Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3590 OF 2012
Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) by
L.Rs. and others … Appellants
versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer and others … Respondents
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3591 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3670 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3671 OF 2012
J U D G M E N T
JUDGMENT
G. S. Singhvi, J.
1. With a view to implement the New Bombay Project, the Government of
Maharashtra acquired large tracts of land in different villages of the State. The
appellants’ land measuring 3,86,790 square meters in Roadpali (Kolekhar)
Village, Panvel Taluka, Raigad District was also acquired for the project.
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,
‘the Act’) was issued on 3.2.1970 and declaration under Section 6(1) was
Page 1
2
issued on 24.8.1972. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed different
awards for different parcels of land and fixed market value of the acquired land
in the range of Rs.1.75 per square meter to Rs. 2.50 per square meter.
2. The appellants did not file application under Section 18 of the Act for
determination of compensation by the Court, but after amendment of the Act
with effect from 24.9.1984 and disposal of the references made at the instance
of other landowners, they filed an application under Section 28A(1) for
redetermination of market value of the acquired land. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer held that the landowners are entitled to compensation at the
rate of Rs.1.20 per square meter to Rs.2/- per square meter. The appellants then
filed an application under Section 28A(3) for award of compensation at the rate
of Rs.100/- per square meter. They pleaded that the acquired land was very
close to Sion-Panvel Highway and had tremendous non-agricultural potential,
nearby area had been industrialized and District Judge, Raigad-Alibag had
JUDGMENT
awarded higher compensation to other landowners whose lands situated at
Village Ambetarkhar (Roadpali), Taluka Panvel had been acquired for the New
Bombay Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer controverted the claim
of the appellants and pleaded that on the date of Section 4(1) notification, i.e.,
3.2.1970, the appellants’ land was undeveloped and was being used only for
the purpose of agriculture, which depended on monsoon.
Page 2
3
3. On the pleadings of the parties, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag
(hereinafter described as ‘the Reference Court’) framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the claimants prove that the compensation
amount awarded by the opponent is insufficient and inadequate
in view of the situation, location, sale statistics and N.A.
potentiality of the acquired land.
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced
compensation? If yes, what quantum?
3. What order or award?”
4. In support of their claim, the appellants examined Shri Abdul Majid
Mulla (one of the landowners) and Shri Vikrant Manohar Vaidya, who had
prepared valuation report (Ext.24) and map (Ext.25). They also relied upon
certified copies of the judgment of the High Court in F.A. No.544/90 –
Chandar Krishan Gayakwad v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel
(Ext.29), F.A. No.423/96 – State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Bhiva Patil
(Ext.30), F.A. No.1074/89 – State of Maharashtra v. Laxman Bhiva Patil
JUDGMENT
(Ext.31), F.A. No.457/93 – State of Maharashtra v. Ramachandra Damodar
Koli and others (Ext.16) as also the awards passed by the Reference Court in
L.A.R. No.168/86 (Ext.13), L.A.R. No.172/86 (Ext.14) and L.A.R.
No.1334/2000 (Ext.15). On behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, no
evidence was produced in support of the assertion that the acquired land was
undeveloped and it did not have non-agricultural potential.
Page 3
4
5. The Reference Court considered the evidence produced by the appellants
and held that the acquired land had non-agricultural potential and the
Special Land Acquisition Officer committed grave error by fixing
market value on the premise that it was an undeveloped land and was
being used for agricultural purposes only. The detailed reasons recorded
by the Reference Court for arriving at this conclusion are reproduced
below:
“It is an admitted fact that civic amenities were available to
Panvel Town prior to 1970. Construction of Thane Creek bridge
brought various villages including village Roadpali (Kolhekhar)
close to Bombay. The proximity of National Highway No.4,
Panvel-Sion Highway, Diva-Panvel-Apta railway line, vicinity
of Jawahar Industrial Estate, MI D.C. Industrial Estate Taloja,
Panvel Industrial Estate, shows that even in the year 1970 the
lands under reference were enjoying transport and
communication facility. Thus, the lands under reference were
ready-made for N.A. use and only obstacle was absence of
conversion. Therefore, though the lands under reference were
under paddy cultivation it’s non-agricultural potentiality cannot
be disputed and the lands will have to be assessed as non-
agricultural land. While dealing with the land Reference Appeal
No. 92 and 94 of 1985 in respect of the lands situated at Panvel
acquired on 3.2.1970 the Hon’ble High Court Bombay has taken
judicial note about non-agricultural potentiality of the nearby
area of Bombay city. In the case of Shashikant Krishanji
(kandpile) Mali V/s. SLAO Panvel, Raigad, reported in 1993
B.C.J. 27 it is observed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of
Bombay High Court that-
JUDGMENT
“the aforementioned towns, are, what they are because of
their closeness to the Metropolitan centre of Bombay. It is
also evident that the scope for growth in the direction of
Pune and Nashik has been virtually exhausted, and that,
growth now lies in the direction of the districts of Raigad
and Ratnagir. Judicial notice has to be taken of the fact
that almost all the areas in the proximity of Bombay have
Page 4
5
been growing at a phenomenal rate and that Panvel is no
exception to this feature of rapid growth.”
