NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3590 OF 2012
Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) by
L.Rs. and others … Appellants
versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer and others … Respondents
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3591 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3670 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3671 OF 2012
J U D G M E N T
G. S. Singhvi, J.
1. With a view to implement the New Bombay Project, the Government
of Maharashtra acquired large tracts of land in different villages of
the State. The appellants’ land measuring 3,86,790 square meters in
Roadpali (Kolekhar) Village, Panvel Taluka, Raigad District was also
acquired for the project. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued on 3.2.1970
and declaration under Section 6(1) was issued on 24.8.1972. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer passed different awards for different
parcels of land and fixed market value of the acquired land in the
range of Rs.1.75 per square meter to Rs. 2.50 per square meter.
2. The appellants did not file application under Section 18 of the
Act for determination of compensation by the Court, but after
amendment of the Act with effect from 24.9.1984 and disposal of the
references made at the instance of other landowners, they filed an
application under Section 28A(1) for redetermination of market value
of the acquired land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer held that
the landowners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1.20 per
square meter to Rs.2/- per square meter. The appellants then filed an
application under Section 28A(3) for award of compensation at the rate
of Rs.100/- per square meter. They pleaded that the acquired land was
very close to Sion-Panvel Highway and had tremendous non-agricultural
potential, nearby area had been industrialized and District Judge,
Raigad-Alibag had awarded higher compensation to other landowners
whose lands situated at Village Ambetarkhar (Roadpali), Taluka Panvel
had been acquired for the New Bombay Project. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer controverted the claim of the appellants and
pleaded that on the date of Section 4(1) notification, i.e., 3.2.1970,
the appellants’ land was undeveloped and was being used only for the
purpose of agriculture, which depended on monsoon.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Alibag (hereinafter described as ‘the Reference Court’) framed the
following issues:
“1. Whether the claimants prove that the compensation amount
awarded by the opponent is insufficient and inadequate in view
of the situation, location, sale statistics and N.A.
potentiality of the acquired land.
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced
compensation? If yes, what quantum?
3. What order or award?”
4. In support of their claim, the appellants examined Shri Abdul
Majid Mulla (one of the landowners) and Shri Vikrant Manohar Vaidya,
who had prepared valuation report (Ext.24) and map (Ext.25). They
also relied upon certified copies of the judgment of the High Court in
F.A. No.544/90 – Chandar Krishan Gayakwad v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Panvel (Ext.29), F.A. No.423/96 – State of Maharashtra v.
Chandrakant Bhiva Patil (Ext.30), F.A. No.1074/89 – State of
Maharashtra v. Laxman Bhiva Patil (Ext.31), F.A. No.457/93 – State of
Maharashtra v. Ramachandra Damodar Koli and others (Ext.16) as also
the awards passed by the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.168/86 (Ext.13),
L.A.R. No.172/86 (Ext.14) and L.A.R. No.1334/2000 (Ext.15). On
behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, no evidence was
produced in support of the assertion that the acquired land was
undeveloped and it did not have non-agricultural potential.
5. The Reference Court considered the evidence produced by the
appellants and held that the acquired land had non-agricultural
potential and the Special Land Acquisition Officer committed
grave error by fixing market value on the premise that it was an
undeveloped land and was being used for agricultural purposes
only. The detailed reasons recorded by the Reference Court for
arriving at this conclusion are reproduced below:
“It is an admitted fact that civic amenities were available to
Panvel Town prior to 1970. Construction of Thane Creek bridge
brought various villages including village Roadpali (Kolhekhar)
close to Bombay. The proximity of National Highway No.4, Panvel-
Sion Highway, Diva-Panvel-Apta railway line, vicinity of Jawahar
Industrial Estate, MI D.C. Industrial Estate Taloja, Panvel
Industrial Estate, shows that even in the year 1970 the lands
under reference were enjoying transport and communication
facility. Thus, the lands under reference were ready-made for
N.A. use and only obstacle was absence of conversion. Therefore,
though the lands under reference were under paddy cultivation
it’s non-agricultural potentiality cannot be disputed and the
lands will have to be assessed as non-agricultural land. While
dealing with the land Reference Appeal No. 92 and 94 of 1985 in
respect of the lands situated at Panvel acquired on 3.2.1970 the
Hon’ble High Court Bombay has taken judicial note about non-
agricultural potentiality of the nearby area of Bombay city. In
the case of Shashikant Krishanji (kandpile) Mali V/s. SLAO
Panvel, Raigad, reported in 1993 B.C.J. 27 it is observed by the
Hon’ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court that-
“the aforementioned towns, are, what they are because of
their closeness to the Metropolitan centre of Bombay. It is
also evident that the scope for growth in the direction of
Pune and Nashik has been virtually exhausted, and that,
growth now lies in the direction of the districts of Raigad
and Ratnagir. Judicial notice has to be taken of the fact
that almost all the areas in the proximity of Bombay have
been growing at a phenomenal rate and that Panvel is no
exception to this feature of rapid growth.”
