# 18 4 MIRZA NAUSHERWAN KHAN & ANR v. THE COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION); HYDERABAD

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 184
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-09-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2025 of 1968
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, M. H. Beg Anq V. R. Krishna Iyer
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/18-4-mirza-nausherwan-khan-anr-v-the-collector-land-acquisition-hyderabad-6286
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act (9 of 1309 Fas/i)-Compensation for large
area of land and buildings acquired-Principles.
B
The State Government acquired a large area with some buildings thereon
in the city of Hyderabad, belonging to the appe~l~!!t and the Collector ,awar~ed
compensation under the Hyderabad Land Acqumtlon Act. The compensation
was made up of sums awarded for buildings, for standing trees, for a be.It, of
land 50 ft. deep adjoining the road at a particular rate, and for the rem&mmg
C
area at a lesser rate. On reference, the City Civil Court increased the value
of the buildings on the basis of by a multiple of 25 times the. r~nt fetched: On
appeal, the High Court further enhanced the value of. the bmldmgs. ~y .usmg a
multiple of 27 instead of 25, in fixing the compensation for the bu1ldmgs.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended (i) that there was a potential
value of the land which was not taken into account by the High Court; (ZY
that the land and buildings should have been taken together; and that the land
should not have been sub.·divided on the principle of belting; and (3) that th~
D
multiple for cap.italisation of the value t'f buildings should have been 33-1/ >
and not 27.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : There is no substantial question of law of general importance meriting consideration by ~his. Court.
[185HJ
( 1) The potential value of the land was taken into account by the High
n:
Court. On a consideration of the totality of factors, the physical fe~ture of
the terrain, and the evidence placed on record, the High Court was justified in
holding that the appellant had not substantiated the big potential value claimed
by him on the basis of any unique features of the land.
[186 D-FJ
·
(2) The higher value for a strip of 50 feet adjoining the land was given
by the courts below on the principles of belting. This principle was adopted
at the instance of the appellant himself and such an approach had operated to
F
his benefit and not detriment. The Court had also taken note of the fact that
the value of a tiny plot is not a proper measure when a large area is ae>
quired. [ 187 A-CJ
Mol1i11! Mo/i411 v. Prol'illce of Be11gal A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 246; K11nj11krisl111a v.
State A.I.R. 1953 T.C 177; refer.red to.
.
(3) The rate of interest allowed on government securities at the relevant
hme (19~7) ranged between 3?% and 4% _and the High Court, when accepting
the !Dulttple of 2~, accepted h%. There 1s no warrant for the appellant's contention that. the mterest on govc~mment bonds at the relevant time was only
3%. [187 D·EJ

## Text

18 4
MIRZA NAUSHERWAN KHAN & ANR
v.
THE COLLECTOR (LAND ACQUISITION); HYDERABAD
September 26, 1974
[H. R. KHANNA, M. H. BEG ANQ V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.]
Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act (9 of 1309 Fas/i)-Compensation for large
area of land and buildings acquired-Principles.
B
The State Government acquired a large area with some buildings thereon
in the city of Hyderabad, belonging to the appe~l~!!t and the Collector ,awar~ed
compensation under the Hyderabad Land Acqumtlon Act. The compensation
was made up of sums awarded for buildings, for standing trees, for a be.It, of
land 50 ft. deep adjoining the road at a particular rate, and for the rem&mmg
C
area at a lesser rate. On reference, the City Civil Court increased the value
of the buildings on the basis of by a multiple of 25 times the. r~nt fetched: On
appeal, the High Court further enhanced the value of. the bmldmgs. ~y .usmg a
multiple of 27 instead of 25, in fixing the compensation for the bu1ldmgs.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended (i) that there was a potential
value of the land which was not taken into account by the High Court; (ZY
that the land and buildings should have been taken together; and that the land
should not have been sub.·divided on the principle of belting; and (3) that th~
D
multiple for cap.italisation of the value t'f buildings should have been 33-1/ >
and not 27.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : There is no substantial question of law of general importance meriting consideration by ~his. Court.
[185HJ
( 1) The potential value of the land was taken into account by the High
n:
Court. On a consideration of the totality of factors, the physical fe~ture of
the terrain, and the evidence placed on record, the High Court was justified in
holding that the appellant had not substantiated the big potential value claimed
by him on the basis of any unique features of the land.
