Ramrao Shankar Tapase vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn. & Others
Ramrao Shankar Tapase vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn. & Others
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2732 OF 2022
Ramrao Shankar Tapase …Appellant
Versus
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn. & Others ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2746-2747 OF 2022
(Arising from SLP(Civil) Nos.6309-6310/2022 @ Diary No.8900/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2745 OF 2022
(Arising from SLP(Civil) No. 6308/2022 @ Diary No.36320/2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2744 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2733-2734 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2737-2738 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2740-2741 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2739 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2735-2736 OF 2022
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2742-2743 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of
appeals from the same land acquisition proceedings, all these appeals
are decided and disposed of by this common judgment.
1
2. All these appeals arise from the land acquisition proceedings
undertaken by the State Government for the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation (MIDC) (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Acquiring Body’), for extension of industrial estate in village Bhoyar,
Taluka and District Yavatmal. The State Government issued a
notification on 09.03.1995 under Section 32(2) of the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for
acquisition of the lands in question pertaining to village Bhoyar. By the
said notification, several extents of land located in various survey
numbers spread out in the village of Bhoyar, belonging to the original
claimants, were acquired. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared
the awards and determined the quantum of compensation payable to the
original claimants, particulars of which are given hereinbelow. The
original claimants preferred reference applications under Section 34 of
the Act, read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the
Reference Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The
Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation. Against the
common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court both, the
original claimants as well as the acquiring body preferred appeals before
the High Court. The original claimants preferred the appeals for
enhancement of compensation. By the impugned common judgment
and order, the High Court has disposed of all the appeals and cross
2
objections and has partly allowed the appeals preferred by the acquiring
body and has reduced the amount of compensation determined and
awarded by the Reference Court as under. Hence, the original claimants
have preferred the present appeals.
3. The factual aspects in case of each claimant and the appeal/s are
as under:
Civil Appeal No. 2732/2022 @ SLP (C) No. 23250/2018
The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court in First Appeal No. 133/2007. Land
admeasuring 4.91 Hectares in Survey No. 31/2 in village Bhoyar came to
be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award dated
27.11.1997 and determined the compensation at Rs.50,000/- per
Hectare for 4.23 Hectares of cultivable land and Rs.1,500/- per Hectare
for 0.68 hectare of uncultivable land. Rs.24,400/- was awarded for the
well. At the instance of the claimants, a reference was made to the
Reference Court, which was numbered as L.A.C. No. 213/1999. The
Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 3,75,000/- per
hectare. The acquiring body – MIDC preferred the appeal before the
High Court, being First Appeal No. 133/2007. Relying upon and
considering the sale deed produced at Ex. 41 dated 18.09.1992 with
respect to the land bearing Survey No. 20/2 in village Bhoyar itself and
considering the potentiality of the acquired land and considering the time
3
gap between the said notification dated 18.09.1992 and the present
notification dated 9.3.1995 and considering the time gap of
approximately three years, adding 10% towards the price rise/escalation
and adding further 15% towards the potentiality and the location of the
acquired land, the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has
determined the compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare. Hence, the
original claimant has preferred the present appeal.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2746-2747/2022 @ SLP(C) Nos.6309-6310/2022 @
D.No. 8900/2021
Land admeasuring 2.43 Hectares in Survey No. 33/2 in village
Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the
award and determined the compensation at Rs.1,500/- per hectare. The
Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.4,00,000/-
per hectare. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
determined the compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. Hence, the
original claimants have preferred the present appeals.
Civil Appeal No. 2745/2022 @ SLP(C) No. 6308/2022 @
D.No.36320/2019
Land admeasuring 1.62 hectares in Survey No. 32/1 in village
Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined
and awarded compensation at Rs. 1500/- per hectare. The Reference
Court enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.3,75,000/- per
hectare, relying upon the sale deed of the adjacent village Lohara. The
4
High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has reduced the
amount of compensation and determined and awarded the
compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare, relying upon the sale deed at
Ex. 41 dated 18.09.1992 with respect to the land situated in village
Bhoyar and the claimant has preferred the present appeal.
