{"id":145261,"date":"2011-07-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-02-25T22:16:57","modified_gmt":"2018-02-25T16:46:57","slug":"spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Spl.Land Acquisition Officer & … vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Spl.Land Acquisition Officer & … vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: …………………J.<\/div>\n
Bench: Asok Kumar Ganguly, Swatanter Kumar<\/div>\n
                                                             REPORTABLE\n\n\n\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO.1086 OF 2006\n\n\n\n\n\nSpecial Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.             ..Appellant(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                          - Versus -\n\n\n\n\n\nM.K. Rafiq Saheb                                    ..Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
GANGULY, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.   The   issue   involved   in   the   present   case   is <\/p>\n
whether   the   quantum   of   compensation   awarded   by   the <\/p>\n
High   Court   in   a   land   acquisition   dispute   is <\/p>\n
excessive or not.\n<\/p>\n
2.   A   notification   was   published   under   section   4(1) <\/p>\n
of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   (hereinafter <\/p>\n
                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
referred   to   as   `the   Act’)   on   17.7.1994   for   the <\/p>\n
acquisition   of   the   respondents   land   measuring   34 <\/p>\n
guntas   in   Sy.   No.   6\/2   of   Binnamangala   Mahavartha <\/p>\n
Kaval, K.R. Puram, Bangalore South Taluk.\n<\/p>\n
3.         The         Special         Land         Acquisition         Officer <\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as `SLAO’) passed an award <\/p>\n
on   26.9.1995   granting   compensation   at   Rs.1,30,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
per   acre   along   with   statutory   benefits.   The   SLAO <\/p>\n
concluded   that   the   lands   were   agricultural   and   no <\/p>\n
sale   transactions   relating   to   the   same   were <\/p>\n
available.   Sale   transactions   were   available   in <\/p>\n
respect   of   non-agricultural   lands   but   they   could <\/p>\n
not   be   adopted   for   determining   the   valuation   of <\/p>\n
agricultural   land.   Therefore,   the   SLAO   chose   to <\/p>\n
rely on acquisition proceedings in respect of lands <\/p>\n
in   the   vicinity   for   determining   land   value.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly,   it   was   found   that   in   the   neighbouring <\/p>\n
villages   of   Benniganahalli,   B.   Narayanapura   and <\/p>\n
Kaggadasapura   villages,   land   had   been   acquired   in <\/p>\n
favour   of   DRDO   complex   where   the   government   had <\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
approved awards fixing land value at Rs.1,30,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
The   said   valuation   was   thus   adopted   by   the   SLAO   in <\/p>\n
the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
4. Possession of the land was taken on 11.4.1996.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Dissatisfied   by   the   award   of   the   SLAO,   the <\/p>\n
respondent   filed   a   reference   under   section   18   of <\/p>\n
the Act for enhancement of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The   Reference   Court,   vide   judgment   dated <\/p>\n
28.5.1999,   enhanced   compensation   to   Rs.4,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
per   acre   and   also   awarded   statutory   benefits.   The <\/p>\n
Reference   Court   concluded   that   based   on   the <\/p>\n
evidence   on   record,   it   could   not   be   said   that   the <\/p>\n
land   in   question   was   agricultural   land   for   all <\/p>\n
practical   purposes   since   it   was   situated   by   the <\/p>\n
side of a residential locality and was in the midst <\/p>\n
of a highly developed industrial locality. Thus, it <\/p>\n
held   that   though   the   land   remained   agricultural <\/p>\n
land   on   the   records,   it   was   not   an   agricultural <\/p>\n
                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
land for all practical purposes and no agricultural <\/p>\n
activities   could   be   carried   out   on   it.   The   Court <\/p>\n
did   not   rely   upon   sale   deeds   Exhibit   P3,   P4,   P5, <\/p>\n
P6,   P7   and   P8.   Exhibit   P7   and   P8   were   not   relied <\/p>\n
upon as the parties to the transaction had not been <\/p>\n
examined. Ex. P3 and P4 were corner sites, were not <\/p>\n
