f

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. ETC. A

v.

SRI SIDAPPA OMANNA TUMARI AND ORS. ETC.

OCTOBER 27, 1994

[K. RAMASWAMY, S.C. AGRAWALANDN. VENKATACHALA,JJ.] B

Land Acquisition Act 1894, Ss. 11 (2), (3) and 12-Evidentiary value

of award covering lands under same notification-Collector making award

for 240 acres @ Rs. 4,000 per acre by agreement with owners-Later

· making award for remaining 60 acres on basis of market value@ Rs. 4,000 C

and 4,500 per acre for agricultural and non-agricuitural land

respectively-Civil Court on reference enhancing compensation to

Rs. 60, 000 per acre on basis of sale deed of small bit of land and valuation

report

of retired engineer-Held, Civil Court wrong in ignoring altogether

award earlier made by Collector; cannot grant enhanced compensation

without first recording finding

of inadequacy of award amount-Karnataka D

Industrial Area Development Act 1966,

S. 29 (2).

Land Acquisition Act 1894, Ss.11 (2) and II (3) -Determination of

market value-Acquisition of 300 acres of land for industries-Civil Court

on reference enhancing compensation to

Rs.

60,000 per acre on basis of

market value of small bit of land and valuation report of retired engineer-E

Hi!ld; Court was wrong in determining compensation on basis of sale deed

of small extent of land and on expert report based on such sale deed

300 acres of land in Belgaum were sought to be acquired under

S.28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (the

F

'KIAD Act') for the purpose of industries.

Pursuant to an agreement

with the State Government, owners of240 acres accepted compensation

determined

at Rs.

4,000 per acre under an award made by the

Collector

in that behalf. The owners of the remaining

60 acres did not

agree

to receive the above compensation and it became necessary to

take recourse to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 G

('Act') for determining the compensation payable to them. The Land

Acquisition Officer (LAO) awarded

Rs.

4,000 per acre for agricultural

land and

Rs.

4,500 per acre for non-agricultural land on the basis of

market value. The LAO referred to the earlier award in respect of 240

acres and to the price fetched for large extent of similar lands. H

207

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

208

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

The Civil Court on a reference sought by tht: owners of the 60

acres, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 60,000 per acre relying upon a

solitary sale deed for a small extent

of land and the valuation report of

a retired engineer based on the said sale deed. Not satisfied with the

reduction by the High

Court of the compensation to Rs.

52,000 and Rs.

36,000 per acre for non-agricultural and agricultural lands

respectively, the State Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, this

Court

HELD : 1.1. The Civil Court had wholly ignored the settlement

reached by the owners

of about

240 acres of land which was similar to

the (pO acres of acquired lands and formed four-fifth of 300 acres of the

acquired lands. When 240 acres of lands acquired, for which Rs. 4,000

per acre ~as received as compensation by agreement and 60 acres of

lands acquired for which Court had to determine compensation were

similar, no merit could be found

in the argument that these lands

should be granted higher compensation.

(221-E-Ff

1.2. The evidentiary value of the award made under S.11 (2) of the

Act ought to increase depending on the proportion which the area

of

the lands covered by the award may be are to the total area of the land

covered by the notification for acquisition.

Such being the evidentiary

value

of an award made under

S.11 (2) of the Act, the Court

determining the compensation payable for other acquired lands

covered by the same notification cannot ignore altogether from its

consideration such award. (216-G-H)

Bangaru Narasingha Rao

NaidJ v. R.D.O., Vizianagaram, (1980) 1

SCC 75 and Krishna Yachandra Bachadurvaru v. Special Land

Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, (1979) 4

sec 356, referred to.

1.3. The

Court which is required to decide the reference under

S.18

of the Act, cannot determine the amount of compensation payable to

the claimant exceeding the amount determined in the award

of the.

