MANIMEGALAIversusTHE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER) ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE

1086                      [2018]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   3 S.C.R. 1086              [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A                              MANIMEGALAI
                                        v.
       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER)
                    ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE
 B                    (Civil Appeal Nos. 2294-2295 of 2011)
                                 APRIL 16, 2018
         [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE JJ.]
             Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4(1), 5A, 18 – Part of
       appellant’s land acquired – Land Acquisition Officer awarded
 C
       compensation of Rs. 400/- per cent of land to the appellant –
       Subordinate Judge on reference u/s.18, granted compensation @
       Rs. 2,500/- per cent – High Court reduced the compensation from
       Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 1,670/- – On appeal, held: In the instant case,
       the land in question is situated adjacent to the National highway
 D     and is also near a busy area with various facilities – Respondent
       determined the value of the land in question based on the sale deed
       which had happened five months prior to the date of acquisition of
       the land in question, wherein the land was sold @ Rs. 400/- per
       cent – Subordinate Judge correctly appreciated the fact that there
       is a railway track between such land which was taken as the data
 E
       land and the acquired land and thus, both the lands cannot be
       considered as similar – Acquired land is in the midst of a railway
       track and national highway having capacity for higher potential –
       Further, lands adjacent to the land in question which were sold @
       Rs. 4,919/- and Rs. 4,893/- in proximity within a very short time,
 F     amply prove its value in relation to the adjoining lands – Order
       passed by High Court set aside and that of Reference Court restored.
             Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Fair and
       reasonable compensation – Meaning of – Held: Fair and reasonable
       compensation means the price of a willing buyer which is to be
 G     paid to the willing seller.
             Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Purpose of acquisition – ‘Public
       Purpose’ – What is – Held: Public purpose is not capable of precise
       definition – It would broadly include the purpose in which the
       general interest of the society as opposed to the particular interest
 H
                                       1086
 MANIMEGALAI v. SPL. TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION                        1087
        OFFICER) ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE

of the individual is directly and vitally concerned.                    A
      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Factors for
determination – Discussed.
      Disposing of the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 Fair and reasonable compensation means the              B
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. [Para 10][1092-B-C]                                     C

        1.2 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 would broadly include        D
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     E
interest of a section of the society may 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. In the case at hand,        F
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. [Paras 11,
12][1092-D-F]
      1.3 An assessment of the compensation payable for land            G
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,
                                                                        H
1088            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A     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 was sold at the rate of Rs. 400/- per cent which had
       happened five months prior to the date of acquisition of the suit
       land and that land was taken as data land. The Subordinate Judge
       very correctly appreciated the fact that there is a railway track
 B
       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
 C     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. Further, on the basis of the alleged sale deeds
 D
       which were done in the proximity within a very short time amply
       prove its value in relation to the adjoining lands. The Subordinate
       Judge was right in holding the potential value of the suit lands.
       The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the order
       passed by the Reference Court is restored. [Paras 15, 16][1094-
 E     D-H; 1095-A-B]
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2294-
       2295 of 2011.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2009 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras in A. S. No. 88 of 2001 and Cross Objection
 F     No. 27 of 2007.
             V. Prabhakar, Ram Chandar, Ms. Jyoti Parashar, R. Chandrachud,
       Advs. for the Appellant.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 G            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.
 H
 MANIMEGALAI v. SPL. TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION                                1089
 OFFICER) ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

      2. Brief facts:                                                           A
        (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             B
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        C
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/- per cent before the              D
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.
                                                                                E
       (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.          F
       (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.
                                                                                G
None appeared from the side of the respondent and perused the records.
      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?                                                                   H
1090            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A           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
 B     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.
 C
               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 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
 D     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:-

 E            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
 F     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 had been acquired, thereby, leaving a balance of 1.48 acres and
 G     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
 H
 MANIMEGALAI v. SPL. TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION                              1091
 OFFICER) ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

cent for the land acquired. The respondent herein, on the basis of a sale     A
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
                                                                              B
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 Judge, Chengalpattu which was
numbered as LAOP No. 54 of 1995. The appellant herein submitted her           C
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       D
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       E
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 of the High Court in
appeal vide judgment and order dated 06.11.2009.                              F
       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    G
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
                                                                              H
1092             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A     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.
       Therefore, value which has to be assessed is the value to the owner
 B
       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
 C     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
 D     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
 E     of a section of the society may 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.
 F             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
 G     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 the LA Act.
 H
 MANIMEGALAI v. SPL. TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION                              1093
 OFFICER) ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

Hence, they must be compensated properly in lieu of their lands to do         A
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:-                                                       B
      “….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     C
      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        D
      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        E
      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          F
      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 highway. While           G
      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
                                                                              H
1094             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A           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
 B
             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
 C           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
 D     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
 E     has been 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
 F     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
 G     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
 H
 MANIMEGALAI v. SPL. TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION                                 1095
 OFFICER) ADI DRAVIDAR WELFARE [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]

right in holding the potential value of the suit lands.                          A
       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,          B
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.
                                                                                 C
Divya Pandey                                              Appeals disposed of.




                                                                                 D




                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H