Enhancement of land compensation based on proximity to developed infrastructure despite long-standing military requisition.

The Ministry of Defence requisitioned 11,565 square meters of land at Village Malad, Mumbai, in 1942 for the Central Ordnance Depot

Formal acquisition proceedings began with a Section 4 notification published on December 4, 1975

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded compensation at ₹20 per sq. meter

The original claimant, Mohd. Iqbal Abdul Hamid (now represented by his heirs), sought enhancement to ₹90/sq. mtr before the SLAO, which was later escalated to a claim of ₹495.20/sq. mtr in the Reference Court

A Section 30 dispute regarding title was settled via consent terms in 2006, leaving only the Section 18 enhancement claim for adjudication

1. Whether the Reference Court is restricted to the compensation amount originally claimed by the applicant before the SLAO

2. Whether the compensation of ₹20 per sq. meter awarded by the SLAO was just and adequate, or if the claimants proved entitlement to enhancement

3. Whether the court can grant compensation for an additional 1,360 sq. mtrs allegedly occupied by the state but not included in the SLAO's award

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding the Reference Court's jurisdiction to determine compensation

The court relied on Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, which established that following the 1984 amendment, the court is not capped by the initial claim and must award "just compensation" based on evidence

The "comparable sales method" and the "plus and minus factors" principle from Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. SLAO and Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corp Ltd were applied to assess market value

Building potentiality is a relevant factor per P.R. Reddy v. LAO

Regarding the scope of reference, the court applied Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of U.P., holding that a Reference Court cannot adjudicate on land not covered by the formal acquisition award

The court first clarified that its jurisdiction under Section 18 is confined to the 11,565 sq. mtrs actually acquired; any claim for additional land (1,360 sq. mtrs) requires a separate civil suit or writ petition

It rejected the government’s argument that claimants were capped at the ₹90/sq. mtr originally asked for, noting that the court must determine the fair market value as of December 4, 1975

However, the court found the claimants' evidence (five sale instances) insufficient because the witness (CW-1) lacked personal knowledge and the instances were not proven to be truly comparable in size or nature

Conversely, the court found the SLAO’s rate of ₹20/sq. mtr too low, as even the government’s own records and earlier awards suggested developed plots in the vicinity fetched ₹45/sq. mtr

Balancing "plus factors" (proximity to railway and highway) against "minus factors" (large area, restricted defense possession, and requisitioned status), the court determined a middle-ground fair market value

The High Court ordered the SLAO to pay the enhanced amount along with 12% additional component under Section 23(1-A), 30% solatium under Section 23(2), and applicable interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act. The Reference was partly allowed with no order as to costs