Collector made under

S.11 for the same land,. unless it gets over the

finality and conclusive evidentiary value attributed to it under S.12, by

recording a finding on consideration

of relevant material therein that the amount of compensation determined under the award was

inadequate for the reasons

that weighed with it. (214-G-H)

L

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI 209

2.1. The Civil Court was wholly wrong in making the registration A

copy of that sale deed the basis for determination of the market value

of the acquired lands. Moreover, when the extent of the land covered in

the sale deed wa~ hardly 3 guntas, the price alleged to have fetched for

it could not have formed the basis for determination of the market

value

of about

60 acres of the acquired land, particularly, when as seen

from the award there were sale transactions pertaining to large extents

B

of lands which had come into existence in respect of lands in the

vicinity, around the time of acquisition and before, were available but

had not been made available to Court. (221-D)

2.2. Determination of the value of large extent of acquired lands on

the basis of the prices fetched

by smaller plots must be a matter of last C

resort and should be adopted when there is no possibility of

determining the market value

of acquired lands on the. basis of

comparable transactions of larger extents. (217-F)

The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, (1972) 4

SCC

~~~~ D

2.3. The report of the expert based on the sale deed itself was of no

help in determining the value of acquired land. When a report of an

expert

is got produced by a claimant before the court giving market

value

of the acquired lands, the court may, choose to act upon such

report for determination

of the amount of compensation .payable for E

the acquired lands, if the data

or the material on the basis of which

such report

is based is produced before the Court and the authenticity

of same

is made good and the method of

valuation adopted therein is

correct. (219-A)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos . .2587-88 of F

1994 etc. etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 293.93 of the Kamataka High

Court in M.F.A. No.

954-55of1989.

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 2589-97 of 1994.

S.S. Javali, Mrs. Kiran Suri, M. Veerappa, Naveen R. Nath, for S.R.

Bhat, Girish Nanthamurthy, for P. Mahale and E.C. Vidya Sagar for Gopal

G

Singh for the appearing parties. H

210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

, VENKA T ACHALA, J. These appeals by special leave preferred by

.the Land Acquisition Officer

of

· the Kamataka Industrial Areas

Development Board and the Kamataka Industrial Areas Development

Board are directed against judgments and decrees

of the High Court of

Kamataka rendered in their appeals filed under section 54 of the Land · Acquisition Act, 1894 -"the LA Act". Since the appeals· filed in the High

Court were directed against the judgments and decrees

of the Court of Civil

Judge. Belgaum rendered on references made to it under section

18 of the

LA Act based on common evidence adduced in them, these appeals could

conveniently be disposed

of by this common judgment.

Lands comprised in various survey numbers

of Yamunapur, Kakati,

Kangrali, B.K., Kanbargi:villages

of Belgaum Taluka were proposed to be

acquird for the purpose of industries under section 28 ( 1) of the Kamataka

Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 -"the KIAD Act" by a notification

published.in the Kamataka Gazette dated 4.9.1969. The lands proposed to

be so acquired were 300 acres and formed a large block. The· State

Government negotiated with the owners of th~ said lands for settling the

compensation payable

to.

them for their acquired lands. As a result, the

owners

of

240 · acres of lands entered into an agreement with the State

Government .to receive compensation for their lands at the rate of Rs. 4,000 /

an acre, as· provided for under section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act. Those

owners of the lands also ~eceived compensation payable for their acquired

lands accordingly. Since the owners of remaining 60 acres of lands did not

agree with the State Government in the matter of amount of compensation

to be received for their lands, the Land Acquisition Officer -"the LAO"

had to have recourse to provisions of the LA Act for determining the

amount

of compensation payable to them for their lands as the KIAD Act

required the application

of the provisions of the LA Act for the purpose.

The

LAO who, therefore, issued notices under sections 9 and l 0 of the LA

Act to such owners, and held an inquiry as to the amount

of compensation

payable to them for their lands, made an award under section

11 of the LA

Act determining compensation payable for such lands. The compensation

granted under that

award to the owners of 60 acres of lands was based on

the market value determined at the rate

of Rs.

4,000 an acre for agricultural

lands and at the rate

of Rs.

4,500 an acre for non-agricultural lands. But, the

owners

of the said

60 acres of lands, who did not accept the said award,

made applications to the LAO under section 18 of the LA Act, and sought

the making

of references to the Civil Court for determination of the

compensation payable for their lands. The Civil Court which received those

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI [VENKATACHALA, J.J 211