In a case of Nama Padu Huddar Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 1994 B.C.J. 316 the Hon’ble High Court Bombay
observed that-
“Judicial note can be taken of the fact that the industrial
growth in and around Bombay has started with rapid stride
from the year 1965 onwards. In fact, the growth is by
leaps and bounds in the magnitude of industries as well as
number of industries and virtually all the industry of the
country are represented on the industrial estates scattered
on this highway. It is also an admitted position that on this
highway on all sides the facility of electric supply is
available as also of abundant water supply. In the area in
question it is also an admitted position that all the lands
have suitable access roads of Zilla Parishad and State
Highway including lands which are the farthest from the
highway.”
The Learned D.G.P. Shri P.S. Patil, for the Opponent argued that
the lands under endurance were paddy yielding land depending
upon mansoon, yielding once in a year, and therefore, the lands
under reference were not having N.A. potentiality on the date of
notification. However, in view of the observation of the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in the above cited ruling argument
advanced by learned D.G.P. is devoid of substance. In view of
Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act a fact judicially noticed
need not be proved. The effect of taking judicial note of any fact
means recognition of the fact without formal proof and no one
can question it. Even court can’t insist of formal proof by
evidence. Judicial note take place of proof. Nearness of Bombay
City which is economic capital of our country and magnitude of
industrial development around the lands under reference is
sufficient to say that the lands under reference were having
tremendous N.A. potentiality on the date of notification.”
JUDGMENT
(emphasis supplied)
6. The Reference Court referred to the judgments of District Judge, Raigad-
Alibag in LAR Nos.168/86 and 172/86 by which compensation at the
rate of Rs.90/- per square meter was awarded for the land situated at
Page 5
6
Ambetarkhar (Roadpali), Taluka Panvel, which was also acquired for the
New Bombay Project, but held that the same are of no help to the
appellants because in those cases, this Court had issued a direction to the
Special Land Acquisition Officer to pay compensation at the market rate
prevailing as on 1.1.1977.
7. The Reference Court then noticed the judgments of the High Court in
Shashikant Krishanji v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel,
Raigad (1993) BCJ 27, Nama Padu Huddar v. State of Maharashtra
(1994) BCJ 316 and observed:
“The certified copy of the judgment in First Appeal No. 544/90
Chandrakant Gaikwad V/s. S.L.A.O. Panvel is at Exh. 29. After
its perusal it transpires that the Hon'ble High Court Bombay
granted compensation @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. to the land situated
at village Taloja acquired vide notification dt. 3.2.1970. It seems
from the certified copy of the judgment in First Appeal No.
423/96 Chandrakant Bhiva Patil Vs. S.L.A.O. Panvel Exh. 30
that the Hon'ble High Court Bombay awarded compensation @
Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. To the land situated at village Nawada
acquired on 3.2.1970. Certified copy of the judgment in First
Appeal No. 1074/89 state of Maharashtra Vs. Laxman Bhiva
Patil Exh. 31 shows that the Hon'ble High Court Bombay
granted compensation @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. To the land of
Village Pendhar, Taluka Panvel, acquired vide notification dt.
3.2.1970.
JUDGMENT
Thus, from the judgments on record it is quite obvious that the
Hon'ble High Court Bombay has awarded compensation @ Rs.
25/- per sq. mtr. In respect of the lands of village Taloja,
Pendhar and Nawade acquired vide Notification dt. 3.2.1970. So
far as lands under reference are concerned, in a case reported in
1997(2) Mh. L.R. 325 State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Vs.
