Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — S. 127 — Reservation lapse — Effect of lapse on ownership.
Where the reservation on land lapses under S. 127 MRTP Act, title continues to vest with the original owner. Corporation’s possession of portion beyond acquisition (37 Ares) without acquisition confers no title. (Paras 2 to 5, 29)
(B) Land Acquisition — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 26 — Determination of market value — Method of calculation — Average of highest sale instances — Scope of judicial interference.
S. 26(1)(b) r/w Explanations 1 & 2 mandates adoption of average sale price of similar lands in the nearest vicinity from registered sale deeds of preceding 3 years; one-half of highest-valued sale deeds to be considered.
Reference Court rightly relied on six registered sale transactions proximate in location and period, selecting three highest instances (2014–2016) with 10% annual enhancement to reach market rate ₹ 26,814 per sq m. Interference by High Court in such statutory computation held impermissible. (Paras 24 – 27)
(C) Land Acquisition — Compensation — Rental/Occupational compensation for unauthorised possession prior to acquisition — When entitled — Scope of S. 28 (seventhly).
Claim of rental compensation for period 1972 onwards rejected — Evidence (eviction order 2000; SARFAESI receiver 2008; mortgage transactions) established possession and utilisation of property by original owner — Corporation not in exclusive possession — Hence no unlawful occupation warranting rental compensation.
S. 28 (seventhly) permits equitable relief where facts justify; but claim must rest on proof of unauthorised governmental occupation. (Paras 28 – 36)
(D) Land Acquisition — Compensation — Mesne profits — Equitable interest — Entitlement of purchaser pendente lite.
Appellant-purchaser acquired land (29-07-2011) for ₹ 1.17 crore while land already under governmental use. Though not entitled to “rental compensation,” held entitled to interest at 8% p.a. on ₹ 1.17 crore from 29-07-2011 to 08-05-2017 (date of award/possession) as mesne profits/compensatory interest, applying equitable principle under S. 28 (seventhly). (Paras 36 – 39)
(E) Land Acquisition — Compensation — Enhancement by Reference Court — Restoration of award.
Award of Resettlement Authority (Nagpur) dated 18-03-2021 enhancing compensation to ₹ 20,20,11,533 restored — Includes enhanced market rate and statutory benefits under S. 26 and Schedule of 2013 Act — Interest at 9% p.a. for one year from 09-01-2017 (notification date) and 15% thereafter till realisation, deducting amount awarded by SLAO (29-04-2017). (Para 42)
(F) Practice and Procedure — Adverse judicial remarks — Expunction — Costs — Waiver.
Observations made by High Court against Appellant held unjustified as he was prosecuting statutory remedy bona fide — Adverse remarks expunged and cost of ₹ 10 lakh imposed by High Court waived. (Paras 40 – 41, 45)
Held :
-
Reference Court’s assessment of market rate ₹ 26,814 per sq m based on genuine sale deeds satisfies S. 26; High Court erred in substituting its view.
-
Appellant not entitled to rental compensation for period prior to purchase; however, entitled to 8% interest p.a. on ₹ 1.17 crore from 29-07-2011 to 08-05-2017.
-
Enhanced compensation ₹ 20.20 crore with statutory interest restored.
-
Adverse remarks expunged and cost waived.
(Paras 42 – 45)
Result:
Appeal allowed in part — Award of Reference Court restored — High Court order modified — Observations expunged — Costs waived — No order as to costs.2025 INSC 1236
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 1 of 28
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.18305 OF 2023)
PRADYUMNA MUKUND KOKIL … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NASHIK MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a long-standing dispute
concerning land situated at Survey No. 8/1, Village
Deolali, District Nashik, measuring 1 hectare and 38
Ares (13,800 sq. meters). By Resolution No. 14 dated
03.05.1972, the Nashik Road-Deolali Municipal
Council (now Nashik Municipal Corporation) resolved
to reserve the entire above-mentioned parcel of land
for a high school, playground, and development plan
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 2 of 28
(DP) roads under the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”). On
22.06.1972, the Municipal Council took possession
of 37 Ares (3,700 sq. meters) from Survey No. 8/1 for
public use, albeit without recourse to the formal
acquisition process prescribed under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently, a notification
under Section 126(2) of the MRTP Act read with
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
issued on 02.03.1978, acquiring only 1 hectare and
1 Ares (10,100 sq. meters) for the stated public
purpose, leaving the remaining 37 Ares (3,700 sq.
meters) outside the acquisition. Nevertheless, the
Corporation continued to retain possession and use
of the unacquired portion for road purposes, without
any legal title as alleged.