references, registered them as land acquisition cases and held an enquiry A

thereon. However, since the parties adduced common evidence in that

enquiry as regards the market value

of the lands of the owners -claimants

in those cases, the Civil Court on consideration of such common evidence

rendered judgments and decrees

in those cases detennining. the market

value

of about

60 acres of lands concerned at the rate of Rs. l,500 per

gunta, i.e.,

Rs.

60,000 an acre. But those judgments and decrees made by· B

the Civil Court in the said land acquisition cases were appealed against by

the LAO and the Kamataka Industrial Areas Development Board -"the

Board" by the preferring appeals under section 54 of the LA Act.

Thereupon, the High Court by its judgments and decrees made

in those

appeals reduced the market value

of the acquired lands to Rs.

1;300 per

gunta, i.e.,

Rs.

52,000 an acre and Rs. 900 per gunta, i.e., Rs. 36,000 an C

acre. The LAO and the Board, who were not satisfied with the reduction in

the market value of 60 acres of lands made by the High Court by its

judgments and decrees rendered

in those appeals, have filed the. present

appeals by special leave seeking the setting aside

of the judgments and

decrees

of the Civil Court as well as of the High Court and dismissal of the

land acquisition cases by rejecting the reference made to the Civil Court.

D

Shri S.S. Javali, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that

the compensation received by the owners

of four-fifth the area of acquired

lands

(240 acres) pursuant to an agreement entered into with the State

Government, as provided for under section 29 (2) of the KIAD Act, when

had made the LAO to determine the market value payable to the remaining E

owners of one-fifth area of the acquired lands by his award made under

section l l

of the LA Act, the Civil Court and the High Court had acted

illegally

in overlooking such award and detennining the market value of

one-fifth the area of the acquired lands

(60 acres) on the basis of the price

supposed to have fetched by the sale deed dated 13.3.1969 (Ex. P-3),

relating to sale

of small bit of about 3 guntas of land situated away from the F

acquired lands and on Ex.

P-7, the report of the valuation of acquired lands

made by a retired engineer, PW-2 based on the price supposed to have been

fetched under Ex. P-3. On the other hand, Shri E.C. Vidya Sagar, learned

counsel appearing for the respondents

in Civil Appeal Nos. 2589-91 of

1994 contended that the acquired lands of the respondent concerned in each G

of those appeals had since been situated next to the National Highway, they

had a very high potential value for

building purposes and hence it cannot be

said that the High Court was unjustified

in determining the compensation of

those lands at a rate higher than that determined by the

LAO of other lands.

He further contended that in the absence of non-availability of sale deeds ·

relating to larger extents of lands on the basis of which determination of the H

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

212

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

market value of the respondents, acquired lands could have been made, the

High Court was justified

in placing reliance on the value supposed to have

been fetched by sale

of3 guntas of land under Ex. P-3 and the

r.::port of the

valuer (Ex.P-7) based on such sale and hence the judgments and decrees

of

the High C6urt appealed against do not call for interference by this Court.

Since the decision in these appeals require our consideration of four

important points affecting valuation

of land to be made by a court on a

reference made to it under

Section 18 of the LA Act, those points which

need such consideration

in the light of the aforesaid contentions urged

f~r

the contesting parties in these appeals, would be the following :

(i) Where a Court

is required to determine compensation for

a land on a reference made to it under

Section 18 of the LA

Act at the instance

of a claimant who has not accepted the

award made under

Section 11 of the LA Act, can it

determine the amount

of compensation payable for the land

exceeding the amount

of compensation determined as

payable for the same land

in the award under section l l of

the LA Act, without recording its finding on the inadequacy

of the amount of compensation determined in such award

on consideration

of relevant material therein?

(ii) Where

for certain lands covered by a notification

published under section 4

(l) of the LA Act or a

corresponding provision

in any other Act providing for

acquisition, an award

is made under

Section l l of that Act

as to the amount of compensation, payable for such lands to

the claimants on the basis of agreement reached between

them are the Collector (LAO) under sub-section (2) thereof

or a corresponding provision

in any other Act providing for

payment

of the amount of compensation by agreement

between the claimants and the Collector or Government,

can the amount

of compensation payable under the award of

the Collector made according to such agreement, be ignored

by the Court in determining the amount of compensation

payable for other lands covered

by the same notification.

(iii) Where.a sale-deed or

an agreement to sell relating to a

small extent

of

land is produced by the claimant in the

enquiry held for determination

of the amount of

compensation payable for his land, is the Court bound to

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI [VENKATACHALA, J.] 213

Point-(i):

determine the market price of the large extent of acquired A

land, based on the price fetched or to be fetched by small

extent

of land covered by such sale-deed or agreement to

sell?

(iv) When report

of an expert is got produced by a claimant

before a Court giving the market value

of the concerned B

acquired land, is the Court bound to act upon such report in

determining the amount of compensation payable for the

acquired land?

The amount

of compensation payable for land acquired under the LA

c

Act is required to be determined by Court under section 23 at the instance

of a claimant, who does not accept the award of Collector made in that

·

regard under section 11. As becomes clear from sub-section (2) of Section

11 of the LA Act, an award as to the amount of compensation payable for

the land, could be made by the Collector on the basis

of agreement reached D

in that regard between him and the claimant. However, where no such

agreement

is reached, the Collector is required to make an award as to the

amount

of

9ompensation payable for the land as requiied by sub-section (1)

of section 11, being guided by the provisions contained in sections 23 and

24, as envisaged under section

15. The provision in section 12 makes such

award

of the Collector final and conclusive evidence as between him and E

the claimant, subject to later provisions.

Since later provision

in section 18

entitles a claimant who does not

accept the award under section

11 as to the amount of compensation

determined thereunder for his

land, to raise an objection thereto and to seek

reference to the Court for determination

of the amount of compensation F

payable for his

land, undoubtedly the Court deciding such reference could

determine the amount of compensation payable for land exceeding the

amount

of compensation determined in the award under section 11. But, the

point

is, whether it is open to such Court to determine the amount of

compensation exceeding the amount of compensation detennined in the G

award without recording a finding on consideration of the relevant material

therein, that the amount

of compensation determined in the award under

Section

11 was inadequate.

When the Collector makes the reference to the Court,

he is enjoined by

section

19 to state the

grqunds on which he had determined the amount of H

A

B

c

D

'F

G

H

214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

compensation if the objection raised as to the acceptance of award of the

Collector under section

11 by the claimant was as regards the amount of

compensation awarded for the land thereunder. The Collector has to state

the grounds on which

he had determined the amount of compensation

where the objection raised by the claimant in his application for reference

under section

18 was as to inadequacy of compensation allowed by the

award under section 1

i, as required by sub-section (2) of

Section 18 itself.

Therefore, the legislative scheme contained in Sections

12, 18 and 19 while

on the one hand entitles the claimant not to accept the award made under

section

11 as to the amount of compensation determined as payable for his

acquired land and seek a reference to the court for determination

of the

amount

of compensation payable for his land, on the other hand. requires

him to make good before the Court the objection raised by him

as regards

the inadequacy

of the amount of compensation allowed for his land under

the award made under section

11, with a view to enable the Court to

determine

.the amount of compensation exceeding the amount of

compensation allowed by the award under

Section 11, be it by reference to

the improbabilities inherent in the award itself or on the evidence aliunde

adduced by him to that effect. That

is why, the position of a claimant in a

reference before the Court,

is considered to be that of the plaintiff in a suit

requiring him to discharge the initial burden

of proving that the amount of

compensation determined in the award under section 11 was inadequate, the

same having not been determined on the basis of relevant material and by

application

of correct principles of valuation, either with reference to the

contents

of the award itself or with reference to other evidence aliunde

adduced before the Court. Therefore,

if the initial burden of proving the

amount

of compensation allowed in the award of the Collector was

inadequate,

is not discharged, the award of the Collector which is made

final

anq conclusive evidence under section 12, as regards matters

contained therein will stand unaffected. But if the claimant succeeds in

proving that the amount determined under the award of the Collector was

inadequate, the burden

of proving the correctness of the award shifts on to

the Collector who has to adduce sufficient evidence

in that behalf to sustain

such award. Hence, the Court which

is required to decide the reference

made to it under section

18 of the Act, cannot determine the amount of

compensation payable to the claimant for his land exceeding the amount

determined

in the award of the Collector made under section 11 for the

same

land'; unless it gets over tbe fitfality and conclusive evidentiary value

attributed to it under section 12, by recording a finding on consideration

of

