{"id":164747,"date":"1958-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1958-11-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958"},"modified":"2018-09-18T07:22:39","modified_gmt":"2018-09-18T01:52:39","slug":"the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958","title":{"rendered":"The Special Land Acquisition … vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Special Land Acquisition … vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 429, \t\t 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 404<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nT. ADINARAYAN SETTY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n07\/11\/1958\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nKAPUR, J.L.\n\nCITATION:\n 1959 AIR  429\t\t  1959 SCR  Supl. (1) 404\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1968 SC1425\t (20)\n APL\t    1970 SC 850\t (2)\n F\t    1972 SC1417\t (4)\n RF\t    1975 SC1670\t (7)\n R\t    1977 SC 580\t (9)\n RF\t    1979 SC 472\t (10)\n F\t    1984 SC 892\t (13)\n RF\t    1992 SC 666\t (3,4)\n\n\nACT:\nLand Acquisition-Principles of valuation-Exemplars, use\t of-\nLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 Of 1894), ss. 11 and 23.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nCertain\t land belonging to the respondent  was\tcompulsorily\nacquired  by the Government for a maternity hospital.\tMost\nof  the\t land consisted of building sites but  there  was  a\nbuilding  on a small portion of the land and a\tportion\t was\nlow  lying-land.  The Special Land Acquisition Officer\theld\non  the basis of the value of sites previously sold  by\t the\nrespondent,  that the market value of the land was Rs.\t10\/-\nper  sq.  yard and awarded a sum of Rs.\t 1,41,169\/-  to\t the\nrespondent   as\t  compensation.\t  He  did   not\t  give\t any\ncompensation  for  the low lying land or for  the  building.\nAgainst this award the respondent raised an objection and  a\nreference  was\tmade to the District  judge.   The  District\njudge  accepted the rate of Rs. 10\/- per sq. yard  as  fair,\nreduced\t the  amount of deductions  for\t providing  electric\ninstallations  by  Rs.\t10,000\/- and allowed a\tsum  of\t Rs.\n10,000\/-  for the low lying area at the rate of Rs. 3\/-\t per\nsq.  yard, thereby increasing the amount of compensation  by\nRs.  20,000\/-.\tNot being satisfied the respondent  appealed\nto  the\t High Court.  The High Court held that the  rate  of\ncompensation  for  the land except the\tlow  lying  portion,\nshould\tbe  Rs.\t 13\/8\/- per sq yard and for  the  low  lying\nportion\t it  should  be Rs. 8\/8\/- per  sqyard.\t It  further\nawarded a sum of Rs. 7,000\/- for the building.\tIn  arriving\nat the figure of Rs. 13\/8\/- the High Court took into account\nonly  four  sale  transactions which had been  made  by\t the\nrespondent at the rates of Rs. 12, I5, 14 and 7\/8\/- per\t sq.\nyard   but  did\t not  take  into  consideration\t two   other\ntransactions  which had been made by the respondent  at\t the\nrates  of Rs. 6\/8\/- and Rs. 10 per sq. yard.  It  calculated\nthe average of the four transactions to be Rs. 12\/2\/per\t sq.\nyard and then took a second average between Rs. 15\/-,\n405\nwhich  was the maximum price obtained by the respondent\t and\nRS.  12\/2\/-  and arrived at the figure of Rs.  13\/8\/-.\t The\nHigh Court was also influenced by considerations such as the\npurpose\t for  which the land was acquired.,  the  report  of\ncertain\t medical authorities as to the unsuitability of\t the\nland for the maternity hospital and the delay in putting the\nland to the use for which it was acquired.\nHeld,  that with regard to the valuation of the land,  other\nthan  the  low\tlying portion, the  High  Court\t misdirected\nitself by taking into account extraneous considerations\t and\nhad  committed\tan  error of principle in  arriving  at\t the\nfigure\tof  Rs.\t 13\/8\/-\t by  adopting  a  wrong\t method\t  of\nascertaining the market value.\tThe High Court ought to have\ntaken  the  average  of all the six  sale  transactions\t and\narrived\t at the proper valuation of Rs. 11\/. per  sq.  yard.\nThere  was  no justification for ignoring two  of  the\tsale\ntransactions  or for taking a second average.  With  respect\nto the compensation for the low lying land and the  building\nthere was no error of principle or otherwise in the findings\nof the High Court and no interference was called for.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
   CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal\t No  138  of
\n1955.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated October 15,  1953,
\nof the Mysore High Court at Bangalore in Regular Appeal\t No.
