PETITIONER:
PRITHVI RAJ TANEJA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1977
BENCH:
KHANNA, HANS RAJ
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1560 1977 SCR (2) 633
1977 SCC (1) 684
ACT
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 23---Compulsory acquisi-
tion of land--Whether price paid for small plots a crite-
rion for determining compensation for vast areas--Assessment
of market value, when to remain undisturbed.
HEADNOTE
The appellant’s land was acquired and compensation was
awarded to him by the Land Acquisition Officer. Demanding a
higher amount, the appellant had the matter referred to the
District Judge who increased the award, but still discon-
tented, the appellant went in appeal. The High Court also
increased the compensation but could not satisfy the appel-
lant who thereupon obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court, contending that small plots of land adjoining his
large area were sold at much higher rates.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: 1. The price’ paid for small plots of laud cannot
provide a safe criterion for determining the amount of
compensation for a vast area of land.. The large area of
land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which
small plots are sold. [635 A-B]
Smt. Padma Uppal etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [1977]
1 S.C.R. 329, applied.
2. The essential thing is to keen in view the relevant
factors prescribed by the Act. If the judgment of the High
Court reveals that it has taken into consideration the
relevant factors, the assessment of the market value of
the acquired land should not be disturbed. [635 D-E]
Thakur Kanta Prasad Singh (dead) by L. Rs v. State of
Bihar A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2219, applied.
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 1970.
(From the Judgment and Decree dated 28-4-1970 of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) in First Appeal
No. 133 of 1968).
S.N. Andley and Uma Dutta, for the appellants
Ram Panjwani and H.S. Harihar, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J. This is an appeal on certificate by Prithvi
Raj Taneja (now deceased and represented by his legal repre-
sentatives) against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court whereby the High Court partially accepted the appeal
filed by the appellant regarding the quantum of compensa-
tion for the acquisition of land.
A plot of land measuring 27 bighas and 17 biswas
situated in Ashok Nagar, district Guna, belonging to the
appellant was acquired for the construction o,f a police
station and residential quarters for
policemen. A bigha, it is stated, is equivalent to 2,500
square yards. The land sought to be acquired measured 68,658
square yards. Notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act for the acquisition of the land was issued
on April 7, 1961. The Land Acquisition Officer as per award
dated June 13, 1961 awarded compensation for the land at the
rate of Rs. 100 per bigha. In addition to that, he awarded
a sum of Rs. 1,175 for large trees and Rs. 1,380 for small
trees standing on the land. The appellant was also awarded
Rs. 1,000 as compensation for a well which had been sunk in
the. land, and Rs. 800 for a house standing on the land In
all, the appellant was awarded a sum of Rs. 7,616. including
solatium at the rate. of fifteen per cent by the Land Acqui-
sition Officer.
The appellant wanted compensation for the land at the
rate of Rs. 10 per square yard. He accordingly had the
matter referred to the District Judge. Learned Additional
District Judge determined the market value of the land in
question to be Rs. 900 per bigha. Regarding the well, the
Additional District Judge awarded compensation of Rs. 3,000
as against the amount of Rs. 1,000 which had been awarded by
the Land Acquisition Officer. In other respects, the
award of the Land Acquisition Officer was upheld. Computing
solatium at the rate of 10 per cent, the. total amount
awarded by District Judge to the appellant was Rs. 32,285
besides interest at the rate of six per cent per annum.
The appellant not being satisfied with the award of the
Additional District Judge took the matter in appeal to the
High Court. The High Court awarded compensation to the
appellant at the rate of Re. 1. per square yard for the land
in question. The High Court also awarded Rs. 2,500 for
the loss of earnings to the appellant. The rate of solatium
for compulsory acquisition was increased by the High Court
from ten per cent to, fifteen per cent. In all, the appel-
lant was held entitled to a compensation of Rs. 88,381
besides interest at the rate of six per cent per annum.
The appellant thereupon obtained a certificate of fit-
ness for appeal to this Court under article 133(1)(a) of the
Constitution, as it stood at that time.
In appeal before us, Mr. Andley on behalf of the appel-
lant has argued that more than half of the land in dispute
is within. the municipal limits of Ashok Nagar Municipality,
while the remaining land was also likely to be included
within those limits shortly. It is further stated that
the land in question abutts Ashok Nagar-Isagarh Road and is
situated near the tehsil building and the. railway station.
Learned counsel has also referred to the fact that small
plots of land adjoining the land in dispute were sold at
rates of Rs. 9 and Rs. 8 per square yard during the years
1958 to 1960. In this respect, we find that the High Court
has considered most of the above circumstances and has come
to the conclusion that Re. 1 per square yard represents
fair market value of the land in dispute. The High Court has
also referred to the special circumstances under which the
small plots were sold and their price was fixed. We agree
with the High Court that the price
635
paid for small plots of land cannot provide a safe
criterion for determining the amount of compensation for a
vast area of land. We may in this context refer to a recent
judgment in the case of Smt. Padma Uppal etc. v. State of
Punjab & Ors. C) wherein this Court observed that it is
well settled that in determining compensation the value
fetched for small plots of land cannot be applied to the
lands covering a very large area and that the large area of
land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which
small plots are sold.
Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that in
mining the amount of compensation to, be awarded for the
land acquired under the Act, the Court shall take into.
account inter alia the market value of the land at the date
of the publication of the notification under section 4 of
the Act. The market value means the price that a willing
purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property
having due regard to its existing condition with all its
existing advantages and its potential possibilities when
laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding any
advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for which
the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering
market value the disinclination of the vendor to part with
his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy
should be disregarded. There is an element of guess-work
inherent in most cases involving determination of the
market value of the acquired land. But this in the very
nature of things cannot be helped. The essential thing is
to keep in view the relevant factors prescribed by the Act.
If the judgment of the High Court reveals that it has taken
into consideration the relevant factors, the assessment of
the market value of the acquired land should not be dis-
turbed (see Thakur Kanta Prasad Singh (dead) by L. rs. v.
State of Bihar(2). After having been taken through the
material on the record, we find no infirmity in the judgment
of the High Court as might induce us to disturb its find-
ing. The appeal consequently fails and is dismissed but
in the circumstances without costs.
Appeal dismissed.
(1) [1977] 1 S.C.R. 329,
(2) A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2219.
636