Supreme Court Of India
Smt. P. Mahalakshmi & Ors. vs. CIT
Section 48, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 23(1)
Asst. Year 1973-74
B.P. Jeevan Reddy & Suhas C. Sen, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3468 to 3476 of 1984
3rd April, 1996
Counsel Appeared
Gopal Jain for Mukul Mudgal, for the Appellants : Manoj Arora, for the Respondent
ORDER
BY THE COURT :
These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The question in short is—whether the compensation awarded under the head “Fourthly” in sub-s. (1) of s. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does, or does not, represent the compensation for the land acquired. Sec. 23(1) reads as follows:
“Sec. 23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.—(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration— firstly, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under s. 4, sub-s. (1); secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector’s taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earning; fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under s. 6 and the time of the collector’s taking possession of the land.”
2. The High Court has held, and, in our opinion, rightly, that the amount awarded under the said head stands on the same footing as the amount awarded under any other head in the said subsection and that no distinction as between them is permissible. All of them represent the compensation awarded for the land acquired under the Act. The High Court was right in answering the question referred to it in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue as against the assessee.
Appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
[Citation : 255 ITR 647]
