A.R. RANGAMANNAR NAJDUversusSUB COLLECTOR OF CHIDAMBARAM
- Citation
- 1992 INSC 204
- Decided
- 14 August 1992
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The High Court was wrong to reduce compensation; improvements such as roads and drainage increase the value of the land, so no proportionate deduction is permissible.
Summary
Ten acres of land belonging to the appellant were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation at Rs.1.01 per square foot, which was enhanced to Rs.2.25 per square foot by a reference court under Section 18 of the Act. The State appealed, and the Madras High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.2.00 per square foot, reasoning that the roads and drainage laid out on the land occupied part of the area and therefore a proportionate deduction was warranted. The appellant contended that the improvements actually increased the value of the land and should not lead to any deduction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s deduction was erroneous in principle because the presence of roads and drainage indicated a higher, not lower, value of the acquired land. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and restored the reference court’s award of Rs.2.25 per square foot. The appeal was allowed and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act should be proportionately reduced for roads and drainage that occupy part of the acquired area when such improvements have been made on the land.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 12, s. 18
Subjects
Judgment
A.R. RANGAMANNAR NAJDU
v.
SUB COLLECTOR OF CHIDAMBARAM
AUGUST 14, 1992
B [DR. T.K THOMMEN, V. RAMASWAMI AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Ss. 12, 18-Land with road and drainage-Developed for building
C site.s-Acquisition of-COmpensation-Proportionate· deduction towards
roads and drainage--Whether pennissib/e.
On State's appeal against enhancement of compensation for a com·
pact area of 10 acres of land laid out as building sites with fully formed
roads and drainage, and acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
D the High Court reduced the compensation holdig that since the roads and
drainage occupied .a part of the area acquired, proportionate deduction in
compensation ought to be made. The claimant filed appeal by special leave
to this .Court.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
E
HELD : 1.1. The High Court was wrong in principle in reducing the
compensation on account of roads and drainage. The fact that these .
improvements had been made on the land acquired shows that what was
acquired was more valuable than what it would have been without the
improvements. [p. 891E·F]
F
1.2. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and
that of the Reference Court is restored. [p. 891F] ~
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1210 of
1984.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.1980 of the Madras High
Court in Appeal No. 213 of 1978.
K. Ram Kumar for the Appellant.
H R. Mohan, T. Raja and R. Nedumaran for the Respondent.
890
RANGAMANNAR NAIDU v. SUB COLLECTOR 891 ·
The following Order of the Court was delivered: A
Ten acres of land belonging to the appellant had been acquired
under the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition· Officer awarded
compensation at the rate of one rupee one paise per sq. ft. On a reference
under section 18 of the Act, the Court enhanced the rate of compensation B
to Rs. 2.25 per sq. ft. On appeal by the State, the High Court by the
impugned judgment reduced the compensation to Rs. 2.00 per sq. ft.
The reason stated by the High Court for so reducing the rate of
compensation was that the acquired area was a compact plot of 10 acres C
which was laid out as building sites with fully formed roads and drainage~
The High Court held that since the roads and drainage occupied a part of
the area acquired, proportionate deduction incompensation ought to be
made.
D
Counsel for the appellant submits that what was acquired was a
compact':~ea of 10 acres. The fact that roads and drainage had been laid
out does not reduce the value of the land acquired. In fact the appellaqt
had incurred expenditure in preparing the land as building sites, and th,e
High Court ought to have accepted his contention that he was entitled ~o E
higher compensation.
We see no reason why the High Court should have reduced the
compensation awarded by the Reference Court on the ground that roaCl.s
and drainage had been laid out. The fact that these improvements had been F
made on the land shows that what was acquired was more valuable than
what it would have been without the improvements. The reason given by
the l:ligh Court for reducing the compensation awarded by the Reference
Court was wrong in principle. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Reference Court. ' G
-..,(_ The appeal is, allowed is the above terms. No Costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.