3. After the passing of the award, no further steps were
taken for acquiring the remaining land measuring
3700 sq. meters. The predecessor in interest of the
Appellant (hereinafter referred to as “Original Owner”)
submitted an application dated 11.08.1995 along
with a development plan under Section 127 of the
MRTP Act to the Respondent - Corporation for
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 3 of 28
development of the land, on the assertion that the
reservation upon the land stood lapsed as per the
MRTP Act and thus, the title continued to vest with
the original owner.
4. When no response was received from the Respondent
- Corporation, Writ Petition (Civil) No.4184 of 1995
was preferred by the Original Owner in the High
Court for acceptance of the prayer as made in the
representation. On 12.11.1998, the High Court
accepted the plea of the Original Owner that the
reservation over the land in question had indeed
lapsed. As regards the development plan and its
approval are concerned, direction to submit fresh
plans with an observation that the respondents
would consider the same without raising the question
of reservation were issued. The Original Owner, in
pursuance to the above order again approached the
Respondent - Corporation and sought sanction of the
development of the land measuring 37 Ares. The said
request was rejected by the Corporation on
27.12.1999 by observing that the land was owned
and possessed by the Respondent - Corporation and
therefore the sanction could not be granted.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 4 of 28
5. An appeal against the said order as provided under
Section 47 of the MRTP Act was preferred on
09.02.2002 which came to be rejected by the State
Government on 05.03.2007 on the ground that post
the proposed acquisition of the land as per the
reservation of site, the possession had been taken by
the Corporation and the land in question measuring
37 Ares had gone into construction as a road.
Direction was, however, issued to the Corporation by
the Appellate Authority to compensate the Original
Owner in respect of the said land in cash or through
issue of Transferable Development Rights (TDR).
6. Being aggrieved, the Original Owner filed Writ
Petition No.3560 of 2009 on 05.03.2009 which came
to be decided vide order dated 18.11.2009 by setting
aside the order impugned passed by the Appellate
Authority and remanded it back to the State
Government for fresh hearing and decision. Direction
was further issued to the State Government to survey
the entire land and clearly identify the acquired land
measuring 1.01 hectares both on map and on site.
The remaining unacquired land for which
development permission was also sought by the
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 5 of 28
Original Owner was to be identified, with liberty to
move a fresh application for the development of the
said identified land.
7. A Special Leave Petition was preferred by the State of
Maharashtra against this order of the High Court
being SLP (Civil) No. CC11311 of 2010, which came
to be dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2010.
8. It is at this stage that the Appellant purchased the
land measuring 37 Ares in Survey No.8/1 from the
original owner vide a registered Conveyance Deed
dated 29.07.2011 for ₹1,17,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore Seventeen Lakhs Only).
9. On 15.09.2011, in compliance with the order passed
by the High Court on 18.11.2009 in Writ Petition
No.3560 of 2009 the Respondents prepared map
No.929 of 2011 which depicted 3700 sq. meters of
land being used as roads.
10. Before the appeal, as remanded by the High Court
could be decided, a fire broke out in the Department
of the Government because of which the records were
destroyed. Various reminders were submitted by the
Appellant but without any result. In these
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 6 of 28
circumstances, the Appellant again approached the
High Court by way of Writ Petition No.11709 of 2012
praying therein for a direction that the land
measuring 3700 sq. meters be acquired by the State
after it had been utilised for constructing the roads.
The Respondent - Corporation took a stand therein
that by the efflux of time and being continuously in
possession of the said land, it had become the owner
of the land by adverse possession. Vide order dated
13.06.2013, the High Court allowed the writ petition
returning a finding that the land was in possession of
the Respondent - Corporation and hence the same
ought to be acquired, leaving it open for the
Respondent - Corporation to pursue the plea of
adverse possession.
