Case: Mirza Nausherwan Khan &amp; Anr Vs. The Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad

2. 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 of Hyderabad. The contest before us is confined to the quantum of compensation and, although Shri Vasudeva Pillai, counsel for the appellants, has pressed his points with persistence, we are unable to disturb the High Courts award.3. 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 building by the Central Public Works Department Engineer, the Collector awarded a sum of Rs. 41,674/- for the building, Rs. 1,440/ for the standing trees and a sum of Rs. 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 Rupees 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 nearly four-fold on the basis of a multiple of 25 times the rent fetched. On the other items also some changes were made and, consequentially, the total amount was raised to Rs. 3,31,092/- . The appellant arrived in the High Court asking for more (and the State also appears to have appealed, but is appeal was dismissed and we are not therefore concerned with it).4. Some measure of good fortune attended the appeal since the High Court altered the multiple from 25 of 27 in fixing the compensation 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 Rupees 3, 52,326.65 as compensation.

Reasoning:
5. It is thus clear that from the Collector to the Civil Court and on to the High Court, there has been an escalation in the amount of compensation and hopefully, the owner has reached this Court with his appeal under a certificate which he secured under Art. 133 (1) (a) before the recent amendment. We mention this because we are unable to discern any substantial question of law of general importance in counsels submission or the points outlined in the memorandum of appeal which merits the consideration of this Court.6. Merely because the claim is large the judgment need not be long and, although the appellant tried to spread the canvas wide, we regard the points deserving of consideration as falling within a narrow compass. The burden of the song has been that Hyderabad has, for historical reason, become a great city and that the land acquired has precious potential value which has not entered the judicial computation at the lesser levels. (By way of aside one may say that socio-economic development of a City may enhance the value of space without any the littlest contribution by its owner and it is, in one sense, unfair that society should pay to an individual a higher price not because he has earned it but because of other development 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 together had personality of its own and therefore a special value, missed by the courts below, should be ascribed and the methodology of breaking up the totality into building and lands separately and sub-dividing the land into two portions on the principle of belting was all wrong. It was also urged before us that the multiple of 27 for purposes of capitalisation, adopted by the High Court was inadequate and that the owner was entitled to capitalisation by multiplication 33 1/3 times.7. We find that the High Court has carefully considered all available points, indeed stretching them in favour of the appellant, where that was warranted by the facts. The potential value of the land was quite within the ken of the Judge 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 big potential value based on the unique feature of the land.It is true that the Court has adopted a higher value for a strip 50 feet wide adjoing the road, based on the principle of belting. There is no doubt that when we deal with value of an extensive plot of land in a City the strip that adjoins an important road will have a higher value than what is in the rear, for obvious reasons of potential user or commercial exploitation. While no general principle can be laid down in these matters, local circumstances guide the Courts.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 indulgent enough to adopt a multiple of 27 despite the fact that the buildings acquired are over 30 years old. Nor does it come with grace from the appellant to contend against the belting method since he himself had asked for its application before the Collector and the trial Court.11. We are thus satisfied that there is no law, no fact, which comes to the rescue of the appellant and his appeal, virtually against concurrent findings of fact, therefore, deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissed with costs.