[186 D-FJ
·
(2) The higher value for a strip of 50 feet adjoining the land was given
by the courts below on the principles of belting. This principle was adopted
at the instance of the appellant himself and such an approach had operated to
F
his benefit and not detriment. The Court had also taken note of the fact that
the value of a tiny plot is not a proper measure when a large area is ae>
quired. [ 187 A-CJ
Mol1i11! Mo/i411 v. Prol'illce of Be11gal A.I.R. 1951 Cal. 246; K11nj11krisl111a v.
State A.I.R. 1953 T.C 177; refer.red to.
.
(3) The rate of interest allowed on government securities at the relevant
hme (19~7) ranged between 3?% and 4% _and the High Court, when accepting
the !Dulttple of 2~, accepted h%. There 1s no warrant for the appellant's contention that. the mterest on govc~mment bonds at the relevant time was only
3%. [187 D·EJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.: Civil Appeal No. 2025 of 1968.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated the 18th October,
~j~~6f the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C. C. C. Appeal No. 46
R. V. Pillai and P. M. Pillai, for the appellant.
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
M. N. KHAN v. COLLECTOR (Krishna Iyer,/.)
185 '
P. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J .-This appeal, by certificate, arises out of land
acquisition proceedings under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act
(Hyderabad Act IX of 1309 Fasli) (hereinafter called the Act, for
short) which substantially resembles the provisions of the
Central
Land Acquisition Act.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired a large open area
with some buildings thereon by Notification, .dated January 3, 1957
with a view to construct Income-tax and Central Excise Offices at
Hyderabad. The contest before us is confined to the
quantum of
compensation and, although Shri vasudeva Pillai, counsel for the appellants, has l'ressed his points with presistence,
we are unable .to
disturb the High Court's award.
The land, vast in extent, had a building with a plinth area of
3,300 sq. yds. The area in which the acquired plot is situate is perhaps an important one in the City.
After getting expert valuation
made of the buildings by the
Central Public Works
Department
engineers, the Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 41,674/- for the build·
ings. Rs. 1.440/- for the standing .trees and a sum of R~. 30,630/-
for a belt of land 50 ft.
deep at Rs. 15/- per square yard and
Rs. 99,435 /- for the remaining area of 13,258 sq. yds.
The total
figure together with statutory solatium granted by the Collector was
Rs. 1.99.155.85. This figure fell far short of the ambitious claim of
the appellant and. when the case came before the City Civil Court
on ·a reference,. there was an enhancement of compensation. ·Although
the learned Additional Chief Judge held that . the area was a little
less than had been determined by the Collector. the market value of
the building was increased nearlv four-fold on the basis of a multiple
of 25 times the rent fetched. On the other items also some changes
we're
made and.
consequentially, the total amount was raised to
,Rs. 3.31.092/-.
The appellant arrived in the Higb
Court asking
F
for more (and the State also appears to have appealed, but its appeal
was dismissed and we are not therefore concerned with it).
G
Some measure of good fortune attended the appeal since the High
Court altered the multiple from 25 to 27 in fixing the compe.nsation
for the building.
Otherwise, it substantially affirmed the findings of
the trial Court, except that to the advantage of the appellant it restored
the area acquired. The net result was the appellant obtained a total
sum of Rs. 3.52.326.65 as compensation.
It is thus clear that from the Collector to the Civil Court and on
to the Hie:h Court. there has been an escalation in the amount of
compensation and. hooefullv. the owner has reached this Court with
his appeal. under a certificate which he secured under Art. 133(1) (a)
H
b~fore th,. recent amendment.
We mention this because we are un-
.able to d!~cern a~v .substantial que~tion of law of. general importance
m counse1 s subm1ss1ons or the oomts outlined in the memorandum
of appeal which merits the consideration of this Court. ·
18 6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975] 2 s.c.R.