relevant material therein that the amount of compensation determined under

the award was inadequate for the reasons that weighed with

it.

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI [VENKATACHALA, J.] 215

Point-(ii) : A

Sub-section (2) of section l l of the LA Act.empowers the Collector to

make an award determining the amount

of compensation payable to the

claimant for the acquired land,

if the latter agrees in writing to receive such

amount

as compensation for such land. Such determination of

compensation for a land under sub-section (2) of section 11, it is true, B

cannot in any way affect the determination of compensation for other lands

in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions

of

the LA Act because of the provision contained in sub-section (3) of section

·

· 11 of the LA Act. But, the point which needs consideration here is the

evidentiary value which the award

of the Collector determining the comp,;msation for certain land on the basis of the agreement reached C

between him and the claimant under sub-section (2) of section 11 of the LA

Act or other corresponding provision in any other Act, should carry in

determining the amount

of compensation payable for other similar lands

acquired pursuant to the same notification published under sub-section

{l)

of section

4. thereof or other corresponding provision in any Act.

The best evidence

of the market value of the acquired land is afforded

D

by a transaction of sale in respect of the very acquired land provided, of

course, there is nothing to doubt the authenticity of such transaction, as is

held by this Court in Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu v. R.D.O.,

Viziangaram,

[1980) l sec 75. The best evidence of market value of the

acquired land could equally· be afforded by a transaction

of agreement to E

sell relating to the very acquired land, provided, of course, there arises

absolutely no room for doubting the authenticity

of such transaction. If such

transaction

of agreement to sell relating to the very acquired land or a

portion

of it could be the best evidence of the market value of the acquire

land, can such evidence furnished

by the award made by the Collector F

under sub-section (2) or similar provisions in any other Act determining the

amount

of compensation payable to a claimant for a portion of the acquired

land

as agreed to by him with the Collector be ignored by the Court

in

determining the market value of the remaining portion of the acquired land,

is the point which arises for consideration.

Where the Collector

is required to determine the amount of

G

compensation payable for the acquired land according to the provisions in

the LA Act, he

is guided in the matter by the provisions in sections 23 and

24 because

of the requirement of section 15. But, where it becomes

necessary for the

Court to determine the amount of compensation for the

acquired land according

to sections 23 and 24 of the LA Act, it shall take H

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. S S.C.R.

into consideration first, the market value of the land on the date of

publication of the notification under section 4 (1 ), inasmuch as it is the

mandate

of sub-section (I)'ofsection 23, which takes note of the fact that

the market value

of the land is the main component of compensation

payable therefor.

As held by this Court in Krishna Yachandra Bachadurvaru v. Special

Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore,

[I979] 4

SCC 356 the estimation of market value of the acquired land

depends on evaluation

of many imponderables.

Play of conjecture and

guess

in the estimation of market value of the acquired land cannot be

avoided even though such conjecture or

guess has to be founded on the

facts and circumstances

of

each case. But, the market value of the acquired

land must be the near estimate

of the price which the claimant by

voluntarily. selling the awarded land would have got from a willing

purchaser. What could be regarded as the near estimate

of the acquired land

has to

be ascertained, be it the Collector or be it the Court on the basis of

authenticated transactions of sales or agreements to sell relating to the same

land or a portion

of it wherever possible because such transactions of sale

or agreements to sell are always

rega::-ded as the best evidence available for

the purpose. When lands are notified for acquisition, all the persons

interested

in any of those lands who are entitled to obtain compensation

therefor, taking advantage

of the statutory provisions for voluntary

settlement

of the amount of compensation payable for their lands enter into

an agreement with the Collector

in that behalf and receive such amount

from the Collector as per his award made accordingly under the provisions

of the LA Act. Ordinarily, no room for doubting the authenticity or

genuineness

of the award for compensation made by the Collector on the

basis

of such agreement can arise. The evidentiary value of such award

determining the amount

of compensation made under section I .I (2) of the

LA Act by the Collector ought to necessarily increase depending on the

proportion which the

area of the lands covered by the award may bear to

the total area

of the land covered by the notification for acquisition.

Such being the evidentiary value of an award made by the Collector

under sub-section (2)

of section I I of the LA Act, as regards the market

value