11. The appellant, being aggrieved with the liberty
granted to the Corporation to put forth the claim of
adverse possession, challenged the order of the High
Court by filing SLP (Civil) No.35634 of 2013 which
was converted into Civil Appeal No.3874 of 2015.
The Civil Appeal was allowed by this Court to the
extent of setting aside the liberty granted to the
Corporation to pursue the plea of adverse possession
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 7 of 28
while rest of the order of the High Court was
confirmed.
12. When the order of the Court directing acquisition
proceedings to be initiated by the State Government
was not complied with, Contempt Petition (Civil)
No.823 of 2016 was filed before this Court. Upon
notice being issued and response having been filed by
the respondents, this Court vide order dated
03.01.2017 directed the State Government to
expeditiously complete the acquisition and for that
purpose granted exemption to the Corporation from
complying with Section 4 to 15 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (“2013 Act”’). In pursuance of the said
directions, preliminary Notification under Section 11
for acquisition of 3700 sq. meters of land forming part
of the Survey No.8/1 was issued on 09.01.2017
culminating into the award dated 29.04.2017 by
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nasik (SLAO).
According to the said award, total compensation of
₹8,69,46,650/- (Rupees Eight Crore Sixty-Nine Lakh
Forty-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Only) was
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 8 of 28
assessed as payable. It would not be out of place to
mention here that this included extended benefit
contemplated under Section 26 and Schedule of 2013
Act, that is, solatium and additional compensation at
the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
notification till the date of award along with other
statutory entitlements.
13. After passing of the award and the amount having
been deposited by the Municipal Corporation, the
Appellant, while accepting the awarded amount,
under protest, issued a Possession Receipt dated
08.05.2017 in execution of the transfer of possession
and ownership of the acquired land as per award.
14. The Appellant, being aggrieved with regard to the
assessment of the compensation as well as the non
grant of any benefit with regard to the illegal
occupation of the land by the Municipal Corporation
prior to the acquisition of the land i.e., from the year
1972 till 2017 preferred reference dated 26.05.2017
against the said award.
15. The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority, Nagpur (“Resettlement
Authority”) allowed the Reference and enhanced the
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 9 of 28
compensation to ₹20,20,11,533/- (Rupees Twenty
Crore Twenty Lakh Eleven Thousand Five Hundred
and Thirty-Three Only) vide award dated 18.03.2021.
Apart from the said amount resorting to Section 26
Clause (vii) granted rental compensation for the
period 22.06.1972 to 22.04.1979 at the rate of 6% per
annum and thereafter till the date of notification i.e.,
09.01.2017 at the rate of 8% per annum on the
amount of enhanced compensation as awarded now
i.e., ₹20,20,11,533/- (Rupees Twenty Crore Twenty
Lakh Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and ThirtyThree Only) to the tune of ₹238,87,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Hundred Thirty-Eight Crores and Eighty-Seven
Lakhs only) for illegal occupation/possession of the
land in question by the Municipal Corporation. In
addition, interest at the rate of 6% per annum for
delayed payment of rental compensation from 1973
to 09.01.2017 was also awarded.
16. This award dated 18.03.2021 came to be challenged
by the Respondent - Corporation by way of First
Appeal No.602 of 2021 before the High Court which
finally came to be decided vide the impugned
judgment and order dated 04.05.2023 setting aside
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 10 of 28
the award passed by the Resettlement and
Rehabilitation Authority and restoring the award as
passed by the SLAO dated 29.04.2017.
17. The learned senior counsel for the Appellant while
challenging the impugned judgment has put forth
two submissions. First being with reference to the
compensation as was awarded by the Reference
Court by enhancing the same over and above the one
which was awarded by the SLAO making specific
reference to Section 26 of the 2013 Act. It is asserted
that the SLAO had erred in not taking into
consideration the sale instances which were brought
on record and pointed out by the Appellant while
proceeding to take into consideration the rates as
fixed under the ready reckoner by ignoring the same.
