The Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. vs N. Savitha consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna opined that a consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record.
Facts
The land of the respondent herein (original landowner – claimant) was acquired by the appellants for a public purpose (for improvement of Ranganathittu Bird Sanctuary). A notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued/published on 24.11.2008, which was followed by notification u/s 6 in the year 2009. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.21,488/- per guntha. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.76,230/- per guntha.
Procedural History
Feeling dissatisfied, the original claimant preferred first appeal before the High Court and requested to enhance the amount of compensation. Before the High Court, the original claimant heavily relied upon a document (Ex.P.17) produced by which for the lands acquired in the year 2011 the amount of compensation was awarded @ Rs.60 lakhs per acre. Mainly relying on that document and thereafter on “guesswork”, the High Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.40 lakhs per acre with all consequential statutory benefits. Feeling aggrieved, the State has preferred the present appeals.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“In the present case, Section 4 notification has been issued in the year 2008, i.e., three years before the land acquired in the case of Ex.P.17. Therefore Ex.P.17, which has been relied upon by the High Court is for the acquisition subsequent to the land acquired in the present case, i.e., after a period of three years and therefore the High Court ought not to have relied upon the same while determining the market price of the land acquired in 2008 considering the market price determined for the lands acquired in the year 2011 and on the basis of some “guesswork”.
Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that, Ex.P.17 is a consent award. Therefore, the consent award ought not to have been relied upon and/or considered for the purpose of determining the compensation in case of another acquisition… a consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record.”
Judgment
The impugned orders passed by the High Court were set aside. The matters were remanded to the High Court to decide the first appeals afresh and thereafter to determine the market price/compensation considering the other material/evidence on record (other than Ex.P.17).
Case Name: Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. vs N. Savitha
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2052-2053 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Decided on: 22nd March 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