In a case of Nama Padu Huddar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported
in 1994 B.C.J. 316 the Hon’ble High Court Bombay observed that-
“Judicial note can be taken of the fact that the industrial
growth in and around Bombay has started with rapid stride
from the year 1965 onwards. In fact, the growth is by leaps
and bounds in the magnitude of industries as well as number
of industries and virtually all the industry of the country
are represented on the industrial estates scattered on this
highway. It is also an admitted position that on this
highway on all sides the facility of electric supply is
available as also of abundant water supply. In the area in
question it is also an admitted position that all the lands
have suitable access roads of Zilla Parishad and State
Highway including lands which are the farthest from the
highway.”
The Learned D.G.P. Shri P.S. Patil, for the Opponent argued that
the lands under endurance were paddy yielding land depending
upon mansoon, yielding once in a year, and therefore, the lands
under reference were not having N.A. potentiality on the date of
notification. However, in view of the observation of the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in the above cited ruling argument advanced by
learned D.G.P. is devoid of substance. In view of Section 56 of
the Indian Evidence Act a fact judicially noticed need not be
proved. The effect of taking judicial note of any fact means
recognition of the fact without formal proof and no one can
question it. Even court can’t insist of formal proof by
evidence. Judicial note take place of proof. Nearness of Bombay
City which is economic capital of our country and magnitude of
industrial development around the lands under reference is
sufficient to say that the lands under reference were having
tremendous N.A. potentiality on the date of notification.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. The Reference Court referred to the judgments of District Judge,
Raigad-Alibag in LAR Nos.168/86 and 172/86 by which compensation
at the rate of Rs.90/- per square meter was awarded for the land
situated at Ambetarkhar (Roadpali), Taluka Panvel, which was
also acquired for the New Bombay Project, but held that the same
are of no help to the appellants because in those cases, this
Court had issued a direction to the Special Land Acquisition
Officer to pay compensation at the market rate prevailing as on
1.1.1977.
7. The Reference Court then noticed the judgments of the High Court
in Shashikant Krishanji v. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Panvel, Raigad (1993) BCJ 27, Nama Padu Huddar v. State of
Maharashtra (1994) BCJ 316 and observed:
“The certified copy of the judgment in First Appeal No. 544/90
Chandrakant Gaikwad V/s. S.L.A.O. Panvel is at Exh. 29. After
its perusal it transpires that the Hon'ble High Court Bombay
granted compensation @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. to the land
situated at village Taloja acquired vide notification dt.
3.2.1970. It seems from the certified copy of the judgment in
First Appeal No. 423/96 Chandrakant Bhiva Patil Vs. S.L.A.O.
Panvel Exh. 30 that the Hon'ble High Court Bombay awarded
compensation @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. To the land situated at
village Nawada acquired on 3.2.1970. Certified copy of the
judgment in First Appeal No. 1074/89 state of Maharashtra Vs.
Laxman Bhiva Patil Exh. 31 shows that the Hon'ble High Court
Bombay granted compensation @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. To the land
of Village Pendhar, Taluka Panvel, acquired vide notification
dt. 3.2.1970.
Thus, from the judgments on record it is quite obvious that the
Hon'ble High Court Bombay has awarded compensation @ Rs. 25/-
per sq. mtr. In respect of the lands of village Taloja, Pendhar
and Nawade acquired vide Notification dt. 3.2.1970. So far as
lands under reference are concerned, in a case reported in
1997(2) Mh. L.R. 325 State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Vs.
Ramchand Damodar Koli and others.. Respondents, the Hon'ble High
Court Bombay has allowed the claimants' cross objection and
ordered that the claimants shall be entitled for compensation @
Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. On their paying additional court-fees
within two weeks. The land involved in the abovecited ruling
belongs to Village Roadpali (Ambetarkhar). Ambetarkhar and
Kolhekhar are the parts of Village Roadpali. The land involved
in the reference in hand and the land involved in the abovecited
ruling acquired for the same purpose i.e. for New Bombay
Project, vide Notification dt. 3.2.1970. It reveals from xerox
copy of from the letter No. Civil/Reg. No. 28.01.2002 dt. 3rd
July, 2003 addressed to the Secretary, Government of
Maharashtra, L & J Department Mantralya Mumbai, by the Asstt.
