Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SMT. KAMALABAI JAGESHWAR JOSHI & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 981 1996 SCC (1) 669
JT 1995 (9) 127 1995 SCALE (6)764
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
was published on May 10,1962 acquiring a total extent of
62.5 acres belonging to the appellant for extension of the
South Eastern Railway Station. The award under s.11 was made
on May 13, 1965 determining the compensation @ Rs.250/- per
acre. On reference under s.18 by award and decree dated
December 8, 1971, the Court had enhanced the compensation to
Rs.2,000/- per acre. On further appeal under s.54, the
Division Bench of the High Court by judgment and decree
dated September 29, 1984 further enhanced the compensation
to Rs.7,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the
appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. The State
did not file any appeal against the enhanced compensation.
Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the appellant, even before the acquisition was
initiated, had offered the land @ Rs.4/- per sq. yd. and the
Department had agreed and proceeded with the acquisition.
The High Court should have granted compensation at Rs.4/-
per sq. yd. It is also contended that the High Court having
accepted the sale deeds, item 1, 2 and 7 which served as
instances of comparable market value, they would form
reasonable basis to determine the compensation. But the High
Court committed grievous error of law in ignoring the
maximum price that were fetched in those sale deeds and the
High Court ought to have granted maximum price determined
under those sale deeds. Having heard the learned counsel on
both the counts, we think that there is no force in either
contention.
So far as the claim @ Rs.4/- per sq. yd. is concerned,
it was only an offer made by the appellant and there was no
concluded agreement nor at least acceptance by the
Department to purchase the lands at that rate. The concerned
engineer had written to the appellant to give his offer for
acquisition of the land whereat he had quoted at Rs.4/- per
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
sq. yd. There was no acceptance thereof. However, they
referred the matter to the Collector for acquisition. Under
those circumstances, it remained to be at the stage of offer
without any acceptance. It cannot be said that there is a
concluded agreement between the requisitioning authority and
the appellant to purchase the lands @ Rs.4/- per sq. yd.
With regard to the three sale deeds, it is true that there
is some typographical error in item 2 with regard to the
assessment of the price fetched therein. But one important
factor that cannot, under any stretch of imagination, be
lost right of, is that all the lands including the land
covered under item 2 are situated in green belt area. The
land in item 2 is of an extent of 260 x 85 sq. ft. and the
consideration referred to therein was Rs.11,500/-. Even at
the time of acquisition, as per the report of the Land
Acquisition Officer in the award, there was no development,
though the lands are situated within the master plan of the
municipal limits. Yet the lands remained to be agricultural
lands. It is true that sanction was obtained for converting
the lands into non-agricultural lands. It would be obvious
that having become aware of the proposal for acquisition,
the permission for conversion was obtained by the appellant
with a view to inflate the market value. All the sale deeds
relate to small extents of agricultural lands purchased on
square feet basis. They would offer no reasonable basis to
further enhance the compensation though they fetched higher
market value worked out at Rs.33,000/- per acre. No
reasonable and prudent purchaser would offer to purchase
this vast extent of land at that rate. Except obtaining
sanction for conversion no further action to develop the
lands was taken.
Considered from these angles the High Court having had
the advantage of considering the entire evidence, determined
the compensation at Rs.7,000/- per acre. We do not think
that we would be justified to further enhance the
compensation. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the
circumstances without costs.