\n255 of 1950-51, arising out of the order dated September 18,
\n1950,  of  the Court of the District  Judge,  Bangalore,  in
\nMisc.  Case No. 39 of 1947-48.\n<\/p>\n
G.   Channappa, Assistant Advocate-General, Mysore  R. Gopala
\nKrishnan and T. M. Sen, for the appellant’
\nA.   V. Viswanatha Sastri, M. A. Rangaswami, K. R. Sarma and
\nK. R. Choudhury, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
1958.\tNovember 7. The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nS.   K. DAS, J.-This appeal by the Special Land\t Acquisition
\nOfficer,  Bangalore,  has been brought to this\tCourt  on  a
\ncertificate granted by the High Court of Mysore, and is from
\nthe  decision of the said High Court dated October 5,  1953,
\nin a regular appeal from an order made by the 2nd Additional
\nDistrict  Judge,  Bangalore,  on September 18,\t1950,  on  a
\nreference  under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act  (herein.
\nafter referred to as the Act).\n<\/p>\n
The  facts so far as they are relevant to the appeal  before
\nus are these.  An area of about 51,243 squard
\n406<\/span>
\nyards of land was acquired by Government under\tNotification
\nNo.  M.\t 11054\tMed.  80-45-25 dated  April  16,  1946,\t for
\ndevelopment   of   the\tAppiah\tNaidu  Maternity   Home\t  at
\nMalleswaram,  Bangalore\t City, into  a\tMaternity  Hospital.
\nThere were eight owners interested in the property acquired,
\nout  of whom two objected to the award made by\tthe  Special
\nLand  Acquisition Officer, now appellant before us.  One  of
\nthese  two was T. Adinarayana Shetty, a diamond merchant  of
\nMysore\tCity.  Originally, he was the respondent before\t us,
\nand  on his death his son and legal representative has\tbeen
\nbrought\t into  the  record as the sole\trespondent  to\tthis
\nappeal.\t   The\t deceased   respondent\t Adinarayana   Setty
\n(hereinafter called the respondent) was interested in 48,404
\nsq.  yards out of the total area, and it may be stated\there
\nthat  there  is no dispute before us that out  of  the\tsaid
\n48,404\tsq. yards an area of about 3,000 sq. yards  consists
\nof  land  which\t has  been  variously  characterised  as   a
\ndepression or a pit or low-lying land (called ‘halla’ in the
\nlocal  vernacular  language).  Out of the  total  amount  of
\ncompensation   awarded\tby  the\t Special  Land\t Acquisition
\nOfficer,   a  sum  of  Rs.  1,41,169\/was  awarded   to\t the
\nrespondent.  The Special Land Acquisition Officer  proceeded
\non  the\t following basis for his award.\t Firstly,  he  found
\nthat  the  land\t value\tin and\taround\tBangalore  City\t had
\nincreased  in  recent  years  owing  to\t the  war  and\t the
\nrespondent  had paid to the Deputy  Commissioner,  Bangalore
\nDistrict,  a  sum  of money called  a  conversion  fine\t for
\nsanctioning  a\tscheme\tof converting  the  land  into\tnon-
\nagricultural land.  Thereafter, a layout for building  sites
\nwas  prepared and approved by the Municipality and the\tres-
\npondent sold a few of the sites shown in the layout to\tsome
\npurchasers.   This  was done before the publication  of\t the
\npreliminary  notification  of acquisition; but the  sale  of
\nfurther\t  building   sites  was\t stopped  after\t  the\tsaid
\npublication.  Secondly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
\ntook  into consideration the value of the sites sold by\t the
\nrespondent and came to the conclusion that Rs. 10\/- per\t sq.
\nyard  was  the\tmarket value of the land  in  question.\t  He
\nawarded\t to  the respondent compensation  for  approximately
\n48,404- sq. yards at the
\n407<\/span>
\nrate of Rs. 10\/- per sq. yard, but after deducting therefrom
\nan area of 26,248 sq. yards which, according to the  Special
\nLand Acquisition Officer, was required for making roads\t and
\ndrains\tas  per the layout scheme.  The\t total\tamount\tthus
\ncalculated came to Rs. 2,21,563. and odd and from this a sum
\nof  Rs.\t 98,807\t was  again  deducted  as  representing\t the
\nexpenditure  which  would be required for making  roads\t and
\ndrains.\t  The net amount was thus found to be  Rs.  1,22,756
\nand odd and adding 15% as the statutory compensation payable
\nto  the respondent the total amount awarded by, the  Special
\nLand  Acquisition  Officer to the respondent,  came  to\t Rs.
\n1,41,169\/-.   Against this award, the respondent  raised  an
\nobjection,  and\t a  reference was accordingly  made  to\t the
\nDistrict  Judge of Bangalore under s. 18 of the\t Act.\tThis
\nreference  was\theard by the 2nd Additional  District  Judge
\nwho,  by  his order dated September 18, 1950,  came  to\t the
\nfollowing conclusions:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) that the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at
\nRs. 10\/- per sq. yard was fair and should be,upheld;-\n<\/p>\n
(ii) that  a  sum  of Rs. 10,000\/-  for\t providing  electric
\ninstallation out of the sum of Rs. 98,807\/- deducted by\t the
\nLand  Acquisition Officer from the compensation\t payable  to
\nthe respondent should not be deducted; and\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  that\twith  regard to the area of  the  low-lying.
\nland which I was completely excluded by the Land Acquisition
\nOfficer,  the respondent should get at the rate of  Rs.\t 3\/-
\nper sq. yard or approximately a sum of I Rs. 10,000\/-.
\nIn  other  words,  the\tlearned\t Additional  District  Judge
\nincreased the compensation in favour of the respondent by  a
\nsum  of\t about\tRs.  20,000\/-.\t Not  being  satisfied,\t the
\nrespondent preferred an appeal to the High Court of, Mysore.
\nThe  learned Judges of the High Court found that the  proper
\ncompensation for the land,. except the portion characterised
\nas low-lying, should be Rs. 13\/8\/per sq. yard and as to\t the
\nlow-lying  portion it should be reduced by Rs. 51-  per\t sq.
\nyard  inasmuch\tas  a sum of  Rs.  15,000\/-  was  necessary,
\naccording to the
\n408<\/span>
\nevidence  given\t in the case, for filling it  up;  in  other
\nwords,\tthe High Court awarded compensation at the  rate  of
\nRs.  8\/8\/-  per sq. yard for the low-lying land.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  also  reduced the area which had to be  deducted\t for
\nmaking\troads,\tetc., according to the\tlayout\tscheme\tfrom
\n26,248\tsq. yards to 12,101 sq. yards.\tIt also reduced\t the
\nlayout charges to Rs. 64,432\/-.\t The High Court added to the
\ncompensation a sum of Rs. 7,000\/- as the value of a building
\nwhich the respondent had constructed on one of the sites  on
\nthe  finding  that the construction was made  prior  to\t the
\npreliminary  notification.  In this respect the\t High  Court
\ndeparted  from the finding of the Land\tAcquisition  Officer
\nthat  the  building was put up after the publicaion  of\t the
\npreliminary notification.  The total amount of\tcompensation
\nwhich the High Court awarded came to about Rs. 4,80,000\t and
\nodd.\n<\/p>\n
As the judgment of the High Court was a judgment of reversal
\nand  the appellant felt dissatisfied with it, a\t certificate
\nof  fitness was asked for and was granted by the High  Court
\non  July  6, 1954.  The present appeal has been\t brought  to
\nthis Court in pursuance of that certificate.
