Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from acquisition of 3 acres 17 decimals of land for the Suvarnarekha Project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification under Section 4(1) was published on September 16, 1981. The Land Acquisition Officer by award dated September 3, 1985 granted compensation at Rs.14,445 per acre. On reference, the Subordinate Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs.15,055 per acre. Both the State of Bihar and the claimants filed appeals in the High Court. The High Court by judgment dated June 1, 1993 in First Appeals No.105 and 93 of 1987 enhanced compensation to Rs.45,000 per acre, treating the acquired land in Don I as cultivable land, and also awarded Rs.20,000 towards a well plus statutory solatium and interest. The State of Bihar appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was whether the High Court was justified in enhancing compensation based on sale deeds proved only by certified copies and the evidence of a Sub-Registrar's clerk, without examining the vendor or vendee. A further issue was whether an irrigation well could be separately valued. The Court noted that under Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, certified copies of sale deeds are admissible as evidence, but such admissibility does not dispense with the need to establish through evidence aliunde that the sale deed offers a comparable value for determining compensation. The High Court had relied on Ext.3/A dated March 16, 1981 and another sale deed of 1983, but no vendor or vendee was examined. The Court referred to R. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, (1995) 2 SCC 305, which laid down similar principles. Considering that the lands were situated very near to the national highway but 4 km away from Jamshedpur city, the Court determined reasonable compensation at Rs.22,000 per acre. It also held that the claimants were not entitled to the value of the well separately because the well was being used for irrigation of the land, and following O. Janardhan Reddy & Ors. v. Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A Unit-IV, LMD, Karimnagar, A.P. & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 456, an irrigation well cannot be separately valued. The appeals were partly allowed. The market value was fixed at Rs.22,000 per acre with solatium at 30% on the enhanced compensation under Section 23(2), interest under Section 28 at 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit, and additional amount of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) from the date of notification under Section 4(1) till the date of award or taking possession whichever earlier. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Determination of Compensation - Evidentiary Value of Certified Copy Sale Deed - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 51-A - High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.45,000 per acre relying on Ext.3/A dated 16-03-1981 and a 1983 sale deed, but neither vendor nor vendee was examined and only the Sub-Registrar's clerk proved certified copies as secondary evidence. The Supreme Court held that admissibility under Section 51-A does not by itself make a sale deed comparable evidence and requires corroborative evidence aliunde of passing of consideration and comparability of land. Held that the High Court's enhancement was unjustified and market value was fixed at Rs.22,000 per acre. B) Land Acquisition - Assessment of Market Value - Reasonable Compensation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 23(2), 23(1-A), 28 - The acquired land was situated near a national highway but about 4 km away from Jamshedpur city. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court determined Rs.22,000 per acre as reasonable compensation, with solatium at 30% under Section 23(2), interest under Section 28 at 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter on enhanced compensation from date of taking possession till deposit, and additional amount at 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) from date of Section 4(1) notification till date of award or taking possession, whichever earlier. Held that appeals were partly allowed. C) Land Acquisition - Valuation of Irrigation Well - Separate Valuation Not Permissible - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23 - The High Court had awarded Rs.20,000 separately for a well used to irrigate the acquired land. Relying on O. Janardhan Reddy & Ors. v. Spl. Dy. Collector, L.A Unit-IV, LMD, Karimnagar, A.P. & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 456, the Supreme Court held that an irrigation well used for land cultivation cannot be separately valued as its value merges with the market value of the land. Held that the claim for well value was disallowed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing compensation to Rs.45,000 per acre based on certified copies of sale deeds without examining vendor or vendee, and whether claimants were entitled to separate compensation of Rs.20,000 for an irrigation well.
Final Decision
Appeals partly allowed; market value determined at Rs.22,000 per acre with solatium at 30% on enhanced compensation under Section 23(2), interest under Section 28 at 9% for first year and 15% thereafter on enhanced compensation from date of taking possession till deposit, additional amount at 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A) from date of Section 4(1) notification till date of award or taking possession whichever earlier; separate well value disallowed; no costs.
Law Points
- Certified copies of sale deeds under Section 51-A of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 are admissible but not conclusive proof of comparable market value
- evidence aliunde is required to establish genuineness
- passing of consideration
- and comparability
- irrigation well used for cultivation cannot be separately valued
- market value must be determined on the basis of comparable sale transactions considering location and potentiality
- statutory benefits of solatium
- interest and additional amount apply.
