Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
PITAMBAR HEMLAL BADGUJAR (DEAD)BY LRS. & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHULE & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (2) 546 1996 SCALE (2)270
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
and decree of the High Court of Bombay in First Appeal
No.829 of 1982 made on August 24, 1992. The notification
under Section 4 (1) was published in respect of 2 acres of
land covered in Survey No. 339/B on October 30, 1965 and
Survey No.339/A2 of 1 acre 34 gunthas on March 11, 1971 for
the purpose of establishing Market Committee. The Land
Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of 25
paise per sq. ft. in respect of B land acquired in the first
notification and 35 paise in respect of A land acquired in
the second notification. On reference under Section 18, the
District Judge enhanced the compensation to the land covered
under second notification at the rate of Rs.2.50 per sq. ft.
and confirmed the market value determined by the Collector
for the land covered under the first notification. On
appeal, the learned Judges of the High Court, while
confirmed the compensation determined in respect of lands
covered by the second notification, enhanced the
compensation to Rs.1.20 per sq. ft. in respect of lands
acquired by the first notification. The claimants have filed
this appeal for further hike in compensation whereas State
has not come up in appeal.
It is settled by series of this Court’s judgments that
determination of the compensation in respect of the lands
acquired on the sq. ft. basis is an obvious illegal
principle being adopted by the courts only to inflate the
market value and no reasonable prudent purchaser would be
willing to purchase the land on the sq. ft. basis when large
extent of land is offered for sale. Same is the case when
land is acquired for public purpose. The courts are required
to considers sitting in the arm chair of the prudent
purchaser acting in normal conditions prevailing in the open
market, whether, when offered to purchase the land by a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
willing vendor, he would purchase the same in an open
market. The Court on that touchstone should evaluate the
market value. No feat of imagination is necessary to cloud
the consideration lest it runs into arena of misconduct. The
courts, therefore, have proceeded on illegal premise in
determining the compensation on sq. ft. basis. It is seen
that the High Court noted that there is no development from
1968 to 1971. It is true that the High Court has proceeded
on wrong footing of the date of notification of 1968. There
appears to be some confusion with regard to first
notification dated October 30, 1965 and the second
notification dated March 11, 1971. In view of the fact that
there is no hike in the value of the land and no sale deeds
have been produced, it would be obvious that there is no
appreciation of the value of the lands. So it is highly
hazardous to rely upon oral evidence wherein witnesses have
stated that prevailing market value ranges from Rs.4/- to
Rs.5/- per sq. ft. Under these circumstances, we are not
impressed with any evidence warranting further increase.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.