Referring to the award passed by the Resettlement
Authority, senior counsel has pointed out the sale
transactions given by the Appellant as references for
the evaluation of rate of the property in his
application, which sale instances have not been
denied by the Respondent - Corporation, the
Reference Authority had rightly proceeded to take
into consideration the rate per square meters. As per
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 11 of 28
the provisions of the Statute the three sale instances
on the higher rate of the acquired land being of the
year 2014 required to be brought at the market rate
by enhancing it at 10% increase in the sale price of
the deeds. The three sale instances having higher
price were referred to by the counsel and asserted
that the average as taken comes to ₹26,814/- per
square meter. With the said amount having been
assessed as per the settlement principles and the
Statute along with the grant of the statutory benefits,
the amount as assessed and the compensation as
awarded totalling ₹20,20,11,533/- (Rupees Twenty
Crore Twenty Lakh Eleven Thousand Five Hundred
and Thirty-Three Only) cannot be faulted with. He
therefore contends that the High Court was not right
in interfering with the said findings returned by the
Reference Court.
18. Secondly, as regards the setting aside of the grant of
rental value in the form of compensation for
unauthorised and illegal occupation of the land
which was owned by the Appellant at the time of
acquisition, learned senior counsel supports the
same on the basis of the settlement principle by
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 12 of 28
making reference to the judgments of this Court and
High Court including Udho Dass v. State of Haryana
and Others1, R.L. Jain (D) by LRs v. DDA and Others2,
Dinkar Sandipan Gholve & Others v. State of
Maharashtra and Others3 and government
resolutions, which endorse rental relief for
unauthorized government occupation of land before
acquisition. He presses into service the seventh
parameter of Section 28 i.e., benefit to affected
families, equity and justice, explicitly authorizing
additional compensation of this nature in the form of
rent for unauthorised occupation. Senior Counsel
submitted that the appellant, being deprived of
beneficial ownership from 1972, was entitled to such
rental compensation under both statutory and
equitable principles. On this basis, prayer has been
made that the findings returned by the Reference
Court needed to be restored in light of settled
jurisprudential principles and the legislative intent.
19. The learned senior counsel for the Appellant has
submitted that the personal observations made
1 (2010) 12 SCC 51
2 (2004) 4 SCC 79
3 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 696 : 2009 Supp Bom CR 891
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 13 of 28
against the Appellant by the High Court are
unjustified and uncalled for as the Appellant was
bonafidely asserting his right and claim based on the
pleadings. The said observations therefore may be set
aside. Similarly, he asserts that the cost as imposed
of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) may be set
aside as these were as a consequence of the
observations against the Appellant. On this basis, he
prays for acceptance of the present appeal by setting
aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.
20. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the
respondents has supported the order passed by the
High Court by asserting that the valuation as has
been assessed by the SLAO was based upon the
records which were made available to him at the time
of working out the value of the land. As the instances
which were pointed out and were made available to
him pertained to small pieces of land or were not in
immediate vicinity of the land in question which were
sought to be acquired, the resort to the ready
reckoner cannot be faulted with. It has further been
asserted that the assessment as has been made by
the SLAO being in accordance with the rates as has
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 14 of 28
been assessed and fixed by the competent authority,
the same has been rightly relied upon for fixing the
market rate and granting the compensation to the
Appellant.
21. The senior counsel submits that the High Court was
right in denying the Appellant the rental
compensation. The rental compensation could not
have been granted as the same is not specifically
provided for under the 2013 Act. Clause 7(3) of
Section 26 of the 2013 Act cannot be expanded to
include and grant a benefit which was not specifically
made available under the Statute. Had it been the
intention of the Legislature to grant such a benefit, it
could have been so mentioned as has been mentioned
in the earlier clauses. The factors which were
required to be taken into consideration have been
duly considered by the SLAO and rightly denied the
grant of rental compensation as sought for by the
Appellant. Prayer has thus been made for dismissal
of the appeal by upholding the order under challenge.
22. Having considered the submission made by the
counsel for the parties and on going through the
records which have been made available and referred
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 15 of 28
to during the course of hearing, we proceed to decide
the case in hand.
23. Facts, as has been narrated above, are not in dispute
and therefore the two basic issues as has been raised
by the learned counsel for the Appellant need to be
considered and decided.