\nThe appellant has confined his appeal to the following three
\npoints: (1) payment of compensation of a sum of Rs.  7,000\/-
\nfor  the building said to have been constructed\t before\t the
\npublication of the preliminary notification; (2) payment  of
\ncompensation at Rs.,8\/8\/per sq. yard for the low-lying\tland
\n(halla);  and (3) payment of compensation at Rs. 13\/8\/-\t for
\nthe remaining land after deducting the area for making roads
\nand buildings.\tWe may state that there is no dispute before
\nus  now as to the area which should be so deducted and\talso
\nas  to the amount of layout charges, as the findings of\t the
\nHigh  Court  on these two points nave  not  been  challenged
\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n
On behalf of the respondent our attention has been’ drawn to
\nthe  decisions\tof the Privy Council in Charan Das  v.\tAmir
\nKhan  (1), Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State for India\t (2)
\nand Nowroji Bustomji Wadia v.\n<\/p>\n
(1) (1920) 47 I.A. 255.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1924) 52 I.A. 133.\n<\/p>\n
409<\/span><\/p>\n
Bombay\tGovernment (1).\t On these decisions it is  submitted
\nby learned counsel that though s. 26 of the Act was  amended
\nin  1921  by insertion of sub-s. (2) which says\t that  every
\naward  shall  be deemed to be a decree’ and thus  an  appeal
\ntherefrom  must\t be considered and determined  in  the\tsame
\nmanner\tas if it is a judgment from a decree in an  ordinary
\nsuit the established practice of the Privy Council has\tbeen
\nnot  to\t interfere  with  a  finding  on  the  question\t  of
\nvaluation,  unless  there  is  some  fundamental   principle
\naffecting  the\tvaluation  which renders  it  unsound.\t The
\npractice,  it  is stated, was based on\ttwo  considerations:
\nfirst,\tthat  the courts in India were\tmore  familiar\twith
\nlocal  conditions and circumstances on which  the  valuation
\ndepended and, secondly, the Privy Council found it necessary
\nto  limit  the extent of the enquiry in order to  spare\t the
\nparties\t costly and fruitless litigation.  On behalf of\t the
\nappellant  it  is  submitted that this Court  has  no  doubt
\nadopted\t the practice that it will not ordinarily  interfere
\nwith concurrent findings of fact, but this Court has no such
\nestablished practice as was adopted by the Privy Council  in
\nvaluation  cases  even\twhere a difference  of\topinion\t has
\noccurred  between two courts upon the number of\t rupees\t per
\nyard  to  be  allowed for a plot of land.   He\thas  further
\nsubmitted  that the reasons for the practice adopted by\t the
\nPrivy Council do not apply with equal force to this Court.
\nIn  view of the facts of this case and the opinion which  we
\nhave formed after hearing learned counsel for both  parties,
\nwe do not think it necessary to make any final pronouncement
\nas  to\tthe  practice which this Court\tshould\tadopt  in  a
\nvaluation  case\t where\ttwo courts have\t differed.   We\t are
\ncontent\t to  proceed  in this case on the  footing  that  we
\nshould not interfere unless there is something to show,\t not
\nmerely\tthat  on the balance of evidence it is\tpossible  to
\nreach  a different conclusion, but that the judgment  cannot
\nbe  supported by reason of a wrong application of  principle
\nor because some important point affecting valuation has been
\noverlooked or misapplied.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  (1925) 52 I.A. 367.\n<\/p>\n
52<\/span>
\n410<\/span><\/p>\n
We  are\t satisfied that there is no error  of  principle  or
\notherwise in the findings of the High Court as to the  first
\ntwo  points  urged  in support of the  appeal.\t As  to\t the
\nconstruction of the building for which a compensation of Rs.
\n7,000 has been awarded, the clear finding of the High  Court
\nis  that  it  was  constructed\tprior  to  the\t preliminary
\nnotification.  It has been further stated before us that the
\nbuilding is in actual occupation of the medical\t department.
