Case: Hindustan Oil Mills Limited and Another Vs. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition)

2. Survey No. 135/1 in the village of Lallaguda in Hyderabad West Taluk in Hyderabad District is of the total extent of 16 acres 35 1/2 guntas. The entire survey number belonged to Sampatlal originally but it appears that he had sold 10 acres out of this to the company some time in 1947 to enable the latter to establish a lubricating oil plant thereon. Thus, at present, it is common ground that 10 acres belong to the company and 6 acres 35 1/2 guntas toThe Andhra Pradesh Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated April 26, 1961 published in the gazette on May 11, 1961. This notification, inter alia, related to the proposed acquisition of dry lands in survey No. 135/1 "belonging to Sampatlalacres". Certain other lands were also referred to in the notification belonging to other parties with which we are not concerned and the total proposed to be acquired was given as. On November 22, 1962, the government issued an erratum to the above notification. Insofar as is relevant for our present purposes, this notification clarified that the lands proposed to be acquired in survey No. 135/1 consistedte or arable lands, belonging to Sampatlalacres"; andPart IILand other than waste and arable lands, building site belonging to Sampatlal. The total of both the Parts was>6. Another notification was issued on February 28, 1963, (gazetted on February 28, 1963), which purported to be in suppression of the errata published on November 22, 1962. This again effected a change in regard to the extent and the ownership of the lands proposed to be acquired in survey No. 135/1. The proposed changes were aste or arable lands, belonging to Sampatlaland other than waste and arable lands, building site belonging to Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd.e total extent of land acquired under the notification was revised fromacres, the difference being entirely attributable to the increase in the area acquired in survey No. 135/1 fromacres. We may mention here that the notifications relate only to a total ofacres in survey No. 135/1 although it now transpires that the total extent of that survey number is really

Reasoning: 12. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has meticulously discussed the various distinguishing features of the plots covered by the sale deeds and the awards placed before it. It appears to us that the lands covered by Exs.21 come nearest the present case. It is true that the price of Rs. 5.75 per sq. yard under Ex.is in respect of a small plot of land of less than half an acre in extent. But at about the same time, Ex.evidences the payment of Rs. 5.00 per sq. yard in January 1959. The area covered by this award is fairly extensive compared to the acquisition with which we are at present concerned. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the price per sq. yard as on February 28, 1963, which according to us is the relevant date should be considerably higher than the figure of Rs. 5 fixed by the High Court. Taking into account all the relevant circumstances, and in particular, the finding based on the evidence even of the Collector, that prices were rising between 1957 and 1963, we think that it would be reasonable to fix the market value at Rs. 9 per sq. yard, in respect of the lands belonging to the company. So far as the lands of Sampatlal are concerned, it is true that in fact they form part of a big tract of land in the survey number but they belong to different owners and the land of Sampatlal is away from the main road. The High Court was, therefore, justified in fixing its value at one rupee per sq. yard less than the compensation Awarded in the respect of the land of the company. We would, therefore, fix the compensation in respect of the lands of Sampatlal at Rs. 8 per sq. yard. We direct the compensation and consequent benefits on this basisContention No.the government committed certain mistakes in describing the extent and ownership of these lands necessitating the subsequent amendments. Originally, the government was under the impression that the entire extent of the land wasacres, that it belonged to Sampatlal and that it consisted fully of dry lands. Subsequently, it found that certain portions of the land were in the nature of building sites and hence the bifurcation between waste land and building sites was effected by the second notification. It was thereafter discovered that the total extend of the land wasacres, out of which 10 acres belonged to the company and were in the from of building sites and thatacres belonged to Sampatlal and were dry lands