IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9688 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.22163 OF 2010)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9689-9690 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.25939-25940 OF 2010)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9691 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.3568 OF 2011)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9692 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.3570 OF 2011)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9693 OF 2014
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.3969 OF 2011)
K.R. SUNDRAM @ SUNDARARAJAN & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
& SPC. TAHIS .....
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
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. From the impugned judgment of the High Court, we find that in A.S.
No.780 of 2004, the Reference Court relied upon sale instance at Serial
No.123 in Exhibit R 2 dated 30th 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
“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
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
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
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.
[ V. GOPALA GOWDA ]
NEW DELHI [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
October 14, 2014