\nLearned\t counsel for the appellant has taken us through\t the
\nevidence  on the question of construction of the  house\t and
\nthe  application for a licence for building the said’  house
\nwhich  was made by the respondent to the  Bangalore  Munici-
\npality.\t  We are unable to hold that that evidence  has\t the
\neffect of displacing the clear finding of the High Court.
\nAs  to the low-lying land, we consider that the\t High  Court
\nhas  given very good reasons for its  finding.\t Admittedly,
\nthe  area of the low-lying land (halla) is about  3,000\t sq.
\nyards.\tThe Land Acquisition Officer valued it at Rs. 3\t per
\nsq.  yard.  A sum of Rs. 15,000 has been deducted  from\t the
\ncompensation  payable to the respondent on the\tground\tthat
\nthat  amount will be required for filling up  the  low-lying\n<\/p>\n
-land and converting it into building sites.  Therefore, the
\nposition  is that the respondent has not only been  made  to
\npart with 3,000 sq. yards of land at 3 per sq. yard, but  he
\nhas  also  been made to pay Rs. 15,000 for  filling  up\t the
\nland.  If these two figures are added, even then the  market
\nvalue  of the land comes to about Rs. 8 per sq. yard.\tThis
\nis  so\teven if we do not follow the method adopted  by\t the
\nHigh  Court that the sum of Rs. 15,000 for 3,000  sq.  yards
\ngives  an  average  of Rs. 5 per sq. yard  and\tthat  amount
\nshould be deducted from the rate of Rs. 13-8-0 per sq.\tyard
\nfixed as the proper compensation for the remaining land.  We
\nare of the opinion that on the materials before us the value
\nper sq. yard fixed by the High Court for the low-lying\tland
\nis fully justified even on adoption of the method  suggested
\nby  learned counsel for the appellant.\tLearned counsel\t for
\nthe respondent has referred us to the circumstance that some
\nof the sales
\n411<\/span>
\nof building sites which the respondent had made\t appertained
\nto  the\t low-lying land and he has  further  emphasised\t the
\ncircumstance that just opposite the low-lying land which  is
\nat the eastern end of the entire area, some houses had\tbeen
\nbuilt.\t   We\thave   taken   these   circumstances\tinto
\nconsideration,\tbut do not think that the  conclusion  which
\nlearned counsel for the respondent wishes us to draw follows
\ntherefrom.   First of all, it is by no means clear that\t the
\nsales of the building sites at the low rate of Rs. 6-8-0  or
\nthereabout  appertained\t to the low-lying  land\t only,\tand,
\nsecondly,  the\tmere circumstance that some  buildings\thave
\nbeen  made on land opposite the low-lying lands but  on\t the
\nother  side of the road, does not necessarily mean that\t the
\nlow-lying  lands  are as valuable as the other land  in\t the
\narea.\tWe are therefore of the view that  the\tcompensation
\nfixed  by  the\tHigh Court for the  low-lying  land  is\t not
\nvitiated  by  any error of the kind which will\tjustify\t our
\ninterference with it.\n<\/p>\n
We now proceed to consider the third and main point urged on
\nbehalf\tof the appellant, namely, the rate of 13\/8  per\t sq.
