Land Acquisition Act - Just Compensation - copies of orders/awards passed in relation to the adjacent lands for proving the market rate of the land in question because as mentioned above, these lands were situated in the same area nearer to the lands in question and were also acquired for the same public purpose - is the best of piece of evidence - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS
We are, however, of the view that the Reference Court having held
that the appellants were entitled to compensation at the rate varying
between Rs.80/- to Rs.100/- per square feet, should have fixed one uniform
rate for the entire land rather than to fix different rates such as Rs.80/-
, Rs.86/-, Rs.90/- and Rs.100/- per square feet for different landowners.
In our view, since the land of all the appellants was more or less similar
in nature and no evidence was adduced by the appellants to prove any
significant improvement/addition or/dissimilarity in the land or its
quality, the Reference Court should have fixed one uniform rate.
The appellants (landowners) were, therefore, justified in filing the
copies of orders/awards passed in relation to the adjacent lands for
proving the market rate of the land in question because as mentioned above,
these lands were situated in the same area nearer to the lands in question
and were also acquired for the same public purpose.
It was
all the more because no sale deeds were available for filing due to
peculiar reason that there was a statutory ban imposed by Section 123 of
the A.P. Act for sale of private land in the area in question. It was for
this reason, no private sale had taken place of any parcel of land at the
relevant time barring one or two
we are of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to get the compensation for their respective lands
at the rate of “Rs.90 per square feet”. So far as the compensation awarded
by the Reference Court for super-structure built on each appellant’s land
is concerned, it does not call for any interference. In our view, it was
rightly upheld by the High Court and we also uphold the same, calling no
interference.
we wish to observe is that in case if any of the
appellants apply for allotment of any land/shop/space to TTD for doing any
business in the area under their ownership or/and control then the TTD
would be at liberty and may consider their case for providing them a shop
or land or space, as the case may be, pursuant to any of their scheme, if
any in force, on suitable terms and conditions alike others as a fine
gesture on the part of the TTD, for compliance.
We, however, make it clear that the observations made in para 33 are
only in the nature of observations and not an order/writ issued against the
TTD. - 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS.