MUNUSAMYversusTHE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

                         [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1                              1


                           MUNUSAMY                                     A
                                 v.
              THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
                   (Civil Appeal No. 398 of 2010)
                      SEPTEMBER 29, 2021                                B
           [M. R. SHAH AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Comparable sale – Land
admeasuring 1.80 acres situated in village Anniyalam,
Denkanikottai Taluk, District Dharamapuri, Tamil Nadu was
                                                                        C
proposed for acquisition – s.4 Notification was published on
27.09.1990/11.01.1991 – s.6 declaration was published on
12.12.1991 – Collector assessed compensation of said land at
Rs.16000/- per acre – Reference court assessed market value at
Rs. 2183.33 per cent relying upon the document/sale deed dated
11.01.1990 executed by the land owner himself by which the land         D
suitable for construction of the houses and situated very close to
the village Anniyalam was sold at Rs. 2977 per cent – High Court
partly allowed the appeal and assessed compensation at Rs. 232.45
per cent – Aggrieved, original owner/claimant filed instant appeal
– Whether the land owners are entitled to the enhanced amount of
                                                                        E
compensation relying upon the document dated 11.01.1990 executed
by the land owner himself by which the land admeasuring 5 ½ cent
was sold for Rs.2977 per cent – Held: It is true that sale deed dated
11.01.1990 cannot be discarded solely on the ground that it was
executed by the land owner in favour of his relative as nothing is
on record that at the time when sale deed dated 11.01.1990 was          F
executed the parties were aware that the land in question was going
to be acquired in the nearby future – In absence of any comparable
sale instances one has to consider sale deed dated 11.01.1990 –
Even otherwise, sale deed dated 11.01.1990 can be said to be
comparable instance having regard to the proximity from time angle
                                                                        G
as well as proximity from situation angle – However, at the same
time one cannot lose sight of the fact that the sale deed dated
11.01.1990 was for the small parcel of the land i.e. 5 ½ cent only –
In given case even a sale deed of comparable sales of small areas
also can be considered by giving suitable deductions while fixing
                                                                        H
                                 1
2             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A   market value – Therefore, considering the fact that sale deed dated
    11.01.1990 was executed for sale consideration of Rs.16,375/- for
    5 ½ cent which comes to Rs.2977 per cent and after deducting 60%
    (in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case) the market
    value can be determined at Rs.1191 per cent – Appellant-original
    claimant-land owner shall be entitled compensation for the land
B
    acquired at Rs.1191 per cent with all other statutory benefits.
            Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
          HELD: In absence of any comparable sale instances one
    has to consider the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1. Even
C   otherwise Ex.C1 the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 can be said to
    be comparable instance having regard to the proximity from time
    angle as well as proximity from situation angle. Even the land in
    question acquired for the housing project. However, at the same
    time one cannot lose sight of the fact that the sale deed dated
    11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was for the small parcel of the land i.e. 5 ½
D   cent only. In given case even a sale deed of comparable sales of
    small areas also can be considered by giving suitable deductions
    while fixing market value. Therefore, having regard to the
    peculiar features, facts and circumstances of the case and interest
    of justice, date of compensation can be fixed considering the sale
E   deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 by giving suitable deductions i.e.
    60 per cent deduction. Therefore, considering the fact that the
    sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was executed for a sale
    consideration of Rs.16,375/- for 5 ½ cent which will come to
    Rs.2977 per cent and after deducting 60 per cent (in the peculiar
    facts and circumstances of the case) the market value can be
F   determined/assessed at Rs.1191 per cent. [Para 7.2][5-H; 6-A-
    D]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.398 of
    2010.

G         From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2008 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Madras in A.S. No.1222 of 2001.
         Kumar Dushyant Singh, T. Meikandan, Ms. Pooja Singh,
    Ms. Subasri Jaganathan, K. K. Mohan, Advs. for the Appellant.
          Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG, D. Kumanan, Sheikh Fakhruddin Kalia,
H   Advs. for the Respondent.
      MUNUSAMY v. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER                                3


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                              A
      M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 30.07.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras in AS No.1222 of 2001 by which the High Court has partly
allowed the said appeal and has enhanced the amount of compensation           B
to Rs.232.45 per cent for the land acquired, original land owner – claimant
has preferred the present appeal.
       1.1 The land admeasuring 0.73.0 hectare (1.80 acres) of land
situated in village Anniyalam, Denkanikottai Taluk, District Dharamapuri,
Tamil Nadu came to be acquired for the public purpose. Notification           C
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act’) was published on 27.09.1990/11.01.1991. Declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was published on 12.12.1991. The Collector, Land
Acquisition vide his award dated 16.03.1993 assessed the compensation
of the land acquired at Rs.39,506/- per hectare i.e. Rs.16000/- per acre.     D
At the instance of the land owner a reference was made under Section
18 of the Act to the District Court - Reference Court. The Learned Sub
Judge, Hosur by its judgment and order dated 10.11.1997 assessed the
market value at Rs.2,18,333/- per acre.
       2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order      E
passed by the Learned Reference Court assessing the compensation of
the land acquired at Rs.2,18,333/- per acre – the Land Acquisition Officer
preferred the appeal before the High Court and by impugned judgment
and order the High Court has partly allowed the said appeal and assessed/
determined the compensation at Rs.232.45 per cent.
                                                                              F
     3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court assessing/determining the
compensation for the land acquired at Rs.232.45 per cent, the original
owner/claimant has preferred the present appeal.
      4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
                                                                              G
vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
the High Court has committed a grave error in reducing the amount of
compensation awarded by the Learned Reference Court.
       4.1 It is submitted that as such the Learned Reference Court has
rightly awarded the enhanced compensation for the land acquired at
                                                                              H
4            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A   Rs.2183.33 per cent relying upon document/sale deed dated 11.01.1990
    executed by the land owner himself by which the land suitable for
    construction of the houses and situated very close to the Village
    Anniyalam came to be sold at Rs.2977 per cent.
            4.2 It is further submitted that as such the High Court has wrongly
B   discarded the document/sale deed Ex.C1 which otherwise was reflecting
    the correct market value and it was a genuine and bona fide transaction.
    It is further submitted by Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
    that as such no cogent reasons have been given by the High Court while
    reducing the compensation to Rs.232.45 per cent.
C         5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State
    has vehemently submitted that as such in the facts and circumstances of
    the case the High Court has rightly discarded the sale deed Ex.C1
    executed by the land owner himself very near to the land acquired and
    the same was executed in favour of his own relative.