(i) the assessment of the value of the land in
question which has been acquired i.e., 3700 sq.
meters from the Survey No.8/1, and
(ii) the entitlement or otherwise of the claim of
rental compensation and if yes, then the date
and amount payable.
24. Taking the first issue first i.e., the assessment of the
amount of compensation as claimed by the Appellant.
The governing factor would be the provisions as
contained under the 2013 Act. Section 26 of the Act,
therefore, essentially is required to be looked into,
which deals with the determination of the market
value of the land by the Collector. The relevant
portion thereof would read as follows:-
“26. Determination of market value of land by
Collector.–(1) The Collector shall adopt the
following criteria in assessing and determining the
market value of the land, namely:––
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 16 of 28
(a) ….
(b) The average sale price for similar type of
land situated in the nearest village or
nearest vicinity area; or
(c) …..
xxx xxx xxx
Explanation 1.––The average sale price referred to in
clause (b) shall be determined taking into account
the sale deeds or the agreements to sell registered
for similar type of area in the near village or near
vicinity area during immediately preceding three
years of the year in which such acquisition of land
is proposed to be made.
Explanation 2.––For determining the average sale
price referred to in Explanation 1, one-half of the
total number of sale deeds or the agreements to sell
in which the highest sale price has been mentioned
shall be taken into account.
…”
25. Section 26(1)(b) read with Explanations 1 and 2
prescribes a statutory method for arriving at the
market value by reference to the average sale price of
similar lands in the nearest village or nearest vicinity,
computed from sale-deeds or agreements to sell
registered in the immediately preceding three years;
Explanation 2 supplies the selection rule by directing
mode to arrive at the average, one-half of the total
number of deeds or agreements in which the highest
sale price has been mentioned shall be taken into
account.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 17 of 28
26. The Reference Court, while determining the market
value, noted that the claimant had produced six
registered sale transactions of lands situated in the
vicinity of the acquired land and pertaining to the
same period as the acquisition. Upon perusal of the
sale deeds, the Court recorded that the said
transactions were genuine and undisputed and that
they reflected the prevailing market value in the
locality at the relevant time. The Court observed that
the exemplar sale deeds were of lands similarly
situated, abutting the same approach road and
possessing comparable potentiality for development.
The acquired land is situated in a fully developed area
having both residential and commercial localities; it
is surrounded by schools, malls and hospitals and is
at a distance of about 1 k.m. from Nashik Road
Railway Station. Thus, holds high potential for both
commercial and residential use.
27. The Reference Court proceeded to compute the
average sale price as contemplated under Section
26(1)(b) read with Explanation 2 of the 2013 Act, by
making reasonable adjustments keeping in view the
size of the plots, their situation and the time-gap
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 18 of 28
between the sale instances and the notification under
Section 11. The sale instances taken into
consideration by the Reference Court where the three
out of the cited six which were highest in value when
taken per square meter. Since these sale instances
are of the year 2014 to 2016, with Section 11
notification being of 09.01.2017 to reach at the
market price 10% increase was added. The market
rate came out to ₹26,814/- (Rupees Twenty-Six
Thousand Eight Hundred and Fourteen Only). The
said amount being in accordance with the Statutory
provisions could not have been interfered with by the
High Court. The principles and the judgments as has
been relied upon by the High Court would not be
applicable to the facts of the case as well as the
mandate of the Statute referred to above.
28. As regards the second aspect i.e., claim of the
Appellant relating to the rental compensation for the
unauthorised occupation of the land in question, the
same needs to be looked into from the perspective of
the pleadings. Both the parties all through have been
claiming possession of the same as is reflected from
and culled out in the claims and counter claims
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 19 of 28
during the course of the lis. Although, all through the
claim of the Respondent - Corporation has been that
it had been in possession of the land in question since
the year 1972.
29. The factum with regard to the assertion relatable to
the title has been settled by various orders which
have been passed by the High Court and this Court
in favour of the Appellant till the date of passing of
the award and taking over of the possession after the
passing of the award i.e., 08.05.2017.