Civil Appeal No. 2744/2022 @ SLP(Civil) No. 1793/2019
Land admeasuring 4.47 hectares in Survey No. 33/4 in village
Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the
award and determined the compensation at Rs. 1500/- per hectare. The
Reference Court determined and awarded the compensation at Rs.17/-
per sq. ft., relying upon the sale deed produced at Ex. 31 dated
28.11.1994 of village Lohara. By the impugned judgment and order, the
High Court in First Appeal No. 56/2006 filed by the acquiring body has
determined and awarded the amount of compensation at Rs.2,00,000/-
per hectare. Hence, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2733-2734/2022 @ SLP(Civil) Nos.24890-
24891/2018
Land admeasuring 7.75 hectares in Survey No. 17 in village
Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined
and awarded compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for 7.24 hectares
of cultivable land and Rs. 1500/- per hectare for 0.51 hectare of
uncultivable land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of
5
compensation to Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and
Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. By the impugned
judgment and order, the High Court has determined and awarded the
compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- for cultivable land and Rs.75,000/- for
uncultivable land. Hence, the original claimants have preferred the
present appeals.
Civil Appeal Nos.2737-2738 of 2022 @ SLP(Civil) Nos.26245-
26246/2018
Land admeasuring 4.05 hectares in Survey No. 4/3 in village
Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined
and awarded the compensation at Rs.55,000/- per hectare for cultivable
land of 3.75 hectares and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.30 hectare of
uncultivable land. The reference Court enhanced the compensation to
Rs. 2,40,000/- per hectare for the entire land. Both, the land owners as
well as the acquiring body preferred the first appeals before the High
Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has partly
allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and consequently
dismissed the appeal preferred by the land owners determining the
awarding of compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare. Hence, the
original claimants have preferred the present appeals.
Civil Appeal Nos.2740-2741/2022 @ SLP(Civil) Nos.27140-
27141/2018
6
Land admeasuring 3.40 hectares in Survey No. 2/1 in village
Bhoyar came to be acquired by the same notification. The Land
Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 62,529/- per hectare for 2.75 hectares of
cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.65 hectare of uncultivable
land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation to
Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.1,00,000/- per
hectare for uncultivable land. Both, the land owners as well as the
acquiring body preferred appeals before the High Court. By the
impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has partly
allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and consequently
dismissed the appeal preferred by the land owners determining and
awarding the compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable
land and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. Hence, the
original claimants have preferred the present appeals.
Civil Appeal No. 2739/2022 @ SLP(Civil) No. 26249/2018
Land admeasuring 8.46 hectares in Survey No. 10/3 in village
Bhoyar came to be acquired by the same notification. The Land
Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for
7.29 hectares of cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 1.17
hectares of uncultivable land. The Reference Court enhanced the
amount of compensation to Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land
and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. The original claimants
7
preferred appeal before the High Court for enhancement of
compensation. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
dismissed the said appeal and has maintained the amount of
compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.
90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land, as awarded by the Reference
Court. Hence, the present appeal by the land owners.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2735-2736/2022 @ SLP(C) Nos.24909-24910/2018
Land admeasuring 2.20 hectares in Survey No. 2/2 in village
Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the
compensation at Rs. 1500/- per hectare. The Reference Court enhanced
the amount of compensation at Rs. 2,40,000/- per hectare. Both, the
original claimants as well as the acquiring body preferred appeals before
the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High
Court has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and
has dismissed the appeal preferred by the original claimants determining
and awarding compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare. Hence, the
present appeals by the original claimants.
Civil Appeal Nos.2742-2743/2022 @ SLP(C) Nos.27888-27889/2018
Land admeasuring 2.02 hectares in Survey No. 17 in village
Bhoyar came to be acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer determined
and awarded compensation at Rs. 45,000/- per hectare for 1.92 hectares
of cultivable land and Rs.1500/- per hectare for 0.10 hectares of
8
uncultivable land. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of
compensation at Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare for cultivable land and
Rs.90,000/- per hectare for uncultivable land. Both, the acquiring body
and the original claimants preferred appeals before the High Court. By
the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has partly
allowed the appeal preferred by the acquiring body and consequently
has dismissed the appeal preferred by the original claimants by
determining and awarding the amount of compensation at Rs.1,50,000/-
per hectare for cultivable land and Rs.75,000/- per hectare for
uncultivable land. Hence, the present appeals at the instance of the
original claimants.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants –
original claimants have made the following submissions in support of
their case to enhance the amount of compensation:
i) that the present acquisition is under a Special Act, i.e., the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961, whose
object and purpose is to establish an Industrial Development
Corporation. It is therefore submitted that the land acquired is to be
used for commercial purpose;
ii) that the contiguous land of three adjoining villages, vis-à-vis,
Bhoyar, Pangri and Lohara were acquired by a common notification
dated 9.3.1995 for extension of industrial area of Maharashtra
9
Industrial Development Corporation, which is a purely
commercial/industrial purpose. The aforesaid purpose of acquisition
goes to the root of the matter and should have been a guiding/deciding
factor in determining compensation under the beneficial legislation
such as Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that the said
overwhelming factor has been completely overlooked by the High
Court;
iii) that the land in question is acquired for commercial/industrial
purpose bears sufficient testimony to its non-agricultural potentiality
and commercial value. It is submitted that the entire land in question
is going to be sold as commercial plots to the prospective industries at
a commercial rate, is a factor which is completely ignored by the High
Court. Reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court in the case
of Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568 (para 5);
iv) that the High Court has committed an error in merely relying upon
the sale deed at Ex. 41 in determining the market value. It is
submitted that the sale deed at Ex. 41 solely could not have been
relied upon by the High Court for the following reasons:
(a)That the sale deed at Ex. 41 is in respect of purely agricultural
land whereas the acquisition in the instant case is purely for
commercial/industrial purpose;
10
(b)That judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the sale
consideration mentioned in the sale deeds are always
undervalued to save the stamp duty and registration charges;
(c)That the sale deed at Ex. 41 is almost three years prior to the
present acquisition and does not reflect the commercial/industrial
market value of the land and is certainly not the sale
consideration for which a willing seller would part his property
which is a commercial/industrial value.
v) that the land owners of village Lohara were awarded compensation
at Rs. 3,75,000/- per hectare. As by way of common notification, the
contiguous land of three villages without any boundaries, i.e., Bhoyar,
Pangri and Lohara were acquired for a common purpose, i.e., for
extension of industrial area, the High Court has committed a grave
error in determining and awarding a meagre compensation to the
extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- per hectare. It is submitted that the approach
of the High Court in classifying the land into different categories is
clearly contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) By Lrs. v. Special
Land Acquisition Officer, (2012) 7 SCC 595 (para 22);
vi) that the landowners in question whose land is acquired for
common purpose by common notification should be uniformly
compensated at the same rate and should not be discriminated.
11
Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Land
Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma (D) By
Lrs., (1998) 2 SCC 385 (para 7).
vii) that the land in question is having a non-agricultural potentiality
which can be judged considering the fact that it was at a distance of
6-7 kilometers from the district place of Yavatmal; it is adjacent to the
wall of the MIDC area; rate at the relevant point of time for nonagricultural land was around Rs. 20-25/- per sq. ft.; and it is perennially
irrigated land.
viii)it is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the original claimants that in case of some of the claimants, the
lands were situated just adjacent to village Lohara. It is therefore
submitted that the original claimants shall be entitled to the
compensation for the land acquired at par with the landowners of
village Lohara and/or considering the sale deeds produced on record
with respect to the lands situated in village Lohara.
5. Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals.
