LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, A.P. v. KAMANDANA RAMAKRISHNA RAO AND ANR

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 327

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: C.K. THAKKER, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, A.P. v. KAMANDANA RAMAKRISHNA RAO AND ANR.pdf

Judgment text

, \ LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, A. P. A~ v. KAMANDANA RAMAKRISHNA RAO AND ANR. FEBRUARY 7, 2007 [C. K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ. ] Land Acquisition: "' Land Acquisition Act, 1894; ss. 4(1) and 18/Notification dated 3. 01. 1980 issued thereunder: Acquisition ofland by State Government for a project-Compensation- Enhancement of-Reference Court enhanced the compensation on yield basis of crops by applying multiplier of 20 years capitalisation-High Court enhanced it further on the basis ofmarket value ofLand--On appeal, Held: ·. High Court did not commit any illegality in not deducting the amount of ....

expenses for cultivation from compensation so enhanced as the claimant was entitled to compensation at a higher rate than what has been awarded after -( enhancement-,-Though High Court did not indicate any reason while enhancing the rate ofcompensation but the pith and substance ofthe order cannot be found fault with-Jn the facts and circumstances ofthe case, rate ofaward ofcompensation so enhanced, is adequate, just and reasonable and not excessive. State of Andhra Pradesh issued a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of lands admeasuring 385. 46 Acres, which include tands of claimant-respondent, for submersion of a Reservior Scheme under a Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate ofRs. 1026/- per acre to the claimants. The claimants received the amount ofcompensation under protest and submitted applications under Section 18 of the Act requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to Court.

The Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per acre. The claimants, being still dissatisfied with the . , r enhancement ofthe amount ofcompensation awarded by the Reference Court, '~ filed two separate appeals under Section 54 ofthe Act before the High Court. The High Court observed that for similar lands acquired for the same purpose ,_. prior to the issue of the Notification in the present cases, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The High Court awarded the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre to the claimant. Hence the present appeals. Appellant contended that the High Court has committed an error of law in not deducting amount towards cost of cultivation and no reasons whatsoever are given by the High Court in its order for enhancement of the compensation from Rs. 6,000/- per acre to Rs. 22,000/- per acre; and that the Reference Court had erroneously applied multiplier of20 for capitalizing the income.

)- Such multiplier should not be more than 10. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD:l. 1. In the facts and circumstances, the ratio laid down in Rama Rana's 1:ase would not strictly apply in the present cases in as much as in fruit growing trees, expenses would not be 50% as held by this Court. Moreover, the High Court also considered an important fact that the claimants-respondents would be entitled to much more than Rs. 25,000/- per acre on yield-basis but has fixed the market value of the land at the rate of >- Rs. 22,000/- per acre. It, therefore, cannot be said that by not deducting the ~ amount ofexpenses for cultivation, the High Court had committed any illegality. [Para 13] [332-D-E] State a/Gujarat v. Rama Rana, [1987] 2 SCC 693, held in applicable. 1. 2. The High Court committed no error of law or any perversity in awarding the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre to the claimants-respondents.

It is no doubt true that the High Court has not given adequate and proper reasons in its order, but the pith and substance of . the order cannot be found to be faulty. [Para 18] [333-F] Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. AdinaraYan Setty, [1959) Suppl. 1 SCR 404:AIR (1959) SC 429; Smt. Tribeni Devi v. Collector ofRanchi, (1972) 1 SCC 480; Special Land Acquisition, Davangere v. P. Veerabhadarappa & Ors. , (1984) 2 SCC 120; Special LandAcquisition Officer v. Virupax Shankar Nadagouda, (1996] 6 SCC 124; Krishi Utpadan Mandi ,i Samiti v. Malik Sartaj Wali Khan & Anr. , (2001] 10 SCC 660 and Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bellary v. S. T. Pompanna Setty, [2005) 9 sec 662, relied on. 1. 3.

The computation ofcompensation for determination of market value \ may be carried out on yield basis, the multiplier of20 adopted by the Reference Court in the cases on hand is on the higher side and contrary to the wellsettled proposition of law as laid down by this Court However, this Court is not precluded from taking into consideration other circumstances such as, the potentiality and utility ofthe land acquired and awarding just compensation to the claimants who are deprived of their lands and other property. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances ofthese cases, the amount ofcompensation awarded by the High Court at the rate ofRs. 22,000/- per acre to the claimantsrespondents is adequate, just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive 'A or unwarranted. [Para 20) (334-G-H; 335-A) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6489-6490 of 2000.. From the Final Judgment/Order dated 11. 11. 1998 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal No.

1999/1996 andA. S. No. 31/1998. Rajnish Singh, Manoj Saxena, Rahul Shukla and T. V. George for the Appellant. ..... - - ~ 20. The Land Acquisition Officer in his order has recorded that rain-fed crops such as horsegram, bobbara, cholum were grown by the claimantsrespondents in the acquired land No. F. 1384 to 1388 and in F. 1388, cashew nut plants were raised in some parts of the land to the extent of about Ac. 9. 00 cents. Therefore, the finding of the Reference Court that there were no cashew nut trees found on the acquired land is factually incorrect and cannot be sustained. It has come in the evidence of the claimants-respondents led before the Reference Court that they had raised maize crop at one time, which ~ would have fetched Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 5,000 per acre to them and other crops jowar and bobbara in the next season.

The computation of compensation for detennination of market valile may be carried out on yield basis and multiplier of 20 adopted by the Reference Court in the cases on ha:id is on the higher side and contrary to the well-settled proposition of law as laid down by this Court. However, this Court is not precluded from taking into consideration other circumstances such as, the potentiality and utility of the land acquired and awarding just compensation to the claimants who are deprived of their . ~ ... lands and other property. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these cases, as discussed above, we are of the view that the amount of ' LAND ACQUISITIONOFFICER, A. P. '· KAMANDANA RAMAKRISHNA RAO [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J] 335 -'{ compensation awarded by the High Court at the rate of Rs. 22,000/- per acre A to the claimants-respondents is adequate, just and reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive or unwarranted. 21.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. B SKS. Appeals dismissed.