30. On the other hand, there are pleadings as well as the
documents on record which indicate that the
Respondent - Corporation has not been in exclusive
possession of the subject land. This is apparent from
the pleadings of the Original Owner as well as the
Appellant in the writ petitions which have been
preferred by them in the High Court from time to
time. Starting with the first writ petition i.e., Writ
Petition No.4184 of 1995, where on the basis of the
lapse of reservation, notice under Section 127 of the
MRTP Act was served upon the Respondent -
Corporation for re-development of the land, where the
specific assertion was made that the possession
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 20 of 28
remained with the Original Owner. All through
thereafter the possession has been claimed and
asserted by the Original Owner which is apparent
from the subsequent writ petitions also which have
been preferred i.e., Writ Petition No. 3560 of 2009,
Writ Petition No. 11709 of 2012, and others where
continuous possession and ownership claims by the
Original Owner have been maintained and reiterated.
31. Another fact, which has not been disputed by the
Appellant, pointing towards the possession of the
land in question of the Original Owner is mortgage of
the property including the subject property contained
in Survey No.8/1/1A for availing loan. It is also not
in dispute that the proceedings under the SARFAESI
Act 2002 were initiated on default and on order
passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 10.09.2008
appointing a Receiver, who, took over the possession
of the said property. This much with regard to the
possession and utilisation of the land by the Original
Owner – the predecessor in interest in title of the
Appellant.
32. Now coming on to the date when the title was
conferred upon the Appellant vide sale deed dated
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 21 of 28
29.07.2011. A perusal of this sale deed would clearly
depict that the possession of the land in question had
all through been with the Original Owner. Reference
in this regard can be made to Para 6 of the sale deed,
where it is clearly mentioned that the family of Shri
Sonwane was residing in the property in question as
tenants which got lapsed leading to filing of two
tenancy cases which led to the passing of an order of
eviction by the Tehsildar on 22.06.2000. Possession
of the same was obtained from the tenants. The sale
deed further indicates that the possession was
handed over to the Appellant by way of the said
document which he received and acknowledged.
33. It is, therefore, established from the above documents
that the Original Owner had not been deprived of the
benefit of possession or usage of the property in
question all through, which, as a matter of fact has
been claimed by the Appellant. The documents
clearly reveal, as has been referred to above, that the
property had not been in exclusive possession of the
Respondent - Corporation rather actual physical
possession of the subject-property was with the
Original Owner and utilisation thereof for all intent
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 22 of 28
and purposes including taking benefit of ownership
of the said property either in the form of loan or rent
thereof stands admitted and established. The claim
of rental compensation advanced by the Appellant,
particularly for the period prior to the purchase date
29.07.2011, is untenable in light of the settled
position in law which confines the grant of rental
compensation to cases involving unlawful and
unauthorized occupation. As held in R.L. Jain (supra),
rental or damages for use shall be awarded only
where possession is unlawfully detained by the
acquiring authority prior to notification or
acquisition. The claim thus with regard to the rental
compensation as put forth by the Appellant at least
prior to the date of purchase of the land at the hands
of the Appellant cannot be accepted.
34. Section 28 directs the Collector to take into account
specified parameters while determining the amount
of compensation, and the seventh parameter “any
other ground which may be in the interest of equity,
justice and beneficial to the affected families” is a
residuary provision designed to meet cases of
equitable exigency which are not expressly covered by
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 23 of 28
the first six heads; it empowers the Collector to award
such ancillary compensation as may be necessary to
do justice between the parties, including
compensation for use and occupation or other heads
of damage where the facts so warrant.
35. As has been discussed above, there is evidence on
record in particular the order dated 22.06.2000 of the
Tehsildar ordering eviction of tenant in favour of the
Original Owner, together with subsequent SARFAESI
proceedings in which a Receiver was appointed which
establishes occupation, use and enjoyment of the
land which is subject matter of acquisition by the
Original Owner – the predecessor of the appellant and
thus rental compensation as claimed on the basis of
displacement and unauthorised occupation by the
Respondent - Corporation is falsified.