6. All these appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the MIDC as well as the State, by submitting as
under:
12
i) that the High Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment after
considering the facts of each case and considering the principles of
law laid down by this Court relating to computation of compensation for
land acquisition. It is submitted that the claimants have not
demonstrated any wrong application of a legal principle or overlooking
of some important point/evidence affecting valuation by the High Court;
ii) that the High Court has given cogent reasons for interfering with
the orders passed by the Reference Court granting exorbitant
compensation to the landowners/original claimants. It is submitted that
the High Court has noted the reasons given by the Reference Court
and thereafter has given cogent reasons for reducing the amount of
compensation in each case;
iii) that the High Court has rightly relied upon the sale deed at Ex. 41
dated 18.09.1992 by which one of the original claimants – Satish
Nimodiya had purchased the acquired agricultural land admeasuring
1.21 hectares in survey No. 20/2 in village Bhoyar at Rs. 1,21,000/-
per hectare and then gave cumulative increase of 10% to arrive at the
fair market value of the agricultural lands in 1995, which are the
subject matter of acquisition. It is submitted that the High Court has
also considered that acquired agricultural lands have non-agricultural
potential and after ascertaining the location of the respective lands
13
from the map of village Bhoyar, it has arrived at the fair market value of
the lands and their non-agricultural potential in each case;
iv) that the High Court has considered the settled legal principle
relating to computation of fair market value. It is submitted that the
landowners – original claimants had relied upon the sale exemplars of
small plots in village Lohara, where an industrial estate exists and the
orders passed by the Reference Court in the present cases. It is
urged that a meticulous exercise has been made by the High Court
and considering the same exemplar produced at Ex. 41, which was
with respect to very village of Bhoyar has discarded the other evidence
and has rightly determined the compensation by relying upon the sale
exemplar produced at Ex. 41;
v) that the acquired lands are agricultural lands. Considerable area
would be used for developmental infrastructure and this would require
huge developmental investment/expenses by MIDC. It is submitted
that deduction of development charges was required to be done, which
has not been done by the High Court;
vi) it is submitted that the High Court has granted a cumulative
increase of 10% increase per year after noting that the Reference
court had granted 50% cumulative increase per year, which was just
contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Pehlad Ram v.
Haryana Urban Development Authority, (2014) 14 SCC 778 by which it
14
is observed and held that the cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per
year in the market value of the land may be accepted. It is submitted
that if the cumulative increase per year is increased to 12% from 10%,
compensation would have to be reduced considering development
charges of 33%, which has not been done in the present case. There
is also no evidence to show that there was increasing trend in the sale
price of agricultural land in village Bhoyar to justify the increase from
10 to 12%.
6.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquiring body as well
as the State have relied upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of
Dollar Co. v. Collector of Madras, (1975) 2 SCC 730; Shakuntalabai v.
State of Maharashtrsa, (1996) 2 SCC 152; T.S. Ramachandra Shetty v.
Chairman, Karnataka Housing Board, (2009) 14 SCC 334, on the
principle that the sale price of the acquired land is best evidence for
determining its fair market value.
6.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquiring body as well
as the State have also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the
cases of Tarlochan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 424;
Hookiyar Singh v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 3 SCC 766;
and Subh Ram v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 444, on the principle
that the purpose of acquisition/future use of acquired land cannot be
considered for determination of compensation, and the decision of this
15
Court in the case of Kanwar Singh v. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136,
on the principle that the land in adjacent village or even the same village
may not possess the same quality and therefore cannot command
common market price.
6.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the acquiring body as well
as the State have also relied upon the decisions of this Court in the
cases of General Manager, ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel,
(2008) 14 SCC 745; Pehlad Ram (supra); and Manoj Kumar v. State of
Haryana, (2018) 13 SCC 96, on the cumulative increase which would
vary from 10 to 15% per year in the market value of the land.
6.4 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
The High Court by the impugned common judgment and order has
awarded different amounts of compensation for different lands situated at
different locations, but with respect to the same village Bhoyar, the
particulars of which are collated in the form of a chart as under:
Chart
1. Land acquired is in village Bhoyar, District Yavatmal, Maharashtra.
Acquired for extension of Industrial Estate at adjoining village
Lohara.