Page 6
7
Ramchand Damodar Koli and others.. Respondents, the Hon'ble
High Court Bombay has allowed the claimants' cross objection
and ordered that the claimants shall be entitled for compensation
@ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. On their paying additional court-fees
within two weeks. The land involved in the abovecited ruling
belongs to Village Roadpali (Ambetarkhar). Ambetarkhar and
Kolhekhar are the parts of Village Roadpali. The land involved
in the reference in hand and the land involved in the abovecited
ruling acquired for the same purpose i.e. for New Bombay
Project, vide Notification dt. 3.2.1970. It reveals from xerox
copy of from the letter No. Civil/Reg. No. 28.01.2002 dt. 3rd
July, 2003 addressed to the Secretary, Government of
Maharashtra, L & J Department Mantralya Mumbai, by the
Asstt. Govt. Pleader, High Court, Mumbai, produced on record
with the list Exh. 33/1 by the Ld.D.G.P., that, in First Appeal
No. 560/91 arising out of LAR No. 350/89 the Hon'ble High
Court Bombay awarded compensation @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. To
the land from village Roadpali, and the Asstt. Govt. Pleader,
High Court Mumbai, opined that the said case is not fit for
appeal. The land involved in the reference in hand and the land
involved in the case reported in 1997(2) Mh. L.R. 325 are
virtually identical situated in the same area bearing similar
topographical and physical characteristics covered by the same
notification dt.3.2.1970. When the nearby land of the land under
reference fetch market value @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. On the date
of notification, certainly the land under reference fetch the same
market value.”
(as contained in the paper book)
JUDGMENT
8. The State Government questioned the determination made by the
Reference Court by filing an appeal under Section 54 of the Act and prayed for
reduction in the amount of compensation on the ground that the acquired land
was undeveloped and was being used for agricultural purposes. Another plea
taken by the State Government was that the Reference Court had erroneously
overlooked the distance criteria, which was followed by the High Court in
other cases for determination of the amount of compensation. The appellants
Page 7
8
also filed F.A. No.1118/2005 and prayed that the amount of compensation be
enhanced keeping in view the judgment in LAR Nos. 168/86 and 172/86. They
pleaded that the Reference Court had not paid adequate attention to the fact that
the acquired land was in the vicinity of the industrial estates developed at
Taloja and Panvel and a number of highways.
9. The Division Bench of the High Court took cognizance of the earlier
judgments in which the compensation was determined keeping in view the
distance of the acquired land from Bombay-Pune Highway and held that the
appellants are not entitled to compensation in excess of what was awarded to
the other landowners. The Division Bench accepted the State’s plea for
reduction in the amount of compensation and also held that 15% of market
value is liable to be deducted towards development charges.
10. The review petition filed by the appellants was partly allowed by the
JUDGMENT
High Court vide order dated 7.6.2007 and it was held that those having land
upto a distance of 500 meters from Bombay-Pune Highway shall be entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square meter and those having land
beyond 500 meters shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.18/- per
square meter.
11. Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel argued that the Reference
Court and the High Court committed serious error by not awarding
Page 8
9
compensation to the appellants at par with the other landowners whose claim
for higher compensation was decided by District Judge, Raigad-Alibag in LAR
Nos.168/86 and 172/86. Learned senior counsel emphasized that the
appellants’ land and the land situated in Village Ambetarkhar was acquired for
implementation of the New Bombay Project and argued that there could be no
valid ground or justification to discriminate similarly situated landowners in
the matter of award of compensation. He pointed out that the acquired land is
in the vicinity of fully developed industrial area as also Sion-Panvel Highway,
Mumabi-Goa Highway (NH-17) apart from Bombay-Pune Highway (NH-4)
and argued that the compensation awarded to the appellants should be
enhanced because the Reference Court and the High Court committed an error
by not considering the geography of the land and its potential use for non-
agricultural purposes. Shri Bhushan submitted that while preparing valuation
report (Ext.24), Shri Vikrant Manohar Vaidya had taken note of the fact that
JUDGMENT
the acquired land was very close to the industrial estate developed at Panvel
and Taloja and railway line had been laid, but the Reference Court and the
High Court did not give due weightage to the expert report for the purpose of
determination of the amount of compensation and this has caused serious
injustice to the appellants. Learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment in
Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma
(1998) 2 SCC 385 and argued that the distance from the highway cannot be
made the sole benchmark for fixing market value of the acquired land which is
Page 9
1
in the vicinity of fully developed area. Shri Bhushan also invited our attention
to judgment dated 21.6.2009 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
whereby the appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra and the landowners
against the judgment of District Judge, Raigad in LAR No. 172 of 1986 were
disposed of by assessing market value of the land situated at Village
Ambetarkhar at Rs.60/- per square meter as on 1.1.1977.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment
and order and argued that the High Court did not commit any error by
determining the amount of compensation keeping in view the distance criteria,
which was applied in all other cases for fixing market value of the land
acquired for the New Bombay Project. Learned counsel also submitted that the
judgment of the Division Bench in FA Nos. 219-220 of 1989 and FA Nos. 568-
569 of 1989 cannot be relied upon for awarding higher compensation to the
appellants because in respect of the land situated in Village Ambetarkhar,
JUDGMENT
Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, this Court had issued direction in the earlier
round of litigation that the compensation be determined on the basis of market
value prevailing on 1.1.1977.
