Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DIGAMBER BHIMASHANKAR TANDALE& ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (2) 583 JT 1996 (2) 528
1996 SCALE (2)271
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 3377-79 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 327-29/95)
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3380-82 OF 1996
[Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 4152-54 of 1996]
O R D E R
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides. The
notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
was published in the State Gazette on July 14, 1977
acquiring 12.50 acres of land for extension of the Thermal
Power Station at Parali Vaidyanath Municipality. The Land
Acquisition Officer in his award dated 20.9.1978 determined
the compensation at Rs.3,000/- per acre, namely, 72.5 per
Area. On reference, the Additional District Judge by his
award and decree dated April 27, 1987 enhanced the
compensation at Rs.5/- per Sq. ft. On appeal, the High Court
while confirming the said determination, reduced l/3rd of
the amount towards development charges. Thus these appeals
by special leave by the State 35 well as by the Electricity
Board and also by the claimants against the deduction of
1/3rd amount. Thus these appeals are heard together.
The only question is: what will be the just and
adequate compensation to which the lands are capable to
fetch in open market? It is settled law that the
determination of compensation on sq. ft. basis is an illegal
principle followed by the courts. The reference Court on
feats of imagination has done it. When 12.50 acres of land
is sought to be acquired, no reasonable prudent purchaser
would come forward to purchase the land on the sq. ft.
basis. It would be incredulous to believe such a purchase.
Therefore, the premise on which the reference Court and the
High Court had proceeded to determine the compensation is
obviously illegal. It is not in dispute that as on the date
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
of the notification, the lands were agricultural lands
though situated within the municipal limits. It is also in
evidence that the lands were converted for non agricultural
purpose. But as on the date of notification, there was no
development in that area. The oral evidence was adduced in
which it was shown that upto a distance of 3/4th km. to the
lands there was development. Some illegal constructions were
made on the lands. Under those circumstances, as on the date
of the notification there was no potential value to the
lands though converted into non-agricultural lands. The
determination of the compensation on the basis of the
potential value is also illegal.
The reference Court has relied upon several sale deeds
dated 14.1.1976, Exs.48, 49 and 50 of a small extent of land
sold on sq. ft. basis and on that premise the Court had
determined the compensation. It is settled law that when a
large extent of land is acquired, the sales of small pieces
of land though genuine, cannot be relied upon as the basis
to determine the compensation. Accordingly, they are
excluded. Having excluded those documents, there is no other
acceptable evidence to determine compensation on the basis
of sq. yd. or sq. mtr. Accordingly, it is not capable to
determine the compensation on sq. yd. or sq. mt. basis since
the lands are not possessed of potential value as building
site as on the date of notification.
The question then is what would be the just, fair and
adequate compensation the lands can fetch? In the facts and
circumstances and in view of the statement made by the Land
Acquisition Officer that the lands are abutting the Thermal
Power Station, the possibility of extension for building
purpose can also be easily ruled out. However, the
compensation for the lands situated near the Thermal Power
Station can be fixed at Rs.40,000/- per acre.
Accordingly, the appeals of the State as well as the
Electricity Board are allowed and that of the claimants is
dismissed. The claimants are entitled only to payment of
solatium and interest under the Act as amended by Act 68 of
1984. They are entitled to interest at 9% per annum for one
year on enhanced compensation from the date of taking
possession and thereafter at 15% till the date of deposit.
They are also entitled to payment of solatium at 30% on the
enhanced compensation. However, they are not entitled to
payment of additional amount under section 23(1-A) of the
Land Acquisition Act. No costs.