within   vicinity   of   the   acquired   land   and   were   sold <\/p>\n
in   a   public   auction,   and   thus   also   held   not <\/p>\n
reliable.   The   respondent   had   also   produced   Ex.   P9, <\/p>\n
which   was   a   gazette   notification   dated   20.1.1997 <\/p>\n
issued   by   the   Revenue   Secretariat,   fixing   the <\/p>\n
market value of the immovable property coming under <\/p>\n
the   jurisdiction   of   several   Sub-Registrar’s   office <\/p>\n
situated         in         Bangalore,             for         the         purpose         of <\/p>\n
collecting             stamp         duty.         The         Reference            Court <\/p>\n
discarded   the   same   on   the   reasoning   that   the   Court <\/p>\n
did not know what was the basis of determination of <\/p>\n
market   value   for   the   purpose   of   collecting   stamp <\/p>\n
duty   in   respect   of   immovable   properties   by   the   Sub <\/p>\n
Registrar.\n<\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
7.   Instead,   the   Reference   Court   proceeded   to <\/p>\n
determine   the   market   value   of   land   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n
compensation   awarded   in   the   judgment   and   award <\/p>\n
dated   13.8.1998   made   by   the   Reference   Court   in <\/p>\n
respect   of   land   in   the   neighbouring   villages   of <\/p>\n
Kaggadasapura   and   Mahadevapura,   pursuant   to   the <\/p>\n
preliminary   notification   dated   28.7.1988.   In   the <\/p>\n
said   villages,   about   110   acres   of   land   had   been <\/p>\n
acquired         and         market            value         was         fixed         at <\/p>\n
Rs.2,48,000\/-   per   acre.   The   difference   between <\/p>\n
dates of preliminary notifications in the abovesaid <\/p>\n
villages and in the instant case was 5 years and 15 <\/p>\n
days.   Accordingly,   the   Reference   Court   gave   a   10% <\/p>\n
enhancement   for   each   year   in   respect   of   lands <\/p>\n
acquired   in   and   around   Bangalore   city,   relying   on <\/p>\n
the   judgment   in  J.\n<\/p>\n
                                 Narayan
\n                                                   v.  Land   Acquisition  <\/p>\n
Officer,  (1980) 2 KLJ 441, by which land value came <\/p>\n
to   Rs.3,73,000\/-   per   acre.   However,   the   Reference <\/p>\n
Court found that the land had more potentiality and <\/p>\n
was   situated   in   the   midst   of   a   heavy   industrial <\/p>\n
area   and   in   the   immediate   vicinity   of   an   already <\/p>\n
                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
developed   residential   locality.   It   was   also   in   the <\/p>\n
vicinity of a road known as Old Madras road as well <\/p>\n
as   the   road   leading   to   the   airport.   Hence,   the <\/p>\n
Reference   Court   was   of   the   opinion   that   the <\/p>\n
respondent   was   entitled   to   a   higher   market   value <\/p>\n
than   Rs.3,73,000\/-   per   acre.   Thus,   the   Reference <\/p>\n
Court   held   that   Rs.4,00,000\/-   per   acre   would   be <\/p>\n
reasonable   and   fair   market   value   in   the   instant <\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The   respondent,   still   dissatisfied   with   the <\/p>\n
compensation   awarded,   filed   an   appeal   before   the <\/p>\n
High   Court   of   Karnataka.   The   appellant   also   filed <\/p>\n
cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 of CPC.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The   High   Court,   by   way   of   impugned   judgment <\/p>\n
dated   17.6.2004,   enhanced   the   compensation   to <\/p>\n
Rs.35,17,470\/-   per   acre   and   also   awarded   all   other <\/p>\n
statutory benefits.\n<\/p>\n
                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
10.   The   High   Court   accepted   the   finding   of   the <\/p>\n
Reference   Court   that   the   land   in   question   was   fit <\/p>\n
to be utilized as a non-agricultural site as it was <\/p>\n
fully   supported   by   evidence   on   record.   The   High <\/p>\n
Court agreed with the Reference Court that the land <\/p>\n
had   ceased   to   be   agricultural   land   and   was   fit   to <\/p>\n
be used as a housing site or an industrial site.\n<\/p>\n
11.   The   High   Court   then   went   onto   determination   of <\/p>\n
quantum   of   compensation.   It   concurred   with   the <\/p>\n
Reference   Court   in   rejecting   Ex.   P7,   P8   and   P9, <\/p>\n
stating   that   they   could   not   be   relied   upon   as   they <\/p>\n
related   to   transactions   which   had   happened   after <\/p>\n