36. It is admitted by the Appellant that, acting on the
assurance of ownership and to secure the title, the
Appellant funded the acquisition by paying
₹1,17,00,000/– (Rupees One Crore and Seventeen
Lakh Only). In the circumstances, and having regard
to the equitable mandate of Section 28 (seventhly) to
do complete justice to the affected parties, the
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 24 of 28
Appellant is entitled to compensatory mesneprofits/interest on that payment for the period of the
State’s occupation up to the date of actual payment
of compensation. The approach accords with the
established practice of this Court to award preacquisition interest/mesne-profits where the
possession of land is taken by the acquiring Authority
prior to completing the process of acquisition as a
remedial measure under the equitable limb of the
statute. Reference can be made to the judgment of
this Court in Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil and
Others v. State of Maharashtra4.
37. The Appellant, although, as per the sale deed received
possession of the land purchased, but has not
claimed that he had utilised the said land for any
purpose, rather had approached the High Court to
direct the Respondent to acquire the land purchased
by him by filing Writ Petition No.11709 of 2012 as the
Respondent - Corporation was in possession of the
land which fact was not denied rather admitted on
the part of the Respondent - Corporation of it being
in possession, the benefit, if any, would be available
4 (2022) 15 SCC 657 : 2021 INSC 501
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 25 of 28
to the Appellant with effect from the date of sale deed
i.e., 29.07.2011 till the date of passing of the award
and receipt of compensation i.e., 08.05.2017.
38. As is admitted at hands of the Appellant that the land
in question was sought to be purchased after having
been assured of the ownership in the light of the
orders passed by this Court, the cost of which as paid
by the Appellant was ₹1,17,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore and Seventeen Lakh Only), he would be entitled
to compensation in the form of interest at the rate of
8% per annum on the said amount for the period
referred to above.
39. In the light of the above, the judgment and order of
the High Court with regard to the denial of
rental/compensation to the Appellant from the
Respondent - Corporation is upheld. However, for
the period 29.07.2011 to 08.05.2017 the Appellant is
held entitled to compensation to the extent indicated
above.
40. As regards, the submission and prayer of the learned
senior counsel for the Appellant about the adverse
observations recorded by the High Court in the
impugned order against the Appellant and the
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 26 of 28
consequential imposition of costs of ₹10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakh Only) is concerned, we find that
the Appellant was prosecuting the remedy as
available to him under the Statute and advanced
evidence in support of his such claims. In those
circumstances the observations and the order for an
exaction of costs of ₹10,00,000/– (Rupees Ten Lakh
Only) ought not to be permitted to stand.
41. The observation as made against the Appellant by the
High Court in the impugned order may not be
justified in the given facts and circumstances of the
present case, as dealt with above, and therefore
needs to be expunged. The cost as imposed would
also be waived.
42. In the light of the above discussion, the present
appeal is allowed to the extent of restoring the award
as passed by the Reference Court dated 18.03.2021
granting enhanced compensation of ₹11,50,64,883/-
(Rupees Eleven Crore Fifty Lakh Sixty-Four
Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty-Three Only),
total compensation being ₹20,20,11,533/- (Rupees
Twenty Crores Twenty Lakhs Eleven Thousand Five
Hundred and Thirty-Three Only) with interest on the
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 27 of 28
awarded amount at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of notification issued under Section 11 i.e.,
09.01.2017 for one year and thereafter at the rate of
15% per annum till realisation of the full amount on
the awarded amount of ₹20,20,11,533/- (Rupees
Twenty Crore Twenty Lakh Eleven Thousand Five
Hundred and Thirty-Three Only), deducting
compensation awarded and disbursed by Land
Acquisition Officer vide Award dated 29.04.2017.
43. As regards the claim of rental compensation of the
Appellant, the same is denied by upholding the
impugned judgment of the High Court for the period
1972 onwards.
44. Appellant is however, held entitled to grant of interest
at the rate of 8% per annum on ₹1,17,00,000/-
(Rupees One Crore and Seventeen Lakh Only) as
mesne profit/compensation with effect from
29.07.2011 till 08.05.2017.
45. The personal observations as made in the impugned
order against the Appellant by the High Court stand
expunged in the facts and circumstances of the case
and costs as imposed shall stand waived off.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.18305/2023 Page 28 of 28
46. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
47. There shall be no order as to costs.
48. Pending application(s), if any, shall be disposed of.
.…...……….……………………..CJI.
[ B. R. GAVAI ]
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 15, 2025.