13. We have considered the respective arguments and carefully perused the
record. It is settled law that while fixing market value of the acquired land, the
Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors:
(i) Existing geographical situation of the land.
Page 10
1
(ii) Existing use of the land.
(iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State
High Way or road and/or developed area.
(iv) Market value of other land situated in the same
locality/village/area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.
14. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 577,
this Court laid down the following principles for determination of market value
of the acquired land:
“Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be
considered in determining the compensation; the principal among
which is the determination of the market value of the land on the
date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of
Section 4.
One of the principles for determination of the amount of
compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of
an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil
that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer
would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in
possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where
he is not.
Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the
open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special
needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not
forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the
neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section
4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences
have to be considered.
The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with
mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified
having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as
proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value
of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made
having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-à-vis the
JUDGMENT
Page 11
1
land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The
positive and negative factors are as under:
Positive factors Negative factors
(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area
(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a
distance from the road
(iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with
very small frontage compared
to depth
(iv) nearness to developed
area
(iv) lower level requiring the
depressed portion to be filled
up
(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed
locality
(vi) level vis-à-vis land under
acquisition
(vi) some special
disadvantageous factors which
would deter a purchaser
(vii) special value for an
owner of an adjoining property
to whom it may have some
very special advantage
Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large
block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan,
carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots,
waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such
development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total
price.”
JUDGMENT
15. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568, the Court held:
“In order to determine the compensation which the tenure-holders
are entitled to get for their land which has been acquired, the main
question to be considered is what is the market value of the land.
Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the court has to take into
consideration while Section 24 lays down what the court shall not
take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object
of the enquiry before the court is to determine the market value of
the land acquired. The expression “market value” has been the
subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several cases. The
market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a
Page 12
1
willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing
condition with all its existing advantages and its potential
possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding
any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the
property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value
disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent
necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The
guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor
who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human
conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal
market conditions but not an anxious dealing at arm's length nor
facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick succession
or otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of
market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price
outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities.
See Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, Prithvi Raj Taneja v.
State of M.P., Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector,
Varanasi and Periyar Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala.
For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of
the acquired land should also be taken into consideration.
Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or
developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market
value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its
existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential
possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The
question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one
of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is
put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to
residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The
existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further
extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect
of development have to be taken into consideration. See Collector
v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur, Raghubans Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt.
and Administrator General, W.B. v. Collector Varanasi. It has been
held in Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer and
Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust that failing to consider
potential value of the acquired land is an error of principle.”
JUDGMENT
16. In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or
rd
under-developed, the Courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3 of the
market value towards development cost except when no development is
Page 13
1
required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is
acquired. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354, the Court held:
“............It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or
undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or
commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has
to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the
acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature,
location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the
area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the
land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial
purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may
be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of
making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a
developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may
be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of
expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A
claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing
more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must
show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so
located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the
area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough
particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even
if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the
developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed
area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side
abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned
development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage,
sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc.
However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages
by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the
percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges
required may be less on that account. There may be various factual
factors which may have to be taken into consideration while
applying the cut in payment of compensation towards
developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd
and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that
there is difference between a developed area and an area having
potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area
is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto
make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as
JUDGMENT
Page 14
1
a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as
in this case, for development purpose.”
(emphasis supplied)
rd
17. The rule of 1/3 deduction was reiterated in Tejumal Bhojwani v. State
of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525, V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition
Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board v.
Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad
Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC 745. In Lal Chand v. Union of India
(2009) 15 SCC 769, the Court indicated that percentage of deduction for
development to be made for arriving at market value of large tracts of
undeveloped agricultural land with potential for development can vary between
20 and 75 per cent of the price of developed plots and observed:
“The ‘deduction for development’ consists of two components. The
first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for
developmental works and the second is the cost of the development
works. …
JUDGMENT
Therefore the deduction for the ‘development factor’ to be made with
reference to the price of a small plot in a developed layout, to arrive
at the cost of undeveloped land, will be for more than the deduction
with reference to the price of a small plot in an unauthorised private
layout or an industrial layout. It is also well known that the
development cost incurred by statutory agencies is much higher than
the cost incurred by private developers, having regard to higher
overheads and expenditure.”
