HARI CHAND THRU L.R'S Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of the appellants before this Court, in Village Aali, was notified under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act vide notification dated 06.04.1964. The compensation in respect of the aforesaid land was determined vide Award No. 3/97-98 Supplementary. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation to the appellants at the rate of 12000/- per bigha following the order of the learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 112/93, Sumitra Devi v. Union of India, where the land in the same village was acquired vide same notification dated 06.04.1964.

(2.) Being aggrieved from the compensation awarded by LAC, the appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. On such reference being made, the learned Additional District Judge held that no enhancement of compensation awarded by LAC was called for. While rejecting the reference, the learned Additional District Judge applied the compensation of Rs.17,000/- per bigha fixed by this Court in respect of the land notified in the same village i.e.0 Village Aali on 12.6.1969 and after depreciating the value as assessed on 12.6.1969, he determined the market value @ Rs.12,000/- per bigha, as on 6.4.1964. He also took note of the fact that in another RFA, this Court had determined the compensation in respect of adjoining village Badapur @ Rs.12,000/- per bigha in respect of the land notified on 6.4.1964. He, however, directed that they shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act from the date of possession of the land till the date of payment of the compensation. He also held that the appellants shall also be entitled to interest on solatium and additional amounts in terms of the decision of Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, 2001 93 DLT 569. Being aggrieved from the learned Additional District Judge, the appellants are before us.

(3.) The compensation, to which a land owner whose land is acquired by the Government is entitled, is the price which a willing seller could reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser, at the time the said land was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The purchaser, while purchasing a property would take into consideration not only the existing use to which the land sought to be purchased by him is put, but also its potential in terms of use to which it can reasonably be expected to be put immediately or near future. Therefore, the valuation needs to take into consideration not only the condition of the land as on the date of the notification, but also its potential value. Of course, considering the mandate of clause 4(4) of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, any increase to the value of land, likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired needs to be excluded from consideration. As stated by Supreme Court in P. Ram Reddy and Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Ors., 1995 2 SCC 305, such possibility of user of the acquired land for a different purpose can never by wholly a matter of conjecture or surmise or guess and should be a matter of inference to be drawn based on appreciation of material placed on record to establish such possibility. As observed by the Apex Court in the said judgment, such material must necessarily relates to matters such as: