# SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. CHANDRAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS

- **Citation:** [2009] 2 S.C.R. 467
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-02-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1006 of 2009
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/special-land-acquisition-officer-v-chandramma-dead-by-lrs-25460
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

_,
')
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Land acquisition - Compensation for - Enhanced by c
referencf? court -
Challenged on the ground that while
evaluating value of structures, no basis indicated - Not
interfered with by High Court - On appeal, held: Reference
court enhanced the compensation making the valuation
without taking into consideration the available source - Matter
D
"'
remitted to Reference court to evaluate the property on the
j.
basis of the available source for the relevant period .
. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1006
of 2009
WITH
E
Civil Appeal No. 1007 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 2009
)
Civil Appeal No. 1009 of 2009
-+
Civil Appeal No. 1010 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1011 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 2009
F
Civil Appeal No. 1013 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1014 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1015 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1016 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1017 of 2009
G
Civil Appeal No. 1018 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1019 of 2009 ·
Civil Appeal No. 1020 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1021 of 2009
467
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
Civil Appeal No. 1022 of 2009
A
Civil Appeal No. 1023 of 2009
x
Civil Appeal No. 1024 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1025 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1026 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1027 of 2009
B
Civil Appeal No. 1028 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1029 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1030 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1031 of 2009
t--
..
Civil Appeal No. 1032 of 2009
c
Civil Appeal No. 1033 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1034 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1035 of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 28.07.2003 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First
D Appeal No. 3608 of 2002.
.>
Sanjay R. Hedge Vikrant Yadav, Amit Kr. Chawla, A. Rohan
~
Singh, for the Appellant.
Vijay Kumar, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Kiran Suri, for the
Respondent.
E
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
"
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a
~
F
learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing
the appeals filed by the appellant under Section 54(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act'). In all these cases
the judgment and award passed in the concerned land
acquisition case by learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Gulbarga, was questioned. The Reference Petition
G for enhanced compensation was partly accepted. Before the
High Court the stand was that while evaluating the value of the
structures no basis was indicated and by roughly exorbitant
estimation amount of compensation was fixed. The High Court
did not find any substance in the plea and dismissed the appeals.
H
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER V.
469
CHANDRAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]
some amount of guesswork may be involved there has to be a A
rational basis indicated for fixing the quantum. Therefore, when
without any discussion and justifiable data the Reference Court
had fixed the amount of compensation in respect of the structures
the High Court should have interfered and, therefore, the
judgment is clearly unsustainable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent in each case
however submitted that in some cases involving similar dispute
B
the appellant has not filed any appeal and therefore these appeal
deserve to be dismissed. Additionally, it is submitted that there
was no material before the Reference Court and therefore
estimation has to be made.
C
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the
Schedule of Rates of Gulbarga specifically referring to various
items and the units and the rates in respect of particular items
described in the Schedule. According to learned counsel for
the appellant, the same provides a foundation for making a D
valuation. The Engineer who was examined had in fact referred
to such documents but the Reference Court without any basis
or reasons discarded the same.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent in each case
however submitted that they may p

## Text

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 467
j.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
A
V.
CHANDRAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS.
Civil Appeal No. 1006 of 2009
FEBRUARY 13, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
_,
')
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Land acquisition - Compensation for - Enhanced by c
referencf? court -
Challenged on the ground that while
evaluating value of structures, no basis indicated - Not
interfered with by High Court - On appeal, held: Reference
court enhanced the compensation making the valuation
without taking into consideration the available source - Matter
D
"'
remitted to Reference court to evaluate the property on the
j.
basis of the available source for the relevant period .
. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1006
of 2009
WITH
E
Civil Appeal No. 1007 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 2009
)
Civil Appeal No. 1009 of 2009
-+
Civil Appeal No. 1010 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1011 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 2009
F
Civil Appeal No. 1013 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1014 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1015 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1016 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1017 of 2009
G
Civil Appeal No. 1018 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1019 of 2009 ·
Civil Appeal No. 1020 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1021 of 2009
467
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
Civil Appeal No. 1022 of 2009
A
Civil Appeal No. 1023 of 2009
x
Civil Appeal No. 1024 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1025 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1026 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1027 of 2009
B
Civil Appeal No. 1028 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1029 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1030 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1031 of 2009
t--
..
Civil Appeal No. 1032 of 2009
c
Civil Appeal No. 1033 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1034 of 2009
Civil Appeal No. 1035 of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 28.07.2003 of the
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First
D Appeal No. 3608 of 2002.
.>
Sanjay R. Hedge Vikrant Yadav, Amit Kr. Chawla, A. Rohan
~
Singh, for the Appellant.
Vijay Kumar, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Kiran Suri, for the
Respondent.
E
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
"
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a
~
F
learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing
the appeals filed by the appellant under Section 54(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act'). In all these cases
the judgment and award passed in the concerned land
acquisition case by learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Gulbarga, was questioned. The Reference Petition
G for enhanced compensation was partly accepted. Before the
High Court the stand was that while evaluating the value of the
structures no basis was indicated and by roughly exorbitant
estimation amount of compensation was fixed. The High Court
did not find any substance in the plea and dismissed the appeals.
H
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER V.
469
CHANDRAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]
some amount of guesswork may be involved there has to be a A
rational basis indicated for fixing the quantum. Therefore, when
without any discussion and justifiable data the Reference Court
had fixed the amount of compensation in respect of the structures
the High Court should have interfered and, therefore, the
judgment is clearly unsustainable.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent in each case
however submitted that in some cases involving similar dispute
B
the appellant has not filed any appeal and therefore these appeal
deserve to be dismissed. Additionally, it is submitted that there
was no material before the Reference Court and therefore
estimation has to be made.
C
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the
Schedule of Rates of Gulbarga specifically referring to various
items and the units and the rates in respect of particular items
described in the Schedule. According to learned counsel for
the appellant, the same provides a foundation for making a D
valuation. The Engineer who was examined had in fact referred
to such documents but the Reference Court without any basis
or reasons discarded the same.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent in each case
however submitted that they may provide for a foundation, but
E
the valuation done by the Reference Court cannot be called to
'
be arbitrary. When data is available from some sources, for
~
example, Schedule of Rates adopted by PWD of a particular
survey, that certainly provides a foundation for making the
valuation. In the instant case that does not appear to have been
F
noticed. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned
judgments of the High Court and remit the matter to the
Reference Court to make the valuation on the basis of Schedule
of Rates of PWD, Gulbarga Circle for the relevant period. Since
the matter is pending since long, the Reference Court would do
well to make the valuation and make fresh award within four G
months from the receipt of this order. The amount of interest
payable would be consequential to the determination of the award.
7. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
K.K.T.
Appeal party allowed.
H