of the lands covered by Notification under section 4 (I), the Court

determining the compensation payable for other acquired lands covered by

the same notification cannot ignore altogether from its consideration such

award made under sub-section (2)

of section I I.

-

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI [VENKA T ACHALA, J.] 217

Point-(iii) :

A

Where the court has to determine the market value of large extents cf

acquired agricultural lands, it may not be desirable to be guided on the price

fetched by sale

of small extents of agricultural lands as the possibility of

genuine agriculturists buying such small extents for their cultivation

purposes

is, rather remote and it may not also be desirable to determine the B

market value ofthe acquired agricultural lands on the basis of value fetched

by sales of small extents agricultural land even if they had been purchased

for building purposes, for that would involve the consideration

of too many

imponderables. However,

if sale deed or agreement to sell relating to the

small extent

of land on the basis of which the market value of the large C

extent of the agricultural land has to be determined is a portion of the

acquired agricultural land itself or other land in its close proximity, it may

be made the basis for determining the market value of the acquired large

extent

of agricultural land out has to be done when there is

sat~sfactory

evidence of the absence of sales or agreements to sell of bigger extents of D

land pertaining to the acquired land or other lands in the vicinity of the

acquired land. Even then, the price fetched or to be fetched by such small

extents of land has to be made the basis for determining the market value of

the larger extents of acquired agricultural lands, all material factors which

would reduce the value

of the larger extents of acquired land as on the date

it was notified for acquisition must necessary be taken into account, for it is E

well-known as. is held by this Court in the Collector of Lakhimpur v.

Bhuban Chandra Dutta, [1972] 4

SCC 236. that when a large area of land

under acquisition

is the subject matter, it cannot fetch the price at the rate at

which smaller plot or plots are sold.

One aspect, which however, should

weigh

is that determination of the value of large extents of acquired lands F on the basis of the prices fetched by smaller plots must be a matter of last

resort and should be adopted when there

is no possibility of determining the

market value

of acquired lands on the basis of comparable transactions of

larger extents.

Therefore, where a sale deed or an agreement to sell relating to a small

G

extent of land is produced by the claimant, in the enquiry held for

determination

of compensation payable for his large extent of land, the

Court

is not always bound to determine the market price of such large

extent

of acquired land on the basis of the price fetched or to be fetched by

small extent of land covered by such sale deed or agreement to sell. H

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

218

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

Point-(iv) :

It has become a matter of common occurrence with the claimants who

seek enhanced compensation for their acquired lands from court to produce

the reports

of valuation of their lands in court purported to have been

prepared by the experts. No doubt, courts can act on such expert evidence

in determining the market value of the acquired lands, but the court having

regard to the fact that experts will have prepared the valuation reports

produced

in the court and will depose in support of such reports, at the

instance

of the claimants, must with care and caution examine such reports

and evidence given in support thereof. Whenever valuation report made by

an expert

is produced in court, the opinion on the value of the acquired land

given by such expert can be

of no assistance in determining the market

value of such land, unless such opinion is formed on relevant factual data or

material, which

is

also produced before the court and proved to be genuine

and reliable, as any other evidence. Besides,

if the method of valuation of

acquired land adopted by the expert in his report is found to be not in

consonance with the recognised methods

of valuation of similar lands, then

also, the opinion expressed in his report and his evidence, can be

of no real

assistance to the court in determining the market value

of the acquired land.

Since the exercise which will have been done by the expert in arriving at

the market value

of the land in his report on the basis of factual data bearing

on such valuation, will be similar to· that to be undertaken by the court

in

determining the market value of the acquired land, it can no doubt receive

assistance from such report,

if it is rightly done and the data on which the

report

is based is placed before the court and its authenticity is established.

Therefore, when the valuation report

of an acquired land is made by an

expert on the basis

of

prkes fetched or to be fetched by sale deeds or

agreements to sell relating to the very acquired lands or the lands

in the

vicinity, need_arises for the court to examine and be satisfied about the

authenticity

of such documents and the truth of their contents and the

normal circumstances in which they had come into existence and further the

correct method adopted

in preparation of that report, before acting on such