the issuance of the preliminary notification. Since <\/p>\n
other   sale   transactions   were   available,   which   had <\/p>\n
taken   place   within   reasonable   time   prior   to   the <\/p>\n
issuance   of   the   section   4(1)   notification,   post-\n<\/p>\n
dated   sale   transactions   could   not   be   considered.\n<\/p>\n
The   High   Court   also   concurred   in   rejecting   Ex.   P3 <\/p>\n
and   P4   on   ground   that   these   sale   transactions <\/p>\n
related   to   corner   sites   sold   at   a   public   auction.\n<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
Corner sites fetched much more than other sites and <\/p>\n
when   sold   at   a   public   auction,   the   price   depended <\/p>\n
upon   the   whims   and   fancies   of   the   bidders.   Thus, <\/p>\n
Ex. P3 and P4 could not be relied upon to determine <\/p>\n
market   value.   Ex.   P6   related   to   the   sale   of   a   site <\/p>\n
with   a   building   and   thus   it   was   not   accepted.   The <\/p>\n
High   Court   was   of   the   opinion   that   Ex.   P5   could   be <\/p>\n
used   to   determine   market   value.   Ex.   P5   was   a   sale <\/p>\n
deed   dated   23.4.1993   of   the   market   value   of   a   site <\/p>\n
measuring   around   30′   X   40′   fixed   at   Rs.2,50,000\/-, <\/p>\n
which   worked   out   to   Rs.182\/-   per   square   feet.   The <\/p>\n
High   Court   also   deducted   50%   of   the   market   value <\/p>\n
shown   in   Ex.   P5   towards   developmental   charges,   and <\/p>\n
market   value   of   the   acquired   land   was   computed   at <\/p>\n
Rs.95\/- per sq. ft.\n<\/p>\n
12.         Being         aggrieved         by         the         enhancement         in <\/p>\n
compensation   granted   by   the   High   Court,   the <\/p>\n
appellant   approached   this   court   by   filing   this <\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
13.   The   point   that   arises   for   consideration   before <\/p>\n
us   is   whether   High   Court   has   correctly   enhanced <\/p>\n
compensation?   Two   related   questions   have   to   be <\/p>\n
answered to determine the same.\n<\/p>\n
  a.    Whether   the   land   is   agricultural   land   or   has <\/p>\n
        it ceased to be so?\n<\/p>\n
  b.    Whether Ex. P5, which relates to sale instance <\/p>\n
        of a small piece of non-agricultural land, can <\/p>\n
        be used to determine the market value of land?\n<\/p>\n
14. The appellant has challenged the finding of the <\/p>\n
High   Court   that   the   land   ceased   to   be   agricultural <\/p>\n
land.   It   contended   that   the   land   was   agricultural <\/p>\n
land,   as   was   clearly   seen   from   the   records   and   no <\/p>\n
conversion   charges   were   paid   to   convert   it   into <\/p>\n
non-agricultural land.\n<\/p>\n
15.   We   reject   this   contention   of   the   appellant.\n<\/p>\n
That   the   land   has   ceased   to   be   agricultural   land <\/p>\n
and   is   capable   of   being   used   as   a   residential   or <\/p>\n
                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
industrial   site   is   a   concurrent   finding   of   fact   by <\/p>\n
both the Courts below and is amply supported by the <\/p>\n
evidence   on   record.   We   uphold   the   same.   The <\/p>\n
appellant   did   not   file   any   appeal   impugning   the <\/p>\n
finding   of   the   Reference   Court   that   the   land   could <\/p>\n
not   be   treated   as   agricultural   land.   Not   having <\/p>\n
done   so,   it   is   not   open   to   the   appellant   to <\/p>\n
question   the   finding   of   the   High   Court   that   the <\/p>\n
land is not agricultural land.\n<\/p>\n
16.   Otherwise   also,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   in <\/p>\n
light of the fact that the land was situated by the <\/p>\n
side of a residential locality and was in the midst <\/p>\n
of   a   highly   developed   industrial   locality,   the <\/p>\n
acquired   land   was   capable   of   being   used   for   non-\n<\/p>\n
agricultural   purposes   and   should   be   considered   as <\/p>\n
non-agricultural           land          in         determination         of <\/p>\n
compensation.   We   find   support   in   this   reasoning <\/p>\n
from   the   judgment   of   this   court   in  Anjani   Molu  <\/p>\n
Dessai  v.  State   of   Goa   and   Anr.<\/a>  reported   in   (2010) <\/p>\n
                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
13   SCC   710.   The   relevant   portion   of   the   said <\/p>\n
judgment is set out below:\n<\/p>\n