\nyard  for the other land in the area.  Learned\tcounsel\t for
\nthe  appellant has submitted before us that the\t High  Court
\nhas  committed\ttwo fundamental errors in arriving  at\tthis
\nfinding.  Furthermore, the High Court has been influenced by
\nextraneous considerations such as the purpose for which\t the
\nland was acquired, the report of certain medical authorities
\nas  to\tthe unsuitability of the land for  the\tpurpose\t for
\nwhich it was acquired, and the delay in putting the land  to
\nthe  use for which it was acquired.  We agree  with  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the  appellant  that  these  were\t  extraneous
\nconsiderations\twhich  had  no bearing on  the\tquestion  of
\nvaluation   and\t the  learned  Judges  of  the\tHigh   Court
\nmisdirected themselves as to the scope of the enquiry before
\nthem  when  they  imported  these  considerations  into\t the
\nquestion of valuation.\tWe further think that the High Court
\ncommitted  an error of principle in arriving at\t the  figure
\nRs.  13\/8  and the error was committed by adopting  a  wrong
\nmethod in ascertaining the market value of the land at the
\n412<\/span>
\nrelevant time.\tIt is not disputed that the function of\t the
\ncourt in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain
\nthe market value of the land at the date of the notification
\nunder  s.  4(1)\t and the methods of  valuation\tmay  be\t (1)
\nopinion\t of experts, (2) the price paid within a  reasonable
\ntime  in  bonafide  transactions of purchase  of  the  lands
\nacquired  or  the lands adjacent to the lands  acquired\t and
\npossessing  similar  advantages and (3) a number  of  years’
\npurchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of
\nthe lands acquired. In the case under our consideration\t the
\nHigh  Court  adopted  the second method,  but  in  doing  so
\ncommitted  two serious errors.\tThere were altogether  seven
\ntransactions of alienation made by the respondent.  One\t was
\na  gift which must necessarily be excluded. The earliest  of
\nthe sales was in favour of Muniratham which was made on\t May
\n15,  1945.  Another was made on July 18, 1945.\tThis was  in
\nfavour of Venugopal who was the husband of a  grand-daughter
\nof  the\t respondent.  Four other transactions in  favour  of
\nKapinapathy,  Puttananjappa,  Shamanna and  Rajagopal  Naidu
\nwere  made in August, 1945.  The notification under s. 4  of
\nthe Land Acquisition Act was made on October 4, 1945.\tWhat
\nthe  learned Judges of the High Court did was to  take\tonly
\nfour   out   of\t  the  aforesaid   six\t transactions\tinto
\nconsideration  and then to draw an average price  therefrom.
\nThe learned Judges gave no sufficient reason why two of\t the
\ntransactions  were left out.  In one part of their  judgment
\nthey said :\n<\/p>\n
”  The\tevidence discloses that the appellant  has  effected
\nfour  sales  about a couple of months prior to the  date  of
\npreliminary  notification and the rates secured by  him\t are
\nRs. 12, 15, 14 and 7\/8 which on calculation give an  average
\nof  Rs. 12\/2 per sq. yard “. Why the transaction of May\t 15,
\n1945,  which was at a rate of Rs. 6\/8 per sq. yard only\t was
\nleft  out  it is difficult to  understand.   Similarly,\t the
\ntransaction of July 18, 1945, was at the rate of Rs. 10\t per
\nsq. yard.  That also was left out.  We are of the view\tthat
\nthis  arbitrary selection of four transactions only  out  of
\nsix has vitiated the finding of the High Court.\t If all the
\nsix  transactions of sale are taken into consideration,\t the
\naverage\t rate  comes to about Rs. 10\/13 per sq.\t yard  only.
\nHaving\tarbitrarily discarded two of the  transactions,\t the
\nlearned Judges of the High Court committed another error  in
\ntaking\ta second average.  Having arrived at an\t average  of
\nRs. 12\/2 per sq. yard from the four transactions referred to
\nabove,\tthey  again took a second average  between  Rs.\t 15,
\nwhich was the maximum price obtained by the respondent,\t and
\nRs.  12\/2.  Having struck this second average,\tthe  learned
\nJudges of the High Court arrived at the figure of Rs.  13\/8.
\nNo sound reasons have been given why this second average was
\nstruck\texcept\tthe  extraneous reasons\t to  which  we\thave
\nalready\t made a reference.  It is obvious that\tthe  maximum
\nprice Rs. 15 per sq. yard had already gone into the  average
\nwhen an average was drawn from the four transactions.  It is
\ndifficult to understand why it should be utilised again\t for
\narriving  at the market value of the land in  question.\t  We
\nare  of\t the  view  that if the\t aforesaid  two\t errors\t are
\neliminated,  then  the proper market value of  the  land  in
\nquestion is Rs. 11 only.  Learned counsel for the  appellant
\nhas drawn our attention to the claim made by the  respondent
\nhimself\t before the Land Acquisition Officer (Ex. 11).\t The
\nrespondent had therein said:\n<\/p>\n
Hence, under the standing orders compensation has to be paid
\nat rates for building land in the neighbourhood.  This\trate
\nranges\tfrom  Rs. 10 to Rs. 12, an average of Rs. 10  a\t sq.