report for determining the market value

of the acquired land. The opinion

expressed

in the report that the author of the report has made the valuation

of the acquired lands on the basis of his past experience of valuation of

such lands should never weigh with the court in the matter of

determination

of market value of the acquired lands, for such assertions by themselves

cannot be substitutes for evidence on which it ought to be based and the

method

of valuation adaptable in such report.

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI [VENKATACHAL1, J.] 219

Therefore, when a report of an expert is got produced by a claimant A

before the court giving market value of the acquired lands, the court may

choose to act upon such report for detennination

of the amount of

compensation payable for the acquired lands, if the data or the material on

the basis

of which such report is based is produced before the Court and the

authenticity

of the same is made good and the method of valuation adopted

therein

is correct. B

As the points arising for consideration in the facts of the land

acquisition cases under appeals having been answered as above, we propose

to examine the sustainability

of the judgments of the Civil Court and the

High Court under challenge before us.

In all about

300 acres of agricultural and non-agricultural lands

required for making industrial plots was proposed for acquisition under

section 28

(I) of the KIAD Act by a notification published on 4.9.1969 in

the State Gazette. Section 25 (2) of the KIAD Act which provided for

settlement

on compensation payable for the lands acquired thereunder read

c

~: D

"Where the amount of compensation has been detennined

by agreement between the State Government and the

persons to

be compensated they shall be paid in accordance

with such

agreement." ·

The claimants, who were the owners of about 240 acres of the acquired

lands out

of total of about

300 acres of the acquired lands, entered into an

agreement with the State Government in the matter

of compensation

payable for their lands at the rate

of Rs.

4,000 per acre and received the

same under the award made by the LAO in that behalf. The award, Ex. P-l,

E

of the LAO specifically refers to the fact that the owners of about 240 acres F

of acquired lands received Rs. 4,000 per acre. It also refers to the fact of

some of the owners of remaining about 60 acres of land making a claim for

compensation for their lands at the rates

of Rs.

12,000 per acre. The LAO,

when

in the said award detennined the market value of the remaining extent

of about

60 acres of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per acre for

agricultural lands and

Rs.

4,500 per acre for non-agricultural lands, it was G

in consonance with the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,000 per acre

voluntarily received

by the owners of about

240 acres of similar lands

acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose. The award

further refers to prices fetched

by sale of even large extents of lands and the

average price fetched

in them as Rs. 4,437 per acre. The only evidence

which

is produced by the claimants to show that the compensation awarded H

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

to them for their 60 acres of lands was inadequate is Ex. P-3, the

registration copy

of the sale deed dated 13.3.1969 wherein about

3300 sq.

ft. of land in some survey numbers of Kangrali B.K.Village had been sold

as plot No. 49 for

Rs.

4,500. The extent of land sold under the said sale

deed being about 3 guntas, the rate works out to

Rs. 1458 per gunta, i.e. Rs.

58,320 per acre. The report of valuation of the acquired land produced is

Ex. P-7. That

r~port is said to be one made by a retired engineer. P.W.2

claimed as expert valuer. The whole report of valuation of the acquired

lands was claimed to have been made on the basis of the registration copy

of the sale deed Ex.P-3. Therefore, the Civil Court has come to determine

the market value

of the acquired lands solely on the basis of Ex.

P-3 and

Ex.P-7 ignoring every other information furnished

in the award, Ex.P-1 of

the

LAO, such as that for similar lands covered by the same acquisition

notification, the owners

of about

240 acres of land had accepted the

compensation from the Government at the rate

of Rs.

4,000 per acre by

reaching a settlement with the Government and even the claimants

themselves who were seeking enhanced compensation for their lands had

claimed compensation for their acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 12,000 per

acre. Although the Civil Court

in its judgments said no sale deed produced

by the claimants should be acted upon unless the vendor and the vendee

under such sale deed was

·examined to show its authenticity and

circumstances

in which it came into existence, it has accepted Ex.

P-3,

registration copy of a sale deed produced by a claimant as the evidence of

price of land in the neighbourhood of the acquired land. It has failed to see

that for want

of evidence of vendor or vendee under that sale deed Ex.

P-3,

it was of no assistance in determining the value of the acquired land. So

also

it has failed to see that Ex.

P-7, the report of the expert had since been

based on the said sale deed itself,

it was of no help in determining the value

of acquired lands.

Only thing that has been done by the Civil Court is to

give deduction

of some amount out of Rs. 2,

