Madhukanta M. Chinchani vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3673 OF 2007

MADHUKANTA M. CHINCHANI & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. The appellants are aggrieved since they are not

granted just and fair land value in respect of the

land acquired from them. In the nature of the order

we propose to pass, we do not think it necessary to

go in detail to the factual matrix, which to the

extent relevant, is available at paragraph 4 of the

impugned Judgment, which reads as under :-

"In the present case the land under

acquisition is from the same cluster of lands

which was the subject matter of the same

award. The Land Acquisition Officer in his

award referred to the fact that the

Appellants' land has frontage on Mahatma

Phule Road and, therefore, valued the land of Signature Not Verified the appellants at the rate of Rs. 60 per sq. Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2016.01.28 16:37:36 IST Reason: mt. as against Rs. 40 and Rs. 45 for the

lands which are the subject matter of LAR

Nos. 44 and 46 of 1978. Ordinarily the 2

appellants would be entitled to compensation

at the same rate which was awarded by the

learned single Judge in LAR Nos. 44 and 46 of

1978. However, it is seen from the record

that the land of the appellants is much

larger compared to the properties involved in

the LAR Nos. 44 and 46 of 1978. The area of

the Appellants' land is 16,631 sq. mts. as

against the area of 7598 sq. mts. in LAR No.

44 of 1978 and 5440 sq. meters in LAR No. 46

of 1978. Having considered the submissions

made by the learned counsel for parties we

feel that deduction of 15% would be

appropriate and the price of Rs. 110 per sq.

meter can be safely estimated as market price

of the land under acquisition. The

appellants thus would be entitled to enhanced

compensation of Rs. 50 over and above the

compensation awarded by the SLAO along with

all the statutory benefits."

2. There is no dispute that the Land Acquisition

Officer had fixed only Rs. 40 and 45 for the lands

covered by LAR Nos. 44 and 46 of 1978, for which the

High Court has granted Rs. 130 per sq. meter. There

is also no dispute that those are adjoining lands.

It is also an admitted fact that the land of the

appellants has road frontage whereas those lands in 3

LAR Nos. 44 and 46 of 1978 do not have that

advantage. The only reason stated by the High Court

in the impugned order for not granting Rs.130

sq.meters is that the land of the appellants is

16631.95 sq. meters, but it has to be seen that the

land covered by LAR Nos. 44 and 46 of 1978 which are

adjoining to that of the appellants are not very

small in size. They are having an area of 7598 sq.

meters and 5440 sq. meters. The advantage of road

frontage has missed the notice of the court.

3. Hence, we are of the view that on the principle

of parity, the High Court should have granted at

least Rs. 130/- per sq. meter, though the appellants

claimed Rs. 175/- per sq. meter before the Reference

Court and Rs. 300/- per sq. meter before the High

Court based on the report of the valuer of the

appellants.

4. Therefore, this appeal is partly allowed. The

appellants shall be entitled to the land value at the

rate of Rs. 130 per sq.meter with all other statutory

benefits. There shall be no order as to costs.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

New Delhi;

January 21, 2016.

4

ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.9 SECTION IX

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 3673/2007

MADHUKANTA M. CHINCHANI & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. Respondent(s)

(with office report)

Date : 21/01/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

For Appellant(s) Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv.

Mr. Nishant Anand, Adv.

Mr. G. L. Bhatia, Adv.

Mr. C. K. Sasi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ramesh P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, Adv.

Ms. Saumya Mehrotra, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed

non-reportable Judgment.

(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan) Sr. P.A. Court Master

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)