Full Judgment Text
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10598/2009
STATE OF GOA & ANR. … PETITIONERS
- VS.-
GOPAL BABURAO GAUDO & ORS. … RESPODNENTS
O R D E R
Acquisition proceedings were initiated in regard to
several lands including Survey No. 85 of Curti Village
belonging to the respondents under preliminary notification
dated 14.2.1991 for construction of Panda By-pass road. The
Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate
of Rs.7/- per sq.m. The Reference Court increased the
compensation to Rs. 154/- per sq.m. The High Court did not
disburse the amount awarded by the Reference Court, as it
found that in an appeal arising from the award in LAC No.
48/1995 relating to a comparable land compensation at a
higher rate had been awarded at the rate of Rs.200/- per
2
sq.m. Leave is sought to challenge the said judgment of the
High Court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner alleges that the acquired land
measuring 2715 sq. meters, was a narrow strip which fell
within the 40 meters margin from the centre of the highway
where constructions were prohibited. It is contended that
as the acquired land could not be used for construction,
the land had to be considered as not having any development
potential; and that therefore it could not be compared with
the land (which was the subject matter of LAC No. 48/1995)
for which compensation had been determined having regard to
its potential for development. It was also contended that
being a narrow strip it was also not of much use even for
agriculture purposes.
3. A long strip of land measuring more than two-third of
an acre lying alongside and adjoining the Highway cannot be
treated as a land without value or without any potential
for development, merely on the ground that the law relating
to Highways prohibited construction on either side of the
Highway, upto a depth of 40 meters from the centre of the
Highway. All that was required to create or realize
potential of such land was to annex or merge the said strip
3
of land with the land to its rear. In that event, the strip
of land will become the ‘access’ to the rear-side land from
the main road and will also become the frontage of the
aggregate land, thereby enhancing the potential and value
of the rear-side land, as also creating a potential for its
own use. The contention that a land adjoining the Highway
should be treated as having no development potential (and
therefore as land without much value except as ordinary
agricultural land), while considering the lands to its rear
which are farther away from the road, or other adjoining
lands of the same extent, but having more depth (so as to
extend beyond the 40 meters margin) as having potential for
development, is illogical and cannot be accepted.
4. We may demonstrate the absurdity of such a contention
with reference to an illustration. Let us take the example
of a residential plot of land measuring 60’ X 100’. Let us
assume that the Municipal Bye-laws require a front (road
side) set-back of 20’ for construction of houses in a plot
of that size. Therefore, the owner would leave a twenty
feet wide front strip in the said plot free of any
construction while putting up the construction in the plot.
Obviously, he cannot thereafter construct in that front
strip. Let us further assume that the front strip is
4
acquired for road widening. Can the acquiring authority
deny compensation to that strip on the ground that the said
20’ strip acquired for road widening could not in any event
be used for any construction purpose and therefore, was not
of any value? Obviously not.
5. Therefore, determination of market value of the
acquired land with reference to the value of comparable
land cannot be faulted.
6. Another argument put forth by the petitioners is that
if the statutory benefits like solatium under section 23(2)
and additional amount under section 23(1A) of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short), and interest are
added to the compensation awarded, the compensation would
bloat up having severe financial implications, and
therefore, while determining compensation, the extent of
statutory benefits should be taken note of or kept in view.
There is absolutely no merit in the said contention. It is
well-settled that the solatium, additional amount and
interest have no bearing on the determination of the market
value under first clause of section 23(1) of the Act. The
reason for grant of the additional statutory benefits are
clearly different. The additional benefit under section
5
23(1A) is to mitigate the hardship to the owner on account
of deprivation of enjoyment of the land because of the
delay in making the award and offering payment. The
solatium under section 23(2)is in consideration of the
compulsory nature of acquisition. Interest under section 28
of the Act is paid for delay in paying the compensation
from the date on which possession is taken. They are
distinct from the determination of market value. The fact
that the landowner would also be entitled to statutory
benefits cannot be taken into account, when determining the
market value of the acquired land for purpose of
compensation.
7. We find that the High Court has rightly decided the
matter with reference to the facts of the case. The
judgment does not call for interference. The Special leave
petition is therefore dismissed as having no merit.
………………………………………………………J.
(R V RAVEENDRAN)
………………………………………………………J.
(B SUDERSHAN REDDY)
New Delhi;
September 14, 2009