16
2. Notification u/s 1(3) r/w 31 of the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Act, 1961 = 30.11.1994
3. Notification u/s 32(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development
Act, 1961, initiating L.A. proceedings = 09.03.1995
Sr.
No
.
Owner Civil
Appeal
No.
Surve
y No.
Are
a
(H)
First
Appeal
No.
Compensati
on awarded
by the High
Court
1. Shaila Kailash
Chandra
Chaudhari &
ors
[Kailashchand
had
purchased the
acquired land
by sale deed
dated
01.04.1989 for
Rs. 55,000/-
2744/22 33/4 4.4
7
56/2006 Rs.
2,00,000/-
per hectare
2. Sindhubai
Prajapati
2745/22 32/1 1.6
2
489/2017 Rs.
2,00,000/-
per hectare
3. Leelabai
Langote (D)
through Lrs.
2746-
47/2022
33/2 2.4
3
124/07 &
591/2006
Rs.2,00,000/
- per hectare
4. Lalita
Suraswar &
Umashankar
Gautam
2740-
2741/202
2
2/1 3.4
0
1254/200
9 &
7/2013
Rs.1,80,000/
- per hectare
for cultivable
land
Rs. 90,000/-
per hectare
for
uncultivable
land
5. Dinesh Boara
& Another
2735-
2736/202
2
2/2 2.2
0
216/2011
&
276/2011
Rs.1,80,000/
- per hectare
6. Chandrashekh
ar Mor
2737-
2738/202
4/3 4.0
5
215/2011
&
Rs.1,80,000/
- per hectare
17
2 602/2012
7. Ramrao
Tapase
2732/202
2
31/2 4.9
1
133/2007 Rs.1,50,000/
- per hectare
8. Jagannath
Zinge
2742-
2743/202
2
17 2.0
2
1234/200
9 &
430/2018
Rs.1,50,000/
- per hectare
for cultivable
land
Rs.75,000/-
per hectare
for
uncultivable
land
9. Madhao
Lagad (D) by
Lrs.
2733-
2734/202
2
17 9.5
0
1248/200
9 &
431/2018
Rs.1,50,000/
- per hectare
for cultivable
land
Rs.75,000/-
per hectare
for
uncultivable
land
10. Umashankar
Gautam
2739/202
2
10/3 8.4
6
1255/200
9
Appeal
dismissed
without
reducing
compensatio
n at
Rs.1,80,000/
- per hectare
for cultivable
land, Rs.
90,000/- for
uncultivable
land
At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the Reference
Court and even the High Court, the original claimants relied upon Ex. 41,
42, 43 and 44 and other sale deeds/sale instances with respect to the
land of village Lohara. However, the sale deeds with respect to the lands
18
of village Lohara were either of the period subsequent to the land
acquired in the present case and/or the same were with respect to small
areas of land. The High Court has discarded the same with which we
agree.
8. It is also required to be noted that in some of the cases, the
Reference Court, relying upon the sale deed at Ex. 31, added 50%
cumulative increase and awarded compensation, which has been
modified by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order raising
10% price rise/escalation.
9. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has mainly
relied upon Ex. 41, the sale deed with respect to the land bearing Survey
No. 20/2 of the very village Bhoyar dated 18.09.1992, by which one of
the claimants – Satish Nimodiya purchased the said land at Rs. 91,736/p
per hectare. The High Court has rounded off the same to Rs.1,00,000/-
per hectare. Therefore, the High Court has considered the value of the
land in 1992 at Rs. 1,00,000/- per hectare. Considering three years gap
between the sale exemplar dated 18.09.1992 (Ex. 41) and the land
acquired in the present case, the High Court has added 10% increase
cumulatively for three years and has determined the fair market value of
the acquired land at Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare. That thereafter,
considering the fact that the lands acquired have non-agricultural
potentiality and are situated nearer to the industrial area, the High Court
19
has further added 15% and has determined and awarded the
compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare for cultivable land.
