Supreme Court of India
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusCHANDRAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 189
- Decided
- 13 February 2009
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The reference court’s valuation was unsustainable as it lacked a rational basis and must be re‑evaluated using the Schedule of Rates of the PWD, Gulbarga Circle for the relevant period.
Summary
The Special Land Acquisition Officer appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s dismissal of reference petitions filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhanced compensation for structures on acquired land. The High Court had held that the reference court’s valuation, which fixed a higher compensation without indicating any basis, was not arbitrary and therefore dismissed the appeals. The Supreme Court observed that a valuation must rest on a rational and documented basis; the reference court’s award lacked such justification. It directed that the valuation be carried out using the Schedule of Rates of the Public Works Department, Gulbarga Circle, applicable to the relevant period. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, remitted the matter to the reference court for fresh assessment, and ordered the award to be made within four months, with interest to be determined thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court’s enhanced compensation for structures, fixed without indicating any basis, is valid under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the High Court should have interfered with the reference court’s valuation lacking a rational foundation.
- Whether the Schedule of Rates of the PWD, Gulbarga Circle, can be employed as the basis for valuation of structures in land acquisition cases.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 54(1)
Subjects
land acquisitioncompensationvaluationreference courtSchedule of RatesSection 54Supreme CourtKarnataka High Court
Judgment
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 467
j. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER A
V.
CHANDRAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS.
Civil Appeal No. 1006 of 2009
FEBRUARY 13, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
_, SHARMA, JJ.]
')
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Land acquisition - Compensation for - Enhanced by c
referencf? court - Challenged on the ground that while
evaluating value of structures, no basis indicated - Not
interfered with by High Court - On appeal, held: Reference
court enhanced the compensation making the valuation
without taking into consideration the available source - Matter
"' j.
remitted to Reference court to evaluate the property on the D
basis of the available source for the relevant period.
. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1006
of 2009
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 1007 of 2009 E
Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 2009
) Civil Appeal No. 1009 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1010 of 2009
-+
Civil Appeal No. 1011 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 2009 F
Civil Appeal No. 1013 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1014 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1015 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1016 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1017 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1018 of 2009 G
Civil Appeal No. 1019 of 2009 ·
Civil Appeal No. 1020 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1021 of 2009
467
H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.
Civil Appeal No. 1022 of 2009
A Civil Appeal No. 1023 of 2009 x
Civil Appeal No. 1024 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1025 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1026 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1027 of 2009
B Civil Appeal No. 1028 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1029 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1030 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1031 of 2009 ..t--
Civil Appeal No. 1032 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1033 of 2009
c Civil Appeal No. 1034 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1035 of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 28.07.2003 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First
Appeal No. 3608 of 2002.
D .>
Sanjay R. Hedge Vikrant Yadav, Amit Kr. Chawla, A. Rohan ~
Singh, for the Appellant.
Vijay Kumar, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Kiran Suri, for the
Respondent.
E The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted. "
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a ~
learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing
F the appeals filed by the appellant under Section 54(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act'). In all these cases
the judgment and award passed in the concerned land
acquisition case by learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Gulbarga, was questioned. The Reference Petition
G for enhanced compensation was partly accepted. Before the
High Court the stand was that while evaluating the value of the
structures no basis was indicated and by roughly exorbitant
estimation amount of compensation was fixed. The High Court
did not find any substance in the plea and dismissed the appeals.
H 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER V. 469
CHANDRAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]
some amount of guesswork may be involved there has to be a A
rational basis indicated for fixing the quantum. Therefore, when
without any discussion and justifiable data the Reference Court
had fixed the amount of compensation in respect of the structures
the High Court should have interfered and, therefore, the
judgment is clearly unsustainable.
B
4. Learned counsel for the respondent in each case
however submitted that in some cases involving similar dispute
the appellant has not filed any appeal and therefore these appeal
deserve to be dismissed. Additionally, it is submitted that there
was no material before the Reference Court and therefore
estimation has to be made. C
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the
Schedule of Rates of Gulbarga specifically referring to various
items and the units and the rates in respect of particular items
described in the Schedule. According to learned counsel for
the appellant, the same provides a foundation for making a D
valuation. The Engineer who was examined had in fact referred
to such documents but the Reference Court without any basis
or reasons discarded the same.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent in each case
however submitted that they may provide for a foundation, but E
the valuation done by the Reference Court cannot be called to
' be arbitrary. When data is available from some sources, for
~ example, Schedule of Rates adopted by PWD of a particular
survey, that certainly provides a foundation for making the
valuation. In the instant case that does not appear to have been F
noticed. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned
judgments of the High Court and remit the matter to the
Reference Court to make the valuation on the basis of Schedule
of Rates of PWD, Gulbarga Circle for the relevant period. Since
the matter is pending since long, the Reference Court would do
well to make the valuation and make fresh award within four G
months from the receipt of this order. The amount of interest
payable would be consequential to the determination of the award.
7. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
K.K.T. Appeal party allowed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search