Meref y because the claim is large the judgment need not be loQg
.and, although the appellant tried to ~pread the canvas wide, we .regard
the points deserving of consideration as falling within 11- narrow com·
pass. The burden of the song ha~ been that Hyderabad has,. for his·
torical reasons, become a . great city a~g · that the land acquired has
precious potential value which has not entered the judicial computa·
tion at the lesser levels: (By way of aside one ma.y say tha~ socio-.
economic development of a City. may enhance the value of space
without any the littlest contribution by its owner and it is, in onie
sense, unfair that society should pay to an individual a higher price
not because he has earned it. but because of other developmental factors. Of course, we are concerned with the Land Acquisition Act as it
is and this thought therefore need not be pursued). Counsel has also
urged that the land and the building taken tog~ther had a personality
-0f its own and th'erefore a special value, missed by the co9rts below,
should be ascribed and the methodology of breaking up the totality
into buildings and lands separately and sub-dividing the land into two
portions on tl1e principle of belting was all wrong. It was also urged
before us that the multiple of 27 for purposes of capitalisation, adopt·
ed by the High Court, was· inadequate and that the owner was entitled to capitalisation by multiplication 33! times.
We find that the High Court has carefully considered all available
points, indeed stretching ,them in favour of t.he appellant, where that
was warranted by the ·facts. The potential value of the land was
quite within the ke~ of the Ju~ge who heard the appeal and weighed
with the Court in the assessment made.· However, the High Court
noted that no evidence whatever was placed on record in substantiation of any bjg potential value based on- the unique features of the
land. On the other hand, the totality of factors was duly considered
by the High Court when it observed :
"Haviitg regard to the physical features of the property,
its situation in an important locality and the price paid for
a small extent of level ground .acquired for the Telephone
Exchange which is at a distance of about half a mile from
the property acquired, we hold that the co111pensation award·
ed by the Court below at Rs. 20/- per square yard for the
2042 square yards oonstituting the 50' wide belt and . at
Rs. 10 / • per square yard for the rest is fair and reasonable."
We see no error in this evaluation.
It is true that the Court has adopted a higher value for a strip
50 feet wide adj-Oining the road, based on the principle of belting.
There is no doubt that when we deal with value of an extensive plot
-0f land in a Uty th.e strip that adjoins an important road will have a
higher value than what is in the rear. for obvious reasons of potential
user -0r commercial exploitation. While no general principle can be
. laid down in these matters, local circrimstances guide the Courts. The
rulin~ in Mohinl Mohan v. Provinie ()f Bengal(l) and the principle,
(I) A. I. R. 1951 Cal. 246.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
F
M. N. KHAN v. COLLECTOR (Krishna Iyer, J.)
18 7
i
with its limitations, set out in Kunjukrishna v. State( 1) are sufficient
to bring out our point. Indeed, the objection to divide the plot for
purposes of differential valuation has not been take!li at the proper
level. . On the contrary, it has been adopted originally at the instance
of the appellant himself, before the Collector and we are satisfied
that such an approach has operated to his benefit and npt detriment.
The Court has taken note of the well-established distinction between
the value of a tiny plot a~ being no measure when a large area is
acquired.
The terrain, in this case, appears to have been unteven
with difference in levels to the extent of 27 feet and boulders here
· and there making buil.ding operations expensive in the . initial
pre.-·
. paration of the site.
We conclude by saying that practically every
relevant factor placed on record has received fair consideration before
the High Court.
The next question is whether the multiple adopted for capitalisation has been prejudicially low, Exhibit A-7, the notification
pro ..
duced by the appellant, itself shows that around the middle of 1957
the rate of interest al!Owed on Governiment Securities at the relevant
time ranged between 3! and 4%. The Curt accepted 3!% as interest
on giltedged securities instead. of 4 % , thus giving some advantage to
the appellant and there ls no warrant for the contention that the
interest on Government bonds was 3 % at the relevant time.
The
appellant apparently has sought to mis-read Ex.A-7. We are satisfied
with the valuatfon of the rented portion of the house adopted by the
High Court is correct.
Shri Pillai argued in vain for an augmentation of the value on the
potential user of the plot for a Cinema House. This story has been
factually disbelieved by the _Courts below and we cannot reopen the
matter.
We must also remember that the Court below has been indulg~nt enough to adopt a multiple of 27 despite the fact that· the
buildings acquired ate over 30 years old.
Nor does it come with
grace from the appellant to contend against the belting inethod since
h~ himself had asked for its application before the Collector and _the
tnal Court.
.
·
·
We are thus satisfied that there is no law, no fact, which comes ·
to the resc~e of . the appellant and his appeal, virtually against coru·
current findmgs of fact, therefore deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with costs.
'
'
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
(!) A. I. R. 19SJ P.C. 177
,_