D         5.1 It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the
    High Court has rightly relied upon the sale instance produced as Ex.R2
    – Item No.9 which as such was for the land admeasuring 1 acre in
    Survey No.359 which was also executed in the month of January, 1990.
           5.2 It is submitted that even otherwise the document/sale deed
E   produced as Ex.C1 dated 11.01.1990 upon which the reliance has been
    placed by the land owner cannot be relied upon, firstly on the ground
    that the same was for a small parcel of land i.e.5 ½ cent only. It is
    submitted that against which the document relied upon by the Land
    Acquisition Officer and the High Court at Ex.R2 Item No.9 is the best
    sale deed available to assess/determine the market value of the land
F   acquired.
          6. We have heard learned counsels for the respective parties at
    length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case
    the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 27.09.1990/
    11.01.1991totaling an extent of 0.73 hectares i.e. 1.80 acre. The Land
G   Acquisition Officer determined and awarded the compensation at Rs.160
    per cent relying upon and considering the sale instances – sale deed
    dated 11.01.1990 wherein extent of 1 acre out of survey no.359 was
    sold for Rs.16,000/- i.e. Rs.160 per cent. However, the Learned
    Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2183.33 per cent
    relying upon and considering the sale instance Ex.C1 dated 11.01.1990
H
      MUNUSAMY v. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER                                   5
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

executed by the land owners himself by which land to the extent of 5 ½           A
cent was sold at 16,375/- i.e. Rs.2977 per cent and after deducting 1/3rd.
The Learned Reference Court awarded the compensation at Rs.2183.33
per cent. However, in the appeal preferred by the State the High Court
has reduced the amount of compensation at Rs.232.45 per cent.
       7. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties            B
the question which is posed for consideration before this Court is whether
the land owners are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation
relying upon the document at Ex.C1 dated 11.01.1990 executed by the
land owner himself by which the land admeasuring 5 ½ cent was sold
for Rs.2977 per cent or the amount as determined by the High Court i.e.
Rs.232.45 per cent?                                                              C

        7.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that having gone through
the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court as well as the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, we are not at
all satisfied with the manner in which both, the Reference Court as well
as the High Court have dealt with and decided the matters. However,              D
instead of remanding the matter to the Reference Court/High Court for
fresh consideration, we have considered the appeals on merits on the
basis of material/evidence on record.
        7.2 Now so far as the reliance placed on the document Ex.C1
sale deed dated 11.01.1990 – executed by the land owner himself in               E
favour of his relative by which 5 ½ cent was sold at Rs.2977 per cent is
concerned the same cannot be said to be a comparable sale instance for
the reason that it was with respect to the small parcel of the land i.e. 5 ½
cent only. It is true that Ex.C1 cannot be discarded solely on the ground
that it was executed by the land owner in favour of his relative as nothing      F
is on record that at the time when the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1
was executed the parties were aware that the land in question is going
to be acquired in the nearby future. As observed hereinabove in the
present case Section 4 Notification issued and published for the first
time on 27.09.1990. It is also required to be noted that in the present
case both, the Reference Court as well as the High Court relied upon             G
Ex.C1 sale deed dated 11.01.1990, relied upon by the appellant. However,
there are no justification for the High Court to determine/arrive at the
market value at Rs.232.45 per cent. As observed hereinabove as such
in absence of any comparable sale instances one has to consider the
sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1. Even otherwise Ex.C1 the sale deed             H
6              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A   dated 11.01.1990 can be said to be comparable instance having regard
    to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation
    angle. It is also required to be noted that even the land in question acquired
    for the housing project. However, at the same time one cannot lose sight
    of the fact that the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 was for the small
    parcel of the land i.e. 5 ½ cent only. In given case even a sale deed of
B
    comparable sales of small areas also can be considered by giving suitable
    deductions while fixing market value. Therefore, having regard to the
    peculiar features, facts and circumstances of the case and interest of
    justice, we are of the opinion that date of compensation can be fixed
    considering the sale deed dated 11.01.1990 Ex.C1 by giving suitable
C   deductions i.e. 60 per cent deduction. Therefore, considering the fact
    that the sale deed dated 11.01.1990Ex.C1 was executed for a sale
    consideration of Rs.16,375/- for 5 ½ cent which will come to Rs.2977
    per cent and after deducting 60 per cent (in the peculiar facts and
    circumstances of the case) the market value can be determined/assessed
    at Rs.1191 per cent.
D
           In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
    appeal is partly allowed, it is held that the appellant - original claimant -
    land owner shall be entitled compensation for the land acquired at Rs.1191
    per cent with all other statutory benefits which may be available under
    the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. Impugned Judgment and Order
E   dated 30.07.2008 in AS No.1222 of 2001 passed by the High Court is
    modified to the aforesaid extent. Hence, present appeal is partly allowed
    to the aforesaid extent.
           However, no order as to costs.

F
    Devika Gujral                                             Appeal partly allowed.




G




H