700 per gun ta, i.e., Rs.

l ,08,000 per acre, which according to it was the amount needed for making

roads and drains and for providing amenities

in the acquired lands and ' determining their value at Rs. l ,500 per gunta, i.e., Rs. 60,000 per acre.

As seen from the judgments

of the Civil

Court· we find' no mention that

t~e claimants who are the owners of about 60 acres of the acquired lands

Had not disputed the fact that the owners of about 240 acres of similar other

lands acquired under the same notification had accepted

Rs.

4,000 per acre

as amount

of compensation payable for their lands under a voluntary

agreement

and as to why such agreement could not have been the basis to

determine the market value

of the acquired lands. In its judgments the Civil

Court

in finding that the market value determined in the award for about

60

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. S. 0. TUMARI [VENKATACHALA, J.] 221

acres of the acquired land at Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 4,500 per acre in any way A

inadequate has not considered all the relevant material on the basis of which

market value or the acquired lands was determined by the award. As

regards the registration copy

of the sale deed, Ex. P-3, dated 13.3.1969, it is

merely said that the claimants had produced the same in court. Nowhere

there

is reference to the evidence of vendor or vendee given in respect of

Ex. P-3. How the market price fetched for a smaller extent of 3 guntas of B

land under Ex. P-3 could have been raliced upon is not at all stated by the

Court. Even though,

Ex. P-3, registration copy of the sale deed was the

foundation for the valuation report

Ex. P-7, no attempt appears to have been

made

by PW-2, the retired engineer, who had prepared the report to find

out the circumstances

in which the sale had come into existence and why C

the price mentioned

therein· was paid. If regard is had to all these factors,

the Civil Court was wholly wrong

in making the registration copy of that

sale deed the basis for determination

of the market value of the acquired

lands. Moreover, when the extent

of the land covered in Ex.P-3 was hardly

3 guntas, the price alleged to have fetched for

it could not have formed the

basis for determination

of the market value of about 60 acres of the D

acquired land, particularly, when as seen from the award there were sale

transactions pertaining to .large extents

of lands which had come into

existence in respect

of lands in the vicinity, around

the time of acquisition

and before, "were available but had not been made available to court.

However, one thing which becomes obvious from the judgments

of the

Civil Court

is that the Civil Court had wholly ignored the settlement E

reached by the owners of about 240 acres of land which was similar to the

60 acres

of acquired lands and formed 'four-fifth of 300 acres of the

acquired lands. When 240 acres

of lands acquired, for which Rs. 4,000 per

acre was received as compensation by agreement and 60 acres

of lands

acquired for which court had to determine compensation were similar, no

F

merit could be found in the argument of learned counsel for some of the

respondents

in the appeals that their lands being closer to highway should

be granted higher compensation.

Thus, there was absolutely

no evidence produced by the claimants in

the Civil Court on references got made by them which would show that G

they had produced evidence sufficient to discharge the burden of proof that

the award made by the

LAO did not give adequate compensation for their

acquired lands.

In the circumstances the judgments and awards of the Civil

Court were wholly unsustainable. However, when the judgments

in the

Civil Court have been brought

us before the High

Court at the instance of

the present appellants, all that has been done by the High Court in its H

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A judgments is to reduce the rate of compensation given per gunta by stating

that the market value

of the large extent of

lan4 when was determined by

the Civil Court on the basis

of the price fetched by smaller extent of land

deduction given by it for largeness, should have been more. The amount

of

compensation determined by it payable for the acquired lands is therefore

reduced to

Rs.

1,300 per gunta and Rs. 900 per gunta, which works out to

B Rs. 52,000 per acre and Rs. 36,000 per acre respectively. The High Court

has also ignored the fact that for similar acquired lands the owners.of more

than four-fifths

of the land had accepted the amount of compensation at the

rate determined by the

LAO in his award. Therefore, there is no reason to

sustain the judgments and decrees

of the High Court under appeals.

C In the facts and circumstances to which we have adverted to, there is

no option left

to us

e~cept to affirm the award of the Land Acquisition

Officer.

In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the Judgments

of the

Civil Court, as well as

of the High

Court, reject the references made to the

D Civil Court, leaving the parties to bear their own costs of the proceedings

throughout.

S.M. Appeals allowed.

In view

of our judgment pronounced today in Civil Appeal Nos. 2587-

E

· 88of1994 etc. -The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another etc. v.

Sri Sidappa Omanna Tumari and Ors. etc. the Special. Leave Petition is

. dismissed.

S.M. Petition dismissed.