Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
VITTHALBHAI BAKORBHAI (DEAD) THROUGHLRS. & ORS. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,CAPITAL PROJECT & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (3) 592 JT 1996 (3) 394
1996 SCALE (2)843
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
with
Civil Appeal Nos.4290-4306 & 4308-4354/96
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.17637/95, 18947/95, 26372-
26386/95 & 26387-26433/95)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
These appeals by special leave arise from various
judgments of Gujarat High Court. Facts in first of them,
viz., C.A. @ SLP(C) No.24953/95 directed against First
Appeal No.704/93 would be sufficient for disposal of all the
appeals. The High Court determined the compensation at the
rate of Rs.50/- per sq. meter(after giving due deductions).
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 was published on July 7, 1983. The land Acquisition
Officer determined compensation between Rs.20/- and Rs.24/-
per sq. meter. On reference under Section 18, civil Court
fixed it between Rs.94 and Rs.110 per sq. meter. On appeal
under Section 54, the High court reduced the compensation to
Rs.50/- per sq. meter. The lands in this case are situated
in Vavol Village which is now part different sectors of
Gandhi Nagar. The lands are in Sector 4. The High Court has
pointed that though Sector 4 was underdeveloped area as
stated by the reference Court, the plots of land under sale
are situated in developed area, their claim for compensation
@ Rs.300/- per sq. meter cannot be accepted. The High Court
relied upon the yield of the income after taking into
consideration all the attendant circumstances and more
particularly the location of the land, its proximity to
developed area and the existing potentials of its use etc.
and applying the multiplier of 10, determined the
compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq. meter. Shri
Bhatt, learned senior counsel has contended that when the
lands are situated in developing area and plots in developed
area were already sold after ploughing at the rate of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Rs.330/- per sq. meter after giving due deduction, the
determination of the compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- is
inadequate. He also contended that for the same land in the
same village acquired by notification dated January 29, 1978
market value was determined at the rate of Rs.80/- per sq.
meter which was allowed to become final. The appellants are
entitled at least to that rate. He further contended that by
virtue of another notification dated February 18, 1981 in
respect of {ands situated at close proximity of 300 meters
to the lands covered in the present notification dated
January 15, 1978, the appellants are entitled to
compensation at the rate of at least Rs.80/- . st is
contended by Smt. H. Wahi, learned counsel for respondents
that the High Court has considered all the relevant facts of
the case and taken a pragmatic view in determining the
compensation. The view arrived at by the High Court cannot
be said to be incorrect compensation. When the High court
had determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq.
meter for the acquisition of 1983. for the lands covered by
acquisition of 1981 cannot be higher than the rate of
Rs.50/- per sq. meter though there is no evidence as to
under what circumstances the appeal against the award dated
January 29, 1978 had come to become final. It cannot be a
ground to further enhance the compensation to the land when
the Court, on the relevant evidence, had adjudged the
reasonable compensation and determined the market value at
Rs. 50/- per sq. meter.
Having given anxious consideration to the respective
contentions, the question arises: as to what will be the
reasonable market value for the acquired lands? In these
appeals, all the acquired lands are situated in Vavol
Village in Sector 4. The High Court has recorded a finding
that it is not a developed area. The Reference Court also
has noted that some of the lands are agricultural lands and
some of the lands are non-agricultural lands. On the basis
thereof. the Reference Court has determined the
compensation. All the sale instances of the lands sold in
the developed area for determination of compensation by the
reference Court, as pointed by the High Court are clearly
illegal. Because they are not sales comparable to the sale
of lands in question. The High Court, therefore, relied upon
the yield of income and applied multiplier of 10. It is now
settled law that multiplier of 10 is the appropriate
multiplier. Proper basis for evaluating the market value is
the annual yield. The finding recorded by the High Court is
that the lands are, as existing, capable of fetching market
value at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq . meter. In view of the
reasons recorded by the High Court, we cannot say that the
finding is vitiated by any application of wrong principle of
law. It is true that in respect of 1978 acquisition no
appeal came to be filed, but we do not see any reason as to
why the appeal could not be filed. The lands covered in the
notification dated February 1981 cannot be given higher
compensation than given in respect of land acquired
notification dated July 7, 1983. The reasoning adopted by
the High court, therefore, is not vitiated by any error of
law.
The appeal and consequentially all connected appeals
are accordingly dismissed. No costs.