In some of the cases, the same is reduced to Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare
or reduced to Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare (Civil Appeal Nos. 2733-
2734/2022), by considering the location of the lands acquired.
10. Looking to the fact that the sale deed produced at Ex. 41 with
respect to the land bearing Survey No. 20/2 was with respect to the very
village Bhoyar which was the only sale exemplar of the same village and
other sale exemplars/sale deeds were with respect to another village
Lohara and also with respect to small pieces of land, we are of the
considered view that the High Court has rightly relied upon and
considered the sale exemplar at Ex. 41 while determining the
compensation in the present cases with respect to the lands of very
village Bhoyar.
However, at the same time, bearing in mind the decision of this
Court in the case of Pehlad Ram (supra), by which this Court has
observed and held that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in
the market value of the land may be accepted, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that instead of 10%
cumulative increase as adopted by the High Court, if 12% cumulative
increase would have been adopted, it would have been just and proper
and in the fitness of things.
20
11. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the claimants that the
lands in question were acquired for the industrial corporation and were to
be used for the industries/commercial purpose and accordingly the
compensation should have been paid is concerned, what is required to
be considered is that the lands in question were agricultural lands. Even
for the purpose of industrial use and/or industries, the corporation is
required to incur the expenditure towards its development and therefore
the development charges would have to be deducted while determining
the compensation. However, in the present case, the development
charges are not deducted. Even otherwise, the future use of the
acquired land cannot be the main criteria to determine the compensation
for the lands acquired.
12. In the case of Hookiyar Singh (supra), it is observed and held that
while determining the compensation, the future use of the land is not the
relevant consideration.
12.1 In the case of Subh Ram (supra), it is observed and held that the
purpose of acquisition is also a relevant factor. However, the said
observation may not apply in all cases and all circumstances as the
general rule is that the landowner is being compensated for what he has
lost and not with reference to the purpose of acquisition. It is further
observed and held that the purpose of acquisition can never be a factor
to increase the market value of the acquired land.
21
13. Now, so far as the compensation determined differently for different
lands acquired with respect to the same village Bhoyar, ranging from Rs.
1,50,000/- per hectare to Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare is concerned,
different market value/compensation can be determined for different
lands located differently in the same village or locality. In the case of
Tarlochan Singh (supra), it is observed and held that it is common
knowledge that all the lands in the same village may not possess the
same quality and command a common market price.
13.1 In the case of Basant Kumar (supra), it is observed and held that
even in the same village, no two lands command same market value.
The lands abutting the main road or national highway would command a
higher market value and as the location of the land is interior, the market
value of such land would be lesser despite the quality of land being
similar to the land on the main road or highway.
13.2 In the case of Kanwar Singh (supra), it is observed and held that
generally there would be difference in the potentiality of lands situated in
two different villages.
14. In the present case, as such, there is already a sale exemplar at
Ex. 41 with respect to very village Bhoyar which as observed
hereinabove can be said to be the best exemplar while determining the
compensation with respect to the lands acquired of the same village
Bhoyar. The High Court has rightly relied upon and considered the sale
22
deed at Ex. 41 being land survey no. 20/2 and determined the market
value at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare in the year 1992 and has rightly
determined the compensation relying upon the sale exemplar produced
at Ex. 41.
However, at the same time, as observed hereinabove, instead of
10% cumulative increase, the High Court ought to have added 12%
increase cumulatively for about three years. To that extent, the
impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is
required to be modified and the appeals preferred by the original
claimants are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Thus,
the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 1,40,492/- per
hectare and after rounding off, it will become Rs.1,50,000/- per hectare.
