Madhukanta M. Chinchani vs Special Land Acquisition Officer
- SCC(2016) 12 SCC 558
- Neutral2016 INSC 81
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where adjacent properties were acquired simultaneously or in close temporal proximity under the same land acquisition proceedings, and adjoining lands with comparable characteristics (including road frontage advantage) received a particular compensation rate from the court in an earlier award, lands in a subsequent related acquisition shall be entitled to compensation at parity with that rate unless the difference in size of the properties is so significant as to warrant a reduction, and the burden of justifying any such reduction lies with the authority; road frontage and other locational advantages are material factors that must be expressly considered in determining whether size differential justifies departure from parity in compensation rates.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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 the appellants at the rate of Rs. 60 per sq. 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)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free