18. In A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy (2010) 12 SCC 707, the
rd
rule of 1/3 deduction towards development cost was invoked while
Page 15
1
determining market value of the acquired land. In Subh Ram v. State of
Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 444, this Court held as under:
“Deduction of “development cost” is the concept used to derive the
“wholesale price” of a large undeveloped land with reference to
the “retail price” of a small developed plot. The difference between
the value of a small developed plot and the value of a large
undeveloped land is the “development cost”. Two factors have a
bearing on the quantum (or percentage) of deduction in the “retail
price” as development cost. Firstly, the percentage of deduction is
decided with reference to the extent and nature of development of
the area/layout in which the small developed plot is situated.
Secondly, the condition of the acquired land as on the date of
preliminary notification, whether it was undeveloped, or partly
developed, is considered and appropriate adjustment is made in the
percentage of deduction to take note of the developed status of the
acquired land.
The percentage of deduction (development cost factor) will be
applied fully where the acquired land has no development. But
where the acquired land can be considered to be partly developed
(say for example, having good road access or having the amenity
of electricity, water, etc.) then the development cost (that is,
percentage of deduction) will be modulated with reference to the
extent of development of the acquired land as on the date of
acquisition. But under no circumstances, will the future use or
purpose of acquisition play a role in determining the percentage of
deduction towards development cost.”
JUDGMENT
(emphasis supplied)
19. In Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer v. L.
Kamalamma (supra), this Court held as under:
“When a land is acquired which has the potentiality of being
developed into an urban land, merely because some portion of it
abuts the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid
while in respect of the lands on the interior side it should be at
lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are formed
those abutting the main road may have its advantages as well as
disadvantages. Many a discerning customer may prefer to stay in
the interior and far away from the main road and may be willing to
pay a reasonably higher price for that site. One cannot rely on the
Page 16
1
mere possibility so as to indulge in a meticulous exercise of
classification of the land as was done by the Land Acquisition
Officer when the entire land was acquired in one block and
therefore classification of the same into different categories does
not stand to reason.”
20. In these appeals, we find that while determining the amount of
compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per square meter , the Reference Court had
taken notice of the fact that the acquired land was in the proximity of National
Highway No.4, Panvel-Sion Highway and the construction of Thane Creek
Bridge which brought various villages including village Roadpali (Kolhekhar)
close to Bombay. The Reference Court also noted that civic amenities were
available to Panvel town prior to 1970 and industrial estates had been
developed at Taloja and Panvel and concluded that the acquired land was
available for non-agricultural use and the only obstruction was the absence of
conversion. The High Court did not advert to the factors noted by the
Reference Court and reduced the amount of compensation by mechanically
JUDGMENT
applying the distance criteria, i.e., distance of the acquired land from Bombay-
Pune Highway adopted in the earlier judgments. Therefore, the impugned
judgment and order cannot be sustained.
21. Although, the appeals filed by the State Government and the landowner
against the judgment of District Judge, Raigad in LAR No.172/86 were decided
after six months of the impugned judgment, we find that compensation for the
land situated at Village Ambetarkhar had been awarded at the rate of Rs.60/-
Page 17
1
per square meter primarily on the ground that in the earlier round of litigation,
this Court had issued a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to
determine market value as on 1.1.1977.
22. In the light of the subsequent judgment, we may have remitted the case
to the High Court for fresh adjudication of the appeals, but keeping in view the
fact that a period of 42 years has elapsed, we do not consider it proper to adopt
that course and feel that ends of justice will be adequately met by restoring the
determination of compensation made by the Reference Court.
23. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order
are set aside and the one passed by the Reference Court for payment of
compensation to the appellants at the rate of Rs.25/- per square meter is
restored. The respondents are directed to pay the balance amount to the
appellants with all other statutory benefits and interest within three months
JUDGMENT
from today.
24. With a view to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the
middleman, we deem it proper to issue the following further directions:
(i) Within one month from today, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
shall depute an officer subordinate to him not below the rank of Naib
Tehsildar or an equivalent rank, to get in touch with the landowners
Page 18
1
and/or their legal representatives and inform them about their entitlement
to receive the balance amount of compensation.
(ii) The concerned officers shall instruct the landowners and/or their legal
representatives to open savings bank account in a nationalized or
scheduled bank, in case they already do not have such account.
(iii) The account numbers of the landowners and/or their legal
representatives should be furnished by the concerned officer to the Land
Acquisition Officer within a period of one month.
(iv) Within next one month, the Special Land Acquisition Officer shall
deposit the amount of compensation along with other statutory benefits
in the bank accounts of the landowners and/or their legal representatives
in the form of account payee cheques.
……………….………………….…J.
[G.S. Singhvi]
JUDGMENT
……..……..…..…..………………..J.
[Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya]
New Delhi;
July 02, 2012.
Page 19