- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 24 July 1996
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, G. B. Pattanaik
- Result
- Appeal allowed.
Headnote
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Sectiolls 4( 1) alld 23.
Land acquisitioll-Detennination of compensatim..-Notification under Section 4(1 )-Lapse of-lmw of secolld notification-Ill the meantime pm' ties clainzing higher con1pensation executed a docunzcnt with a view to inflating n1a1*et valu~No other evidence to asce1tain enhance111ent of cont-pensation-In such circun1stances aivard of Collector not confinne~Matter remitted to Refere!lce Cmat to decide compe!lsation afresh on the basis of evidence vis-a-t-·is any other reference having sbnilar facts.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act") initially was published on May 25, 1956 acquiring a huge extent of 985.95 acres of land for industrial purpose in Durgapur. It would appear that subsequently the notification got lapsed. Consequently, the second notification came to be published on August 10, 1964. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation @Rs. 2,310 per acre. In this case, we are concerned with the extent of the lands in 5 plots in Survey Nos. 710, 735, 762, 824 and 912 of an extent of 0.33, 0.11, 0.63, 0.13 and 0.49 acres respectively. The reference Court enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 1,45,000 per acre relying upon Ext. l(d) dated April 24, 1964. It is settled law that the similar lands were of large extent involved for acquisi-tion and on evidence relied upon, even the High Court has doubted the genuineness of this document. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that this document came to be executed between the parties who are claiming higher compensation. It would be obvious that after the first notification was issued and before the second notification came to be published this document was brought into existence to inflate the market value. Under these circumstances, the High Court in another case was well justified in doudting the correctness of it. Unfortunately, except that docu-ment, there is no other evidence for enhancement of the compensation. But in view of the fact that large extent of the lands are involved and we do not have the advantage of any other evidence or assistance from respondents, we are not inclined to confirm the award of the Collector. Under these circumstances, we set aside the award of the court and the High Court and remit the matter to the reference court lo decide the compensation afresh on the basis of the evidence vis-a-vis any other refer-ence pending before it having similar facts and decide that matter accord-ing to law.
The appeal in accordingly allowed, but, in the circumstances, without costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2467 of 1980.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.78 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 109 of 1977.
Tapas Ray, G.S. Chatterjee and Ms. Aruna Banerjee for the Appel-lant.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.