     “5.   The   High   Court   has   also   referred   to <\/p>\n
     the   situation   of   the   property   and   has <\/p>\n
     noted   that   the   acquired   lands   are   in   a <\/p>\n
     village   where   all   basic   amenities   like <\/p>\n
     primary   health   centre,   high   school,   post <\/p>\n
     office were available within a distance of <\/p>\n
     500   meters.   It   can   therefore   be   safely <\/p>\n
     concluded   that   the   acquired   lands   are   not <\/p>\n
     undeveloped       rural   land,        but   can      be <\/p>\n
     urbanisable  land situated  near a  developed <\/p>\n
     semi-urban   village   with   access   to   all <\/p>\n
     infrastructure facilities.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
17. We find that the High Court relied on Ex. P5 to <\/p>\n
determine   the   market   value   of   compensation.   It <\/p>\n
appears   that   the   said   sale   instance   relates   to   a <\/p>\n
small residential site measuring 30′ X 43′ (125.309 <\/p>\n
sq. mts). The acquired land in question measures 34 <\/p>\n
guntas.   The   Reference   Court   rejected   Ex.   P5   in <\/p>\n
determining   market   value   of   land   since   it   found <\/p>\n
that   the   land   covered   by   Ex.   P5   was   at   a   distance <\/p>\n
of   2   kms   from   the   acquired   land.   We   are   of   the <\/p>\n
opinion that the Reference Court erred in rejecting <\/p>\n
                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
Ex.   P-5   in   determining   compensation   for   the <\/p>\n
acquired land.\n<\/p>\n
18. The judgment of the High Court is well reasoned <\/p>\n
and   well   considered.   We   find   no   perversity   in   its <\/p>\n
reasoning.   The   only   issue   is   that   Ex.   P-5,   which <\/p>\n
was   relied   upon   by   the   High   Court,   relates   to   a <\/p>\n
small   piece   of   land,   whereas   the   acquisition   is   of <\/p>\n
a   larger   piece   of   land.   It   is   not   an   absolute   rule <\/p>\n
that   when   the   acquired   land   is   a   large   tract   of <\/p>\n
land,   sale   instances   relating   to   smaller   pieces   of <\/p>\n
land   cannot   be   considered.   There   are   certain <\/p>\n
circumstances   when   sale   deeds   of   small   pieces   of <\/p>\n
land can be used to determine the value of acquired <\/p>\n
land   which   is   comparatively   large   in   area,   as   can <\/p>\n
be   seen   from   the   judicial   pronouncements   mentioned <\/p>\n
hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
19.   It   has   been   held   in   the   case   of              Land  <\/p>\n
Acquisition          Officer,           Kammarapally         Village,  <\/p>\n
Nizamabad            District,               Andhra           Pradesh<\/p>\n
                                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
v.  Nookala Rajamallu and Ors.  reported in (2003) 12 <\/p>\n
SCC 334 that:\n<\/p>\n
     “6.  Where large area is the subject-matter <\/p>\n
     of   acquisition,   rate   at   which   small   plots <\/p>\n
     are   sold   cannot   be   said   to   be   a   safe <\/p>\n
     criterion.   Reference   in   this   context   may <\/p>\n
     be   made   to   few   decisions   of   this   Court   in <\/p>\n
     Collector   of   Lakhimour  v.  Bhuban   Chandra  <\/p>\n
     Dutta<\/a>:   AIR   1971   SC   2015,               Prithvi   Raj  <\/p>\n
     Taneja  v.  State   of   M.P.  AIR   1977   SC   1560 <\/p>\n
     and     Kausalya            Devi          Bogra     v.      Land  <\/p>\n
     Acquisition Officer AIR 1984 SC 892.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     7.   It   cannot,   however,   be   laid   down   as   an <\/p>\n
     absolute   proposition   that   the   rates   fixed <\/p>\n
     for   the   small   plots   cannot   be   the   basis <\/p>\n
     for   fixation   of   the   rate.   For   example, <\/p>\n
     where   there   is   no   other   material,   it   may <\/p>\n
     in   appropriate   cases   be   open   to   the <\/p>\n
     adjudicating   Court   to   make   comparison   of <\/p>\n
     the   prices   paid   for   small   plots   of   land. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     However,         in         such          cases         necessary <\/p>\n
     deductions\/adjustments   have   to   be   made <\/p>\n
     while determining the prices.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
20.   In   the   case   of  Bhagwathula   Samanna   and   Ors.  v.\n<\/p>\n
Special   Tahsildar   and   Land   Acquisition   Officer, <\/p>\n
reported in (1991) 4 SCC 506, it was held:\n<\/p>\n
     “13.   The   proposition   that   large   area   of <\/p>\n
