Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7219-20 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.24895-24896 of 2013)
BHIKULAL KEDARMAL GOENKA (D) BY L.RS. .......APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR .......RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Two pieces of the appellant's (since deceased. and is now
JUDGMENT
represented by his legal representatives) land measuring 2250 and
5034 sq.meters were sought to be compulsorily acquired, vide
Notifications dated 30.10.1986 and 13.11.1986 respectively, issued
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as `the Act'). Admittedly, the purpose for which the
land was acquired was to raise a structure for a primary school and
to provide playgrounds therefor. Vide awards dated 31.08.1987 and
09.11.1987, the Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the
market value of the land measuring 2250 sq.meters at Rs.110/- per
Page 1
2
sq.meter. For the land measuring 5034 sq.meters, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer bifurcated the same. For the land adjoining the
road, he awarded Rs.140/- per sq.meter, and for the remaining land
situated away from the road, he awarded Rs.110/- per sq.meter. In
the above determination, the acquired land was divided into 18
plots, out of which six were awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.140/- per sq.meter, and the remaining at the rate of Rs.110/-
per sq.meter.
Dissatisfied with the determination rendered by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants preferred
reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the
market value of the land. The Reference Court, by a common order
dated 25.01.1996, determined the market value of the acquired land
at the rate of Rs.140/- per sq.meter. However, for adjusting the
value representing large areas of the plot, the Reference Court
considered it appropriate to make a deduction of 1/3rd from the
total amount calculated.
JUDGMENT
Still not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the
appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur)(hereinafter referred to as `the High Court') by
preferring First Appeal Nos.638 and 639 of 1996. The same came to
be disposed of by the impugned order dated 15.10.2012. The High
Court, after examining the evidence recorded before the Reference
Court, arrived at the conclusion, that the lands acquired were
situated within the heart of the town, and were surrounded by
residential houses, commercial complexes etc. and major part of the
area adjoined the Akola-Akot Road. It is therefore, that the High
Page 2
3
Court determined the market value at Rs.200/- per sq.meter.
However, the High Court directed deduction at the rate of 1/3rd
towards development charges and thereupon, arrived at the
conclusion, that the market value payable ought to have been at the
rate of Rs.133/- per sq.meter. The High Court rounded the rate
determined, by awarding the appellants Rs.135/- per sq.meter.
It was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for
the appellants, that there was no justification whatsoever, for
recording any deduction, specially when there was no question of
any internal or external development, and as such, expenses of such
developments should not have been taken into consideration so as to
grant a deduction of 1/3rd of the amount. In order to substantiate
his above contention, learned counsel for the appellants has
referred to the decision in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla
(Dead) by Lrs. and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and
others, (2012) 7 SCC 595, and placed reliance on the observations
recorded in para 19 thereof. Having given our thoughtful
JUDGMENT
consideration to the position expressed in paragraph 19, it is
apparent, that while fixing the market value of the acquired land,
which may be undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have
approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development
cost, “except when”, no development is required to be made for
implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired.
Admittedly, the public purpose in the instant case is to raise a
school and to provide for play-grounds, for the students to be
enrolled in the school.
Page 3
4
The factual position, we are satisfied is, that the land
in question is located within the heart of the city, as is the case
projected at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants.
The acquired land is to be used for raising a school building, and
to provide play-grounds therewith. There would hardly be any
requirement for development charges, in the peculiar facts of this
case. We are therefore satisfied, that the deduction of 1/3rd
amount, expressed by the High Court, was wholly unjustified.
However, we are unable to accept the determination of the
High Court, that the compensation to be awarded to the appellants
should be at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq.meter. The exemplar land,
on the basis of which the appellants desired the determination of
market price, itself was sold at the rate of Rs.161/- per sq.meter
(total area 105.90 sq.meters sold at the rate of Rs.17,000/- vide
sale deed dated 02.05.1986). The area of the exemplar land was
rather small, in comparison to the acquired land. There is
therefore no justification on facts, for the acquired land being
JUDGMENT
given land value more than the exemplar land. For the reasons
recorded hereinabove, we consider it just and appropriate to
determine the market value of the acquired land at the rate of
Rs.161/- per sq.meter i.e., the same as the exemplar land. Ordered
accordingly.
The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
The appellants shall also be entitled to all
consequential statutory benefits. Since the acquisition of the
appellants' land relates to the year 1986-87, we consider it just
and appropriate to direct the respondents to disburse the
Page 4
5
compensation payable to the land loser i.e. the appellants herein
within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.
..........................J.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)
..........................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
..........................J.
(ARUN MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 28, 2016.
JUDGMENT
Page 5
6
JUDGMENT
Page 6