Delve into the complexities of land acquisition compensation determinations as we explore a case where the High Court’s decision was based on a specific document and ‘guesswork.’ The court ruled that relying solely on one document, such as Ex.P.17, to set compensation at Rs. 40 lakhs per acre was unsustainable. By remanding the case back to the High Court for a fresh determination excluding Ex.P.17, the court emphasized the importance of considering multiple documentary evidences in assessing market value. Explore the legal nuances of compensation in land acquisition cases.
Facts
- The land of the respondent – original landowner – was acquired for improvement of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary.
- The High Court enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 40 lakhs per acre, relying on Ex.P.17 and ‘guesswork’.
- The State, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, has filed the present appeals.
- The Reference Court initially awarded compensation at Rs. 30,49,200 per acre.
- The original claimant appealed to the High Court for further enhancement of compensation.
- The State has appealed against the High Court’s decision to enhance compensation based on Ex.P.17 and ‘guesswork’.
- Officer passed an award on 10.07.2010 fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.21,488/- per guntha.
- Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued/published on 24.11.2008, followed by notification under Section 6 in the year 2009.
- Original claimant heavily relied upon a document produced as Ex.P.17 for the lands acquired in the year 2011.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Analysis
- The High Court erred in determining compensation at Rs.40 lakhs per acre based on a 2011 award, which is after the land in question was acquired in 2008.
- The High Court did not consider if the lands acquired in both cases were similarly situated.
- A consent award like Ex.P.17 should not have been the sole basis for compensation determination as parties may agree to a specific rate under certain circumstances.
- Ex.P.17 was for lands acquired in 2011 for a different purpose at Rs.60 lakhs per acre, making it unsuitable for determining the market value of the lands in this case.
- Different lands even in the same village may have different market prices or compensations.
- The High Court’s decision of determining compensation at Rs. 40 lakhs per acre based solely on Ex.P.17 is unsustainable.
- Other documentary evidences on record should have been considered in determining the market price/compensation.
- The matter is remanded back to the High Court to decide the first appeals afresh in accordance with law and on merits.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Decision
- The impugned judgment and order determining the compensation at Rs.40 lakhs per acre are quashed and set aside.
- Both appeals are allowed, and the High Court is directed to complete the exercise within three months.
- The present appeals succeed, and the matters are remanded to the High Court to decide afresh and determine market price/compensation excluding Ex.P.17.
- No costs are awarded in the case, and pending applications are disposed of.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Case Title: SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. N. SAVITHA (2022 INSC 330)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002052-002053 / 2022