\nyard,  as could be verified from entries in the\t local\tSub-
\nRegistrar’s Office and Bangalore City Municipal Office.\t  At
\nany rate, I myself have sold in the course of this year some
\nsix sites out of the land proposed to be acquired for  rates
\nranging from Rs. 7 to Rs. 15 or on an average of Rs. 10\t per
\nsq. yard.  At this rate the compensation amount will be\t Rs.
\n5,12,430 and adding the statutory allowance of Rs. 76,860 at
\n15  per cent. on the compensation amount on account  of\t the
\ncompulsory nature of the acquisition, the total cost of\t the
\nland will be Rs. 5,89,290 or nearly six lakhs of rupees.”\n<\/p>\n
414<\/span><\/p>\n
The  learned  Judges of the High Court\ttook  the  aforesaid
\nclaim  to  mean that the average rate was Rs.  10  ,per\t sq.
\nyard, only if the entire area was taken into  consideration;
\nbut the rate would be different if small building sites were
\nsold-  according to a layout scheme.  It is worthy of  note,
\nhowever,  that\tin his claim the respondent  clearly  stated
\nthat  even  as\tbuilding  land\tthe  average  rate  in\t the
\nneighbourhood ranged from Rs. 10 to Rs. 12 per sq. yard\t and
\nhe had himself sold six building sites at an average rate of
\nabout  Rs. 10 per sq. yard.  It is worthy of note  that\t the
\nsix transactions to which the respondent referred were sales
\nof small building sites.  It appears to us, therefore,\tthat
\nthe  High  Court had in effect given the respondent  a\trate
\nmore favourable than what he had himself claimed.
\nWe  consider, therefore, that on a proper  consideration  of
\nthe  materials in the record and after eliminating  the\t two
\nerrors which the High Court had committed, the proper  value
\nof the land in question should be Rs. 11 per sq. yard.
\nThe result, therefore, is that we allow this appeal to\tthis
\nlimited\t extent\t only, namely, the order of the\t High  Court
\nwill  be modified by substituting the figure Rs. 11 per\t sq.
\nyard  for the figure Rs. 13\/8 awarded by the High  Court  as
\ncompensation to the respondent for land other than the\tlow-
\nlying  land.  We maintain the order of the High\t Court\tthat
\nthe  parties  will receive and pay costs  in  proportion  to
\ntheir success and failure, as now determined, in the  courts
\nbelow; but so far as the costs of this Court are  concerned,
\nthe  parties  must  bear their own costs in  view  of  their
\ndivided success here.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    Appeal partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
415<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Special Land Acquisition … vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958 Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 429, 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 404 Author: S Das Bench: Das, S.K. PETITIONER: THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE Vs. RESPONDENT: T. ADINARAYAN SETTY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/11\/1958 BENCH: DAS, S.K. BENCH: DAS, S.K. […]<\/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-164747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Special Land Acquisition ... vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958 - 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\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Special Land Acquisition ... vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958\" \/>\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=\"1958-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-18T01:52:39+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Special Land Acquisition … vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958\",\"datePublished\":\"1958-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-18T01:52:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958\"},\"wordCount\":3433,\"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\\\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958\",\"name\":\"The Special Land Acquisition ... vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1958-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-18T01:52:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Special Land Acquisition … vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958\"}]},{\"@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":"The Special Land Acquisition ... vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958 - 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\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Special Land Acquisition ... vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1958-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-18T01:52:39+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Special Land Acquisition … vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958","datePublished":"1958-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-18T01:52:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958"},"wordCount":3433,"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\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958","name":"The Special Land Acquisition ... vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1958-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-18T01:52:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-special-land-acquisition-vs-t-adinarayan-setty-on-7-november-1958#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Special Land Acquisition … vs T. Adinarayan Setty on 7 November, 1958"}]},{"@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\/164747","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=164747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164747\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}