1984 (2) TMI 349 - SC - Indian Laws

Fixation of compensation awarded for land acquired u/s 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act - valuation of the property on the date of the notification - application for production of additional evidence - Validity of the High Court s judgment post-remand by the Supreme Court - HELD THAT - Admittedly the lands of Yusufuddin and the lands belonging to Kausalya Devi group are in one adjacent tract. Therefore it would not be improper to assume particularly in the absence of any contrary evidence from the side of the State that there was no great disparity in the quality of lands and that all these lands were substantially of similar type. Two principles relating to the matter of fixation of compensation relevant for the present purpose may be kept in view. When large tracts are acquired the transaction in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline. Therefore the valuation in transactions in regard to smaller property is not taken as a real basis for determining the compensation for larger tracts of property (see Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 1977 (1) TMI 165 - SUPREME COURT ; Padma Uppal etc. v. State of Punjab Ors. 1976 (8) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT ). We however do not propose to indicate separate valuations for the two classes of lands. Taking an overall picture of the matter we direct compensation to be fixed at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per square yard or Rs. 7260 per acre for all the lands of the present appellants acquired by the notification in question. Over and above this amount the appellants shall be entitled to statutory solatium of 15% as also interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the additional compensation from the date of dispossession till payment thereof. We direct the Collector to work out the compensation on the basis indicated above within two months from today. If the amount so determined is not paid within three months thereafter the interest on the additional compensation shall be at the rate of 12% per annum till payment is made. Ordinarily the appellants should have been entitled to costs. Keeping in view the history of the litigation and manner in which the Kausalya Devi group of appellants had conducted themselves on the earlier occasion before this Court we do not award costs to them. In Civil Appeal No. 2462/81 appellant Syed Yusufuddin Syed Ziauddin will be entitled to his costs in this Court and hearing fee of Rs. 1, 000. Appeals allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of compensation for acquired land.
2. Legality of the High Court's judgment post-remand by the Supreme Court.
3. Admissibility and impact of additional evidence.

Summary:

1. Determination of Compensation for Acquired Land:
The appeals challenge the compensation awarded for land acquired u/s 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of Hyderabad (corresponding to s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) for a Medical College and hospital. The Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded 4 paise per square yard for Navkhanda lands and 3 paise per square yard for Ahmadibag lands. The Civil Judge increased these to 15 paise and 12 paise per square yard, respectively. The Bombay High Court further divided the lands into zones and fixed varying compensation rates. Dissatisfied, the claimants appealed to the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the High Court for reconsideration. The Supreme Court, upon final review, fixed the compensation at Rs. 1.50 per square yard or Rs. 7260 per acre, with statutory solatium of 15% and interest at 6% per annum on the additional compensation from the date of dispossession till payment.

2. Legality of the High Court's Judgment Post-Remand:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reinstating its earlier judgment, which had been set aside by the Supreme Court. The High Court was expected to dispose of the appeals afresh based on the existing record or any additional evidence, but it failed to do so. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial discipline requires lower courts to follow the directions of higher courts, citing the hierarchical nature of the judicial system.

3. Admissibility and Impact of Additional Evidence:
The Supreme Court noted that neither party presented additional evidence upon remand. The High Court's failure to consider the possibility of additional evidence and its reliance on the previously set-aside judgment was criticized. The Supreme Court decided to resolve the matter itself to avoid further delays, given the protracted nature of the litigation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and determining the compensation at Rs. 1.50 per square yard with additional statutory benefits. The Court also highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to appellate directions. Costs were awarded to appellant Syed Yusufuddin Syed Ziauddin, but not to the Kausalya Devi group due to their conduct in previous proceedings.