SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.versusN. SAVITHA

                        [2022] 1 S.C.R. 807                              807


     SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.                           A
                                  v.
                            N. SAVITHA
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 2052-2053 of 2022)
                         MARCH 22, 2022                                  B
         [M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Compensation – Determination
of – s.4 Notification issued in the year 2008 for acquisition of land
for improvement of Bird Sanctuary– Award of compensation –
                                                                         C
Dissatisfied with quantum of compensation, land- owner filed appeal
before High Court – Land-owner relied upon document (Ex.P.17)
by which for the land acquired in the year 2011, the amount of
compensation was awarded @ Rs.60 lakhs per acre – Mainly relying
on Ex P.17 and thereafter on “guesswork” by impugned judgment,
High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.40 Lakhs            D
per acre – Aggrieved State filed instant appeal – Held: Award
Ex.P.17, which was relied upon by the High Court was for the
acquisition subsequent to the land acquired in the instant case, i.e.
after a period of three years and, therefore, High Court ought not
to have relied upon the same while determining the market price of
                                                                         E
the land acquired in 2008 – Moreover, Ex.P.17 was a consent award
– The consent award ought not to have been relied upon and/or
considered for determining the compensation in case of another
acquisition – Even otherwise, High Court determined the
compensation relying upon Ex.P.17 mechanically – High Court did
not at all consider whether the lands acquired in the instant case       F
was similarly situated to the lands acquired in the case of Ex.P.17 –
Matter remanded to High Court to decide the first appeals afresh in
accordance with law and on their own merits and thereafter to
determine the market price/compensation.
      Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Comparable sales – There may           G
be different market prices/compensation with respect to different
lands, may be in the same village and/or nearby location – The
land, which is on a prime location and which is on the highway
and/or at a proximity to a highway may have a different market
price than the land which is situated in a different location/interior
                                                                         H
                                 807
808           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     of the village and which might not have a good potential for
      development.
           Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court,
      the Court
            HELD: 1. The award – Ex.P.17 was a consent award and
B     was in respect of the property acquired in the year 2011 and which
      was acquired for a different purpose, namely, for formation of
      double line railway broad gauge between Bengaluru and Mysore
      City. But in this case, Section 4 notification was issued in the
      year 2008, i.e., three years before the land acquired in the case
C     of Ex.P.17. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have relied
      upon the same while determining the market price of the land
      acquired in 2008 considering the market price determined for
      the lands acquired in the year 2011 and on the basis of some
      “guesswork”. [Para 4][810-F-H; 811-A]

D           2. Even otherwise, Ex.P.17 was a consent award. The
      consent award ought not to have been relied upon and/or
      considered for the purpose of determining the compensation in
      case of another acquisition. In case of a consent award, one is
      required to consider the circumstances under which the consent
      award was passed and the parties agreed to accept the
E     compensation at a particular rate. In a given case, due to urgent
      requirement, the acquiring body and/or the beneficiary of the
      acquisition may agree to give a particular compensation.
      Therefore, a consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or
      determine the compensation in other acquisition, more
F     particularly, when there are other evidences on record. Therefore,
      the High Court erred in determining the compensation @ Rs.40
      lakhs per acre relying upon the award – Ex.P.17 in respect of the
      land which was for the lands acquired in the year 2011.
      [Para 5][811-B-D]

G           3. Even otherwise, the High Court determined the
      compensation relying upon Ex.P.17 mechanically. The High Court
      did not at all consider whether the lands acquired in the present
      case was similarly situated to the lands acquired in the case of
      Ex.P.17. As per the settled position of law, there may be different
      market prices/compensation with respect to different lands, may
H
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS. v. N. SAVITHA                     809


be in the same village and/or nearby location. The land, which is           A
on a prime location and which is on the highway and/or at a
proximity to a highway may have a different market price than
the land which is situated in a different location/interior of the
village and which might not have a good potential for
development. Therefore, also, the High Court committed a grave
                                                                            B
error in solely relying upon Ex.P.17 to determine the market
value of the lands in the instant case. [Para 6][811-D-F]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2052-
2053 of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2021 of the High Court        C
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Misc. First Appeal No.7954 of 2014 (LAC)
c/w Misc. First Appeal No.6429 of 2015 (LAC).
      Nikhil Goel, AAG, Shubhranshu Padhi, Ashish Yadav, Rakshit Jain,
Vishal Banshal, Advs. for the Appellants.
      Shanthkumar V. Mahale, P. Mahesh, Rajesh Mahale, Advs. for            D
the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment     E
and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.7954 of 2014 (LAC) and Miscellaneous
First Appeal No. 6429 of 2015 (LAC) by which the High Court has
allowed the Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7954 of 2014 (LAC)
preferred by the respondent herein – original claimant – original
                                                                            F
landowner and has enhanced the amount of compensation in respect of
the acquired land to Rs. 40 lakhs per acre and consequently has dismissed
the Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 6429 of 2015 (LAC) preferred by
the State, the State has preferred the present appeals.
      2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as
under:-                                                                     G

      2.1 That the land of the respondent herein – original landowner –
claimant situated at Bechark Revenue Village, Belagola Hobli,
Srirangapattana was acquired by the appellants for a public purpose –

                                                                            H
810             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     for improvement of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary. A notification under
      Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued/published on 24.11.2008,
      which was followed by notification under Section 6 in the year 2009.
      The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 10.07.2010 fixing the
      market value of the acquired land @ Rs.21,488/- per guntha. The
      Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.30,49,200/
B
      - per acre, i.e., Rs.76,230/- per guntha.
             2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
      passed by the Reference Court in determining the market price at
      Rs.30,49,200/- per acre (Rs.76,230/- per guntha), the original claimant
      preferred first appeal before the High Court and requested to enhance
C     the amount of compensation. Before the High Court, the original claimant
      heavily relied upon a document produced as Ex.P.17 – by which for the
      lands acquired in the year 2011 the amount of compensation was awarded
      @ Rs.60 lakhs per acre. Mainly relying on Ex.P.17 and thereafter on
      “guesswork”, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has
D     enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.40 lakhs per acre with all
      consequential statutory benefits.
            2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court in enhancing the amount of
      compensation to Rs.40 lakhs per acre solely relying upon Ex.P.17 and
E     on “guesswork”, the State has preferred the present appeals.
            3. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
      respective parties at length.
             4. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute
      that while enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.40 lakhs per
F     acre, the High Court has heavily relied upon Ex.P.17 – by which in
      respect of the lands acquired in the year 2011 the compensation was
      awarded @ Rs.60 lakhs per acre. However, it is required to be noted
      that the award – Ex.P.17 was a consent award and was in respect of
      the property acquired in the year 2011 and which was acquired for a
G     different purpose, namely, for formation of double line railway broad
      gauge between Bengaluru and Mysore City. But in the present case,
      Section 4 notification has been issued in the year 2008, i.e., three years
      before the land acquired in the case of Ex.P.17. Therefore, the award –
      Ex.P.17, which has been relied upon by the High Court is for the acquisition
      subsequent to the land acquired in the present case, i.e., after a period of
H     three years and therefore the High Court ought not to have relied upon
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS. v. N. SAVITHA                        811
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the same while determining the market price of the land acquiredin 2008        A
considering the market price determined for the lands acquired in the
year 2011 and on the basis of some “guesswork”.
       5. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that Ex.P.17 is a
consent award. Therefore, the consent award ought not to have been
relied upon and/or considered for the purpose of determining the               B
compensation in case of another acquisition. In case of a consentaward,
one is required to consider the circumstances under which the consent
award was passed and the parties agreed to accept the compensation at
a particular rate. In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the acquiring
body and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition may agree to give a
particular compensation. Therefore, a consent award cannot be the basis        C
to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more
particularly, when there are other evidences on record. Therefore, the
High Court has erred in determining the compensation @ Rs.40lakhs
per acre relying upon the award – Ex.P.17 in respect of the land which
was for the lands acquired in the year 2011.                                   D
       6. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present
case, the High Court has determined the compensation relying upon
Ex.P.17 mechanically. The High Court has not at all considered whether
the lands acquired in the present case is similarly situated to the lands
acquired in the case of Ex.P.17. As per the settled position of law, there
                                                                               E
may be different market prices/compensation with respect to different
lands, may be in the same village and/or nearby location. The land, which
is on a prime location and which is on the highway and/or at a proximity
to a highway may have a different market price than the land which is
situated in a different location/interior of the village and which might not
have a good potential for development. Therefore, also, the High Court         F
has committed a grave error in solely relying upon Ex.P.17 to determine
the market value of the lands in the instant case.
       7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court determining the
compensation @Rs.40 lakhs per acre relying upon Ex.P.17 is                     G
unsustainable. However, at the same time, considering the fact that there
were other documentary evidences on record, which ought to have been
considered by the High Court, we deem it appropriate to remand the
matter to the High Court to decide the first appeals afresh in accordance
with law and on merits and to determinethe market price/compensation
considering the other evidences on record, if any.                             H
812              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A           7.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by
      the High Courtin Miscellaneous First AppealNo.7954 of2014 (LAC) and
      Miscellaneous FirstAppeal No. 6429 of 2015 (LAC)determining the
      compensation @ Rs.40 lakhs per acre relying upon Ex.P.17 are hereby
      quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court to
B
      decide the first appeals afresh in accordance with law and on their own
      merits and thereafter to determine the market price/compensation
      considering the other material/evidences on record (other than Ex.P.17,
      which as observed hereinabove, cannot be said to be comparable). The
      aforesaid exercise be completed by the High Court within a period of
C     three months from the date of the receipt of the present order.
            Both the appeals are allowed accordingly to the aforesaid extent.
      However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
      order as to costs.
             Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
D

      Devika Gujral                                                  Appeals allowed.




E




F




G




H