     land   cannot   possibly   fetch   a   price   at   the <\/p>\n
                                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
     same rate at which small plots are sold is <\/p>\n
     not   absolute   proposition   and   in   given <\/p>\n
     circumstances   it   would   be   permissible   to <\/p>\n
     take into account the price fetched by the <\/p>\n
     small   plots   of   land.   If   the   larger   tract <\/p>\n
     of   land   because   of   advantageous   position <\/p>\n
     is   capable   of   being   used   for   the   purpose <\/p>\n
     for   which   the   smaller   plots   are   used   and <\/p>\n
     is   also   situated   in   a   developed   area   with <\/p>\n
     little   or   no   requirement   of   further <\/p>\n
     development,  the principle  of deduction  of <\/p>\n
     the value for purpose of comparison is not <\/p>\n
     warranted…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
21. In  Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional <\/p>\n
Officer,   Chittoor  v.  Smt.   L.   Kamalamma<\/a>   (dead)   by <\/p>\n
Lrs.   and   others,   AIR   1998   SC   781,   this   Court   held <\/p>\n
as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “…when   no   sales   of   comparable   land   was <\/p>\n
     available  where  large  chunks  of  land  had <\/p>\n
     been   sold,   even   land   transactions   in <\/p>\n
     respect   of   smaller   extent   of   land   could <\/p>\n
     be taken note of as indicating the price <\/p>\n
     that   it   may   fetch   in   respect   of   large <\/p>\n
     tracts   of   land   by   making   appropriate <\/p>\n
     deductions such as for development of the <\/p>\n
     land by providing enough space for roads, <\/p>\n
     sewers,   drains,   expenses   involved   in <\/p>\n
     formation of a lay out, lump sum payment <\/p>\n
     as   also   the   waiting   period   required   for <\/p>\n
     selling the sites that would be formed.”<\/p>\n
                                14<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
22.  Further,   it   has   also   been   held   in   the   case   of <\/p>\n
Smt.   Basavva   and   Ors.  v.  Special   Land   Acquisition  <\/p>\n
Officer
\n            and Ors,<\/a><\/p>\n
                          reported in AIR 1996 SC 3168, that <\/p>\n
the court has to consider whether sales relating to <\/p>\n
smaller pieces of land are genuine and reliable and <\/p>\n
whether they are in respect of comparable lands. In <\/p>\n
case   the   said   requirements   are   met,   sufficient <\/p>\n
deduction   should   be   made   to   arrive   at   a   just   and <\/p>\n
fair market value of large tracks of land. Further, <\/p>\n
the   court   stated   that   the   time   lag   for   real <\/p>\n
development   and   the   waiting   period   for   development <\/p>\n
were   also   relevant   factors   to   be   considered   in <\/p>\n
determining compensation. The court added that each <\/p>\n
case depended upon its own facts. In the said case, <\/p>\n
based   on   the   particular   facts   and   circumstances, <\/p>\n
this   court   made   a   total   deduction   of   65%   in <\/p>\n
determination of compensation.\n<\/p>\n
23.  It   may   also   be   noticed   that   in   the   normal <\/p>\n
course   of   events,   it   is   hardly   possible   for   a <\/p>\n
claimant   to   produce   sale   instances   of   large   tracks <\/p>\n
                                 15<\/span><\/p>\n
of   land.     The   sale   of   land   containing   large   tracks <\/p>\n
are generally very far and few.   Normally, the sale <\/p>\n
instances   would   relate   to   small   pieces   of   land.\n<\/p>\n
This   limitation   of   sale   transaction   cannot   operate <\/p>\n
to   the   disadvantage   of   the   claimants.     Thus,   the <\/p>\n
Court   should   look   into   sale   instances   of   smaller <\/p>\n
pieces of land while applying reasonable element of <\/p>\n
deduction.\n<\/p>\n
24.   In   the   present   case,   the   land   acquired   is   34 <\/p>\n
guntas   and   the   notification   under   section   4   of   the <\/p>\n
Act   was   issued   on   17.7.1994.   We   have   already   held <\/p>\n
that   for   the   purposes   of   determining   compensation, <\/p>\n
the   acquired   land   should   be   considered   to   be   non-\n<\/p>\n
agricultural   land.   Ex.   P-5   is   a   sale   deed   for   sale <\/p>\n
of   a   non-agricultural   land   dated   23.4.1993.   The <\/p>\n
land   covered   by   the   sale   deed   is   about   2   kms.   away <\/p>\n
from the acquired land.\n<\/p>\n