Govt. Pleader, High Court, Mumbai, produced on record with the
list Exh. 33/1 by the Ld.D.G.P., that, in First Appeal No.
560/91 arising out of LAR No. 350/89 the Hon'ble High Court
Bombay awarded compensation @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. To the land
from village Roadpali, and the Asstt. Govt. Pleader, High Court
Mumbai, opined that the said case is not fit for appeal. The
land involved in the reference in hand and the land involved in
the case reported in 1997(2) Mh. L.R. 325 are virtually
identical situated in the same area bearing similar
topographical and physical characteristics covered by the same
notification dt.3.2.1970. When the nearby land of the land under
reference fetch market value @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. On the
date of notification, certainly the land under reference fetch
the same market value.”
(as contained in the paper book)
8. The State Government questioned the determination made by the
Reference Court by filing an appeal under Section 54 of the Act and
prayed for reduction in the amount of compensation on the ground that
the acquired land was undeveloped and was being used for agricultural
purposes. Another plea taken by the State Government was that the
Reference Court had erroneously overlooked the distance criteria,
which was followed by the High Court in other cases for determination
of the amount of compensation. The appellants also filed F.A.
No.1118/2005 and prayed that the amount of compensation be enhanced
keeping in view the judgment in LAR Nos. 168/86 and 172/86. They
pleaded that the Reference Court had not paid adequate attention to
the fact that the acquired land was in the vicinity of the industrial
estates developed at Taloja and Panvel and a number of highways.
9. The Division Bench of the High Court took cognizance of the
earlier judgments in which the compensation was determined keeping in
view the distance of the acquired land from Bombay-Pune Highway and
held that the appellants are not entitled to compensation in excess of
what was awarded to the other landowners. The Division Bench accepted
the State’s plea for reduction in the amount of compensation and also
held that 15% of market value is liable to be deducted towards
development charges.
10. The review petition filed by the appellants was partly allowed
by the High Court vide order dated 7.6.2007 and it was held that those
having land upto a distance of 500 meters from Bombay-Pune Highway
shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square
meter and those having land beyond 500 meters shall be entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs.18/- per square meter.
11. Shri Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel argued that the
Reference Court and the High Court committed serious error by not
awarding compensation to the appellants at par with the other
landowners whose claim for higher compensation was decided by District
Judge, Raigad-Alibag in LAR Nos.168/86 and 172/86. Learned senior
counsel emphasized that the appellants’ land and the land situated in
Village Ambetarkhar was acquired for implementation of the New Bombay
Project and argued that there could be no valid ground or
justification to discriminate similarly situated landowners in the
matter of award of compensation. He pointed out that the acquired land
is in the vicinity of fully developed industrial area as also Sion-
Panvel Highway, Mumabi-Goa Highway (NH-17) apart from Bombay-Pune
Highway (NH-4) and argued that the compensation awarded to the
appellants should be enhanced because the Reference Court and the High
Court committed an error by not considering the geography of the land
and its potential use for non-agricultural purposes. Shri Bhushan
submitted that while preparing valuation report (Ext.24), Shri Vikrant
Manohar Vaidya had taken note of the fact that the acquired land was
very close to the industrial estate developed at Panvel and Taloja and
railway line had been laid, but the Reference Court and the High Court
did not give due weightage to the expert report for the purpose of
determination of the amount of compensation and this has caused
serious injustice to the appellants. Learned senior counsel relied
upon the judgment in Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional
Officer v. L. Kamalamma (1998) 2 SCC 385 and argued that the distance
from the highway cannot be made the sole benchmark for fixing market
value of the acquired land which is in the vicinity of fully developed
area. Shri Bhushan also invited our attention to judgment dated
21.6.2009 of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby the
appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra and the landowners against
the judgment of District Judge, Raigad in LAR No. 172 of 1986 were
disposed of by assessing market value of the land situated at Village
Ambetarkhar at Rs.60/- per square meter as on 1.1.1977.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned
judgment and order and argued that the High Court did not commit any
error by determining the amount of compensation keeping in view the
distance criteria, which was applied in all other cases for fixing
market value of the land acquired for the New Bombay Project. Learned
counsel also submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench in FA
Nos. 219-220 of 1989 and FA Nos. 568-569 of 1989 cannot be relied upon
for awarding higher compensation to the appellants because in respect
of the land situated in Village Ambetarkhar, Taluka Panvel, District
Raigad, this Court had issued direction in the earlier round of
litigation that the compensation be determined on the basis of market
value prevailing on 1.1.1977.
