Market value for land with N.A. potentiality requires reasonable size-based deductions and time-adjusted price escalation.

The claimants’ lands (Block No. 59/6 admeasuring 42 R and Block No. 59/5/2 admeasuring 82 R) were acquired for the expansion of Chikalthana Airport, Aurangabad.

A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 126(4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966, was issued on December 17, 1992.

The Reference Court, in LAR No. 680 of 1997, awarded compensation by judgment dated June 12, 2008.

CIDCO filed an appeal (FA No. 545/2010) contending that the compensation was exorbitant and based on an incorrectly relied-upon sale exemplar (Exhibit-37).

The claimants filed a cross-objection (No. 213/2025) seeking enhanced compensation, arguing the land possessed Non-Agricultural (N.A.) potentiality.

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was exorbitant or inadequate in light of the market value and non-agricultural potentiality of the acquired land?

2. Whether the sale exemplar at Exhibit-37 was a comparable and bona-fide transaction for determining market value?

3. What is the appropriate percentage of deduction and price escalation applicable to the acquired land?

The Court applied Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act, 1966, for determining the date and basis of valuation.

It followed the principles in Digamber v. State of Maharashtra, which mandate considering geographical situation, existing use, and proximity to developed areas when fixing market value.

Relying on Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar, the Court noted that while small plot prices can inform large area valuations, relevant deductions must be applied.

Finally, it referred to Municipal Council, Ausa v. State of Maharashtra regarding the reasonableness of development charge deductions.

The Court examined Exhibit-37, a sale deed dated June 13, 1991, for a small plot (800 sq. ft.) in the same area as the acquired land.

It confirmed that the acquired land possessed N.A. potentiality due to its proximity to Aurangabad city, a fact not disputed by CIDCO.

Using Exhibit-37, the court calculated the base market value at Rs. 24,493 per R.

However, since the acquired land (1 H 24 R) was significantly larger than the sale exemplar plot, the Court applied a 40% deduction, reducing the rate to Rs. 14,695.8 per R.

To account for the 1.5-year gap between the sale exemplar (June 1991) and the Section 126(4) notification (December 1992), the Court added a 12% annual escalation, arriving at a final market value of Rs. 16,459.29 per R.

The Court further observed that the Land Acquisition Officer's award had noted potential for ex-gratia payments based on Government Resolutions, which the claimants remained eligible to pursue.

It modified the Reference Court's award, holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 16,459.29 per R, along with all statutory benefits including solatium, interest, and components under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

CIDCO was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six months.

The Court also granted the claimants liberty to apply to the competent authority for ex-gratia compensation as per the Government Resolution dated October 31, 1994.