25.   In   contrast,   the   Reference   Court   relied   upon <\/p>\n
the compensation awarded for acquisition of land in <\/p>\n
                                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
the   neighbouring   villages,   which   had   occurred   5 <\/p>\n
years   prior   to   the   present   acquisition.   We   are   of <\/p>\n
the   opinion   that   market   value   of   the   land   acquired <\/p>\n
in   the   present   case   is   much   better   reflected   by <\/p>\n
exemplar   Ex.   P-5,   which   relates   to   sale   of   land <\/p>\n
just 2 kms. away from the acquired land and is just <\/p>\n
a   little   over   a   year   before   the   issuance   of   the <\/p>\n
section   4   notification   in   the   present   case.   All <\/p>\n
other   sale   deeds   presented   before   this   Court   could <\/p>\n
be   relied   upon   and   were   rightly   rejected   by   both <\/p>\n
the   Reference   Court   and   the   High   Court   for   the <\/p>\n
reasons given above.\n<\/p>\n
26.   Thus,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the   sale   deed <\/p>\n
Ex.   P-5   was   rightly   relied   upon   by   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
in determining compensation.\n<\/p>\n
27.   The   High   Court   made   a   50%   deduction   since   the <\/p>\n
sale instance Ex. P-5 related to a smaller piece of <\/p>\n
land.   We   are   of   the   considered   view   that   the   said <\/p>\n
                                 17<\/span><\/p>\n
deduction should be increased to 60%, which we find <\/p>\n
fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
28.   Hence,   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   is <\/p>\n
modified   to   the   extent   of   the   abovementioned <\/p>\n
deduction. All other findings of the High Court are <\/p>\n
sustained.\n<\/p>\n
29. The appeal is thus dismissed with the aforesaid <\/p>\n
modification.\n<\/p>\n
30. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                   …………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                   (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)<\/p>\n
                                   …………………J.\n<\/p>\n
New Delhi                          (SWATANTER KUMAR)\n\nJuly 05, 2011\n\n\n\n\n\n                             18<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Spl.Land Acquisition Officer & … vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011 Author: …………………J. Bench: Asok Kumar Ganguly, Swatanter Kumar REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1086 OF 2006 Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. ..Appellant(s) – Versus – M.K. Rafiq Saheb ..Respondent(s) J U […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-145261","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSpl.Land Acquisition Officer & ... vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Spl.Land Acquisition Officer & ... vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-25T16:46:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Spl.Land Acquisition Officer & … vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-25T16:46:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2632,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Spl.Land Acquisition Officer & ... vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-25T16:46:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Spl.Land Acquisition Officer & … vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Spl.Land Acquisition Officer & ... vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Spl.Land Acquisition Officer & ... vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-25T16:46:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Spl.Land Acquisition Officer & … vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-25T16:46:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011"},"wordCount":2632,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011","name":"Spl.Land Acquisition Officer & ... vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-25T16:46:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/spl-land-acquisition-officer-vs-m-k-rafiq-saheb-on-5-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Spl.Land Acquisition Officer & … vs M.K.Rafiq Saheb on 5 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145261","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145261"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145261\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145261"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145261"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145261"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}