13. We have considered the respective arguments and carefully
perused the record. It is settled law that while fixing market value
of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to
keep in mind the following factors:
(i) Existing geographical situation of the land.
(ii) Existing use of the land.
(iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National
or State High Way or road and/or developed area.
(iv) Market value of other land situated in the same
locality/village/area or adjacent or very near the acquired
land.
14. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC
577, this Court laid down the following principles for determination
of market value of the acquired land:
“Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be
considered in determining the compensation; the principal among
which is the determination of the market value of the land on
the date of the publication of the notification under sub-
section (1) of Section 4.
One of the principles for determination of the amount of
compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of
an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any
cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed
buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the
owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the
cases where he is not.
Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in
the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the
special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material
is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands
in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under
Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other
evidences have to be considered.
The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with
mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be
identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as
well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the
market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment
has to be made having regard to various positive and negative
factors vis-à-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two
in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as
under:
|Positive factors |Negative factors |
| | |
|(i) smallness of size |(i) largeness of area |
|(ii) proximity to a road |(ii) situation in the |
| |interior at a distance from |
| |the road |
|(iii) frontage on a road |(iii) narrow strip of land |
| |with very small frontage |
| |compared to depth |
|(iv) nearness to developed |(iv) lower level requiring |
|area |the depressed portion to be |
| |filled up |
|(v) regular shape |(v) remoteness from |
| |developed locality |
|(vi) level vis-à-vis land |(vi) some special |
|under acquisition |disadvantageous factors |
| |which would deter a |
| |purchaser |
|(vii) special value for an | |
|owner of an adjoining | |
|property to whom it may | |
|have some very special | |
|advantage | |
Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large
block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan,
carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller
plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an
entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and
50% of the total price.”
15. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 568, the Court
held:
“In order to determine the compensation which the tenure-holders
are entitled to get for their land which has been acquired, the
main question to be considered is what is the market value of
the land. Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the court has
to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the
court shall not take into consideration and have to be
neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the court is to
determine the market value of the land acquired. The expression
“market value” has been the subject-matter of consideration by
this Court in several cases. The market value is the price that
a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the
property having due regard to its existing condition with all
its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led
out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to
carrying out of the scheme for which the property is
compulsorily acquired. In considering market value
disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the
urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded.
The guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing
vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human
conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal
market conditions but not an anxious dealing at arm's length nor
facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick
succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The
determination of market value is the prediction of an economic
event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in
terms of probabilities. See Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of
Bihar, Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P., Administrator
General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi and Periyar Pareekanni
Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala.
For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality
of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration.
Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or
developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that
market value of a property has to be determined having due
regard to its existing condition with all its existing
advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its
most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has
potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon
its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is
reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential,
commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing
amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further
extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect
of development have to be taken into consideration. See
Collector v. Dr. Harisingh Thakur, Raghubans Narain Singh v.
U.P. Govt. and Administrator General, W.B. v. Collector
Varanasi. It has been held in Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land
Acquisition Officer and Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust
that failing to consider potential value of the acquired land is
an error of principle.”
16. In fixing market value of the acquired land, which is
undeveloped or under-developed, the Courts have generally approved
deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except
when no development is required to be made for implementation of the
public purpose for which land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of
Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354, the Court held:
“............It is well settled that in respect of agricultural
land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing
or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation
has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on
the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its
nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development
and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to
develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or
commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of
the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the
purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in
the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have
a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So
the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the
area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully
developed and nothing more is required to be done for
developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that
it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such
evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a
developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of
the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the
land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not
give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of
land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main
road, the remaining large area where planned development is
required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer,
water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc.
However, in cases of some land where there are certain
advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help
in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the
developmental charges required may be less on that account.
There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken
into consideration while applying the cut in payment of
compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases
it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must
be remembered that there is difference between a developed area
and an area having potential value, which is yet to be
developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a
developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in
the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot,
particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for
development purpose.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in Tejumal Bhojwani
v. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525, V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land
Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P.
Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v.
Allahabad Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC 745. In Lal Chand v.
Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Court indicated that percentage
of deduction for development to be made for arriving at market value
of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural land with potential for
development can vary between 20 and 75 per cent of the price of
developed plots and observed:
“The ‘deduction for development’ consists of two components. The
first is with reference to the area required to be utilised for
developmental works and the second is the cost of the
development works. …
Therefore the deduction for the ‘development factor’ to be made
with reference to the price of a small plot in a developed
layout, to arrive at the cost of undeveloped land, will be for
more than the deduction with reference to the price of a small
plot in an unauthorised private layout or an industrial layout.