Further adding 50% towards the non-agricultural potentiality, the fair
market value for determining the compensation would be Rs. 2,25,000/-
per hectare in the cases where the High Court has determined and
awarded the compensation at Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare. There shall be
corresponding reduction in the compensation with respect to other lands
as made by the High Court looking to the location of the lands. Thus,
wherever the High Court has determined the compensation at
Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare, it will come to Rs. 2,00,000/- per hectare and
wherever the High Court has determined the compensation at Rs.
1,50,000/- per hectare, it will come to Rs. 1,75,000/- per hectare. The
23
appeals preferred by the claimants are required to be partly allowed to
the aforesaid extent.
15. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above,
all these appeals are partly allowed. The respective appellants – original
claimants are entitled to the compensation as under, with all statutory
benefits, which may be available to them under the Act.
Sr.
No.
Owner Civil
Appeal
No.
Survey
No.
Are
a
(H)
First Appeal
No.
Compensation
awarded by the
High Court
Compensatio
n awarded
by this Court
01 Shaila Kailash
Chandra Chaudhari
& ors [Kailashchand
had purchased the
acquired land by
sale deed dated
01.04.1989 for Rs.
55,000/-
2744/2
2
33/4 4.4
7
56/2006 Rs. 2,00,000/-
per hectare
Rs.2,25,000/
- per hectare
02 Sindhubai Prajapati 2745/2
2
32/1 1.6
2
489/2017 Rs. 2,00,000/-
per hectare
Rs.2,25,000/
- per hectare
03 Leelabai Langote
(D) through Lrs.
2746-
47/202
2
33/2 2.4
3
124/07 &
591/2006
Rs.2,00,000/-
per hectare
Rs.2,25,000/
- per hectare
04 Lalita Suraswar &
Umashankar
Gautam
2740-
2741/2
022
2/1 3.4
0
1254/2009
& 7/2013
Rs.1,80,000/-
per hectare for
cultivable land
Rs. 90,000/- per
hectare for
uncultivable
land
Rs.2,00,000/
- per hectare
for cultivable
land
Rs.1,00,000/
- per hectare
for
uncultivable
land
05 Dinesh Boara &
Another
2735-
2736/2
022
2/2 2.2
0
216/2011 &
276/2011
Rs.1,80,000/-
per hectare
Rs.2,00,000/
- per hectare
06 Chandrashekhar
Mor
2737-
2738/2
022
4/3 4.0
5
215/2011 &
602/2012
Rs.1,80,000/-
per hectare
Rs.2,00,000/
- per hectare
07 Ramrao Tapase 2732/2
022
31/2 4.9
1
133/2007 Rs.1,50,000/-
per hectare
Rs.1,75,000/
- per hectare
08 Jagannath Zinge 2742-
2743/2
022
17 2.0
2
1234/2009
& 430/2018
Rs.1,50,000/-
per hectare for
cultivable land
Rs.75,000/- per
hectare for
uncultivable
land
Rs.1,75,000/
- per hectare
for cultivable
land
Rs.87,500/-
per hectare
for
uncultivable
land
09 Madhao Lagad (D) 2733- 17 9.5 1248/2009 Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.1,75,000/
24
by Lrs. 2734/2
022
0 & 431/2018 per hectare for
cultivable land
Rs.75,000/- per
hectare for
uncultivable
land
- per hectare
for cultivable
land
Rs.87,500/-
per hectare
for
uncultivable
land
10 Umashankar
Gautam
2739/2
022
10/3 8.4
6
1255/2009 Appeal
dismissed
without reducing
compensation at
Rs.1,80,000/-
per hectare for
cultivable land,
Rs. 90,000/- for
uncultivable
land
Rs.2,00,000/
- per hectare
for cultivable
land
Rs.1,00,000/
- per hectare
for
uncultivable
land
However, so far as Civil Appeal Nos. 2746-2747/2022 and Civil
Appeal No. 2745/2022 are concerned, as there was a delay of 613 and
438 days respectively in preferring the appeals, it is directed that the
claimants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of
compensation for the aforesaid delayed period.
16. All these appeals stand partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….j.
APRIL 19, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
25
26
Comments
Post a Comment