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