It is also well known that the development cost incurred by
statutory agencies is much higher than the cost incurred by
private developers, having regard to higher overheads and
expenditure.”
18. In A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy (2010) 12 SCC 707, the
rule of 1/3rd deduction towards development cost was invoked while
determining market value of the acquired land. In Subh Ram v. State of
Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 444, this Court held as under:
“Deduction of “development cost” is the concept used to derive
the “wholesale price” of a large undeveloped land with reference
to the “retail price” of a small developed plot. The difference
between the value of a small developed plot and the value of a
large undeveloped land is the “development cost”. Two factors
have a bearing on the quantum (or percentage) of deduction in
the “retail price” as development cost. Firstly, the percentage
of deduction is decided with reference to the extent and nature
of development of the area/layout in which the small developed
plot is situated. Secondly, the condition of the acquired land
as on the date of preliminary notification, whether it was
undeveloped, or partly developed, is considered and appropriate
adjustment is made in the percentage of deduction to take note
of the developed status of the acquired land.
The percentage of deduction (development cost factor) will be
applied fully where the acquired land has no development. But
where the acquired land can be considered to be partly developed
(say for example, having good road access or having the amenity
of electricity, water, etc.) then the development cost (that is,
percentage of deduction) will be modulated with reference to the
extent of development of the acquired land as on the date of
acquisition. But under no circumstances, will the future use or
purpose of acquisition play a role in determining the percentage
of deduction towards development cost.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. In Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer v. L.
Kamalamma (supra), this Court held as under:
“When a land is acquired which has the potentiality of being
developed into an urban land, merely because some portion of it
abuts the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid
while in respect of the lands on the interior side it should be
at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are
formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages as
well as disadvantages. Many a discerning customer may prefer to
stay in the interior and far away from the main road and may be
willing to pay a reasonably higher price for that site. One
cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to indulge in a
meticulous exercise of classification of the land as was done by
the Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land was acquired
in one block and therefore classification of the same into
different categories does not stand to reason.”
20. In these appeals, we find that while determining the amount of
compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per square meter , the Reference
Court had taken notice of the fact that the acquired land was in the
proximity of National Highway No.4, Panvel-Sion Highway and the
construction of Thane Creek Bridge which brought various villages
including village Roadpali (Kolhekhar) close to Bombay. The Reference
Court also noted that civic amenities were available to Panvel town
prior to 1970 and industrial estates had been developed at Taloja and
Panvel and concluded that the acquired land was available for non-
agricultural use and the only obstruction was the absence of
conversion. The High Court did not advert to the factors noted by the
Reference Court and reduced the amount of compensation by mechanically
applying the distance criteria, i.e., distance of the acquired land
from Bombay-Pune Highway adopted in the earlier judgments. Therefore,
the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained.
21. Although, the appeals filed by the State Government and the
landowner against the judgment of District Judge, Raigad in LAR
No.172/86 were decided after six months of the impugned judgment, we
find that compensation for the land situated at Village Ambetarkhar
had been awarded at the rate of Rs.60/- per square meter primarily on
the ground that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had
issued a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to
determine market value as on 1.1.1977.
22. In the light of the subsequent judgment, we may have remitted
the case to the High Court for fresh adjudication of the appeals, but
keeping in view the fact that a period of 42 years has elapsed, we do
not consider it proper to adopt that course and feel that ends of
justice will be adequately met by restoring the determination of
compensation made by the Reference Court.
23. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment
and order are set aside and the one passed by the Reference Court for
payment of compensation to the appellants at the rate of Rs.25/- per
square meter is restored. The respondents are directed to pay the
balance amount to the appellants with all other statutory benefits and
interest within three months from today.
24. With a view to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the
middleman, we deem it proper to issue the following further
directions:
(i) Within one month from today, the Special Land Acquisition
Officer shall depute an officer subordinate to him not below the
rank of Naib Tehsildar or an equivalent rank, to get in touch
with the landowners and/or their legal representatives and
inform them about their entitlement to receive the balance
amount of compensation.
(ii) The concerned officers shall instruct the landowners and/or
their legal representatives to open savings bank account in a
nationalized or scheduled bank, in case they already do not have
such account.
(iii) The account numbers of the landowners and/or their legal
representatives should be furnished by the concerned officer to
the Land Acquisition Officer within a period of one month.
(iv) Within next one month, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
shall deposit the amount of compensation along with other
statutory benefits in the bank accounts of the landowners and/or
their legal representatives in the form of account payee
cheques.
……………….………………….…J.
[G.S. Singhvi]
…….. ……..…..…..………………..J.
[Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya]
New Delhi;
July 02, 2012.
-----------------------
19
