of  agricultural  land in S.No. 294, is not  acceptable. The sale deeds Exh.A-1 to A-4 submitted on behalf of the claimant are relating to the lands in S.No. 323, 325 and 326, situate adjacent to National Highway and the value of those lands are more than Rs. 4,000/- per cent which has been accepted  by  the  government  itself,  as  market  value  while registering the document.  As the government has accepted Rs. 4,000/- per cent as market value, the valuation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 400/- per cent is very low. The acquired lands are situated 2 or 3 survey numbers away from the lands relating to the survey numbers in Exh. A-1 to A-4.  Even though the valuation of the acquired land cannot be fixed as stated in those sale deeds, it could be fixed to its potential at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per cent as compensation to the claimants.”    

15) An  assessment  of  the  compensation  payable  for  land

acquired must take into account several factors, including the

nature of the land, its present use and its capacity for a higher

potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the

use  to  which  neighbouring  land  has  been  put  to  use,  the

impact of such use on the land acquired, and so on. In the

case at hand, the respondent determined the value of the suit

land based on the sale deed dated 15.04.1993 under which 26

cents in S.No. 294/A/1-B16 had been sold at the rate of Rs.

400/- per cent which has happened five months prior to the

date of  acquisition of the suit land and that land has been

13

taken as data land.  Learned subordinate Judge very correctly

appreciated the fact that there is a railway track between the

data  land  and  the  acquired  land  and  in  that  view  of  the

matter, both the lands cannot be considered as similar. It is

also  evident  that  the  acquired  lands  are  in  the  midst  of  a

railway track and national highway having capacity for higher

potential.  An extent of land in S.No. 323 which was adjacent

to the suit land was sold at the rate of Rs. 4,919/- per cent on

20.11.1992.  Similarly, under the sale deed dated 22.03.1993,

an extent of 8 cents has been sold at the rate of Rs. 4,893/-

per cent.  There is no doubt that the lands which are situated

adjacent to the main road will fetch good market value than

the lands which are situated beyond the road.  Though learned

single Judge of the High Court was of the opinion that there

was  no  basis  of  granting  Rs.  2,500/-  per  cent  for  the  suit

lands, we are of the considered opinion that on the basis of the

alleged sale deeds which were done in the proximity within a

very  short  time  amply  prove  its  value  in  relation  to  the

adjoining  lands.   Learned  subordinate  Judge  was  right  in

holding the potential value of the suit lands.

14

Conclusion:-

16) In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit

in the order passed by learned single Judge of the High Court.

We  set  aside  the  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  dated

06.11.2009  and  restore  the  order  passed  by  the  Reference

Court dated 27.03.2000.  Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 2294

of  2011 arising out of  A.S.  No.  88 of  2001 before the High

Court is allowed and Civil Appeal No. 2295 of 2011 arising out

of Cross Objection No. 27 of 2007 before the High Court is

dismissed with no order as to costs.           

...…………………………………J.                 (R.K. AGRAWAL)

…………….………………………J.            (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

NEW DELHI; APRIL 16, 2018.