Rajalakshmi Versus The Special Tahsildar (LA) Koyilandy & Another

Rajalakshmi Versus The Special Tahsildar (LA) Koyilandy & Another 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2363 OF 2023

(Arising from SLP(Civil|) No. 15698/2021)

Rajalakshmi …Appellant

Versus

The Special Tahsildar (LA) Koyilandy & Another

…Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2347-2362 OF 2023

(Arising from S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.6574-6589/2023 @ Diary

No. 15033/2021

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2368 OF 2023

(Arising from S.L.P.(Civil) No.6605/2023 @

Diary No. 42974/201

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2366-2367 OF 2023

(Arising from S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.6597-6598/2023 @ Diary

No. 35917/2022

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. As common question of law and facts arise in these

appeals, all these appeals are decided and disposed of

together by this common judgment and order.

Civil Appeal No. 2363/2023 etc. Page 1 of 8

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

impugned judgments and orders dated

30.05.2018/28.05.2018/10.08.2022 passed by the High

Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Land Acquisition Appeal

No. 359/2017 and other allied appeals and cross

objections, by which the High Court has determined and

awarded the compensation for the lands acquired at the

rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per cent, the original

landowners/claimants have preferred the present appeals.

3. In all these appeals, the lands in question came to

be acquired for the purpose of setting up of an IT Park at

Kozhikode. Notification/s under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)

came to be issued on 21.08.2009. The Land Acquisition

Officer declared the award and awarded compensation at

the rate of Rs. 16,294/- per cent for wet land; Rs.27,807/-

per cent for garden land without road access; and

Rs.45,897/- per cent for garden land having road access.

However, the Reference Court enhanced the amount of

compensation to Rs. 2,00,000/- per cent for the garden

land adjacent to the road and Rs.1,75,000/- per cent for

the garden land not having the access to the road.

However, the High Court by the impugned common

judgment and order has determined and awarded

Civil Appeal No. 2363/2023 etc. Page 2 of 8

compensation to Rs. 1,35,000/- per cent, giving 35% rise

to the negotiated price at which the other lands came to

be acquired.

3.1 Insofar as Civil Appeal arising from Special Leave

Petition No. 15698/2021 is concerned, as noted

hereinabove, with respect to the very notification dated

21.08.2009, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded

compensation at the rate of Rs.45,897/- per cent. The

Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation

to Rs. 3,00,000/- per cent. However, in an appeal

preferred by the acquisition body/beneficiary, by the

impugned judgment and order, the High Court has

awarded and determined the compensation at the rate of

Rs. 1,35,000/- per cent, relying upon the common

judgment and order dated 28.05.2018, which is the

subject matter of the present appeals as above.

4. Learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of

the respective landowners/original claimants have

vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances

of the case, the High Court has materially erred in

awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per

cent.

4.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned senior

counsel that the lands in question were the garden lands

Civil Appeal No. 2363/2023 etc. Page 3 of 8

and were having the access to the road and were situated

in a prime location and which were nearer to the IT Park

and therefore the High Court has material erred in

awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per

cent only.

4.2 It is next submitted that the claimants relied upon

the sale exemplar in which the land nearer to the lands

acquired came to be sold at Rs. 4,00,000/- per cent. It is

submitted that the High Court has materially erred in

discarding the same by observing that the price

mentioned in the sale exemplar is artificial and on the

higher side.

4.3 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective landowners/original claimants have further

submitted that in any case the High Court has materially

erred in giving only 35% rise to the negotiated price. It is

submitted that merely because the other landowners

accepted the compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent as

they might be satisfied with that compensation, cannot be

a ground to take into consideration the negotiated price of

Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent.

4.4 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellants have taken us to the observations made by the

Reference Court on the location of the lands acquired.

Civil Appeal No. 2363/2023 etc. Page 4 of 8

4.5 Making above submissions, it is prayed to enhance

the amount of compensation.

5. While opposing the present appeals, Shri V.

Chitambaresh, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. C.K.

Sasi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

beneficiary/acquiring body have vehemently submitted

that most of the landowners as such have accepted the

negotiated compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent. It is

submitted that therefore the High Court has not committed

any error in determining the compensation taking into

consideration the negotiated price accepted by most of

the landowners.

5.1 It is submitted that so far as the sale exemplar relied

upon on behalf of the appellants is concerned, it is

submitted that as the same property was sold for

commercial purpose, by giving cogent reasons the High

Court has rightly discarded the same. It is submitted that

so far as the other sale exemplars are concerned, they

were post-acquisition and therefore the same are rightly

discarded by the High Court.

5.2 Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss

the present appeals.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective

parties at length.

Civil Appeal No. 2363/2023 etc. Page 5 of 8

At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the

impugned common judgment and order the High Court

has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.

1,35,000/- per cent considering the negotiated price at Rs.

1,00,000/- per cent and giving further 35% rise. It is

required to be noted that out of the total acquisition, with

respect to 145 landowners for 28.89 acres, the requiring

authority purchased the land on the basis of negotiations

at the sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent.

Therefore, many landowners accepted the compensation

at negotiated price of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent. However,

the present landowners were not satisfied and therefore at

their instance the references were made under section 18

of the Act. Therefore, as such, the High Court rightly took

into consideration the negotiated price for which the other

various landowners sold their land for the very project for

a sale consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent. It is true

that the landowners who are aggrieved by the amount of

compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer

are not bound by the negotiated price agreed by the other

landowners, however, the same can be said to be a

relevant consideration for determining the compensation

in the present case.

Civil Appeal No. 2363/2023 etc. Page 6 of 8

7. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the sale

exemplar relied upon on behalf of the landowners is

concerned, by giving cogent reasons, the High Court has

discarded the same by observing that the price mentioned

in the said sale exemplar is artificial and exorbitant. It is

required to be noted that the land with respect to sale

exemplar was sold for a commercial purpose, namely,

Mall. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the High Court has rightly discarded the same. So

far as the other sale exemplars are concerned, the same

are post-acquisition and therefore also the High Court has

rightly discarded the same.

8. From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s)

passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court

has determined and awarded compensation at Rs.

1,35,000/- per cent by giving 35% rise to the negotiated

price of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent. However, taking into

consideration the location of the lands; the lands being

garden lands having road access and Thondayad junction

is about 2 kilometres away from the acquired land, we are

of the opinion that granting 35% rise to the negotiated

price of Rs. 1,00,000/- per cent can be said to be on a

lower side. In our view, the claimants/landowners are

entitled to just compensation. Therefore, in the facts and

Civil Appeal No. 2363/2023 etc. Page 7 of 8

circumstances of the case and looking to the location of

the acquired lands, we are of the opinion that if 60% rise

to the negotiated price is given, the same can be said to

be just compensation and which can be said to be a fair

compensation.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated

above, all these appeals succeed in part. The impugned

judgment/s and order/s passed by the High Court are

hereby modified to the extent awarding compensation for

the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 1,60,000/- per cent,

instead of Rs. 1,35,000/- per cent as awarded by the High

Court. It goes without saying that the claimants shall be

entitled to all the statutory benefits including interest which

may be available under the Act, 1894 on the enhanced

amount of compensation. The acquiring body is hereby

directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation

as above with the Reference Court within a period of six

weeks from today and on such deposit the original

claimants shall be permitted to withdraw the same.

10. The present appeals stand disposed of in the above

terms. No costs.

………………………………..J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………..J.

APRIL 10, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

Civil Appeal No. 2363/2023 etc. Page 8 of 8