Madhusudan Kabra vs State of Maharashtra

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 18001 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.24199/2016]

MADHUSUDAN KABRA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved

by the order passed by the High Court, declining to

grant land value to the extent they had prayed before

the Reference Court. The acquisition is pursuant to

the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 in 1992. The Land Acquisition

Collector relied on exemplar of 1988 and granted

compensation to the tune of Rs.23,500/- per hectare.

The Reference Court declined to grant any

enhancement. The High Court, taking note of the fact

that the acquisition is of the year 1992 but the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2017.11.10 exemplar taken is of 1988, granted 10% annual 16:47:08 IST Reason:

increase on the exemplar and thus granted a further

1 amount of Rs.8,400/- thus total compensation of

Rs.32,000/- per hectare was granted towards

acquisition for the purpose of a canal. Though the

appellants took several contentions before this

Court, while issuing notice by order dated 12.08.2016

we have made it clear that the scope of inquiry by

this Court would be limited to two aspects, one the

percentage of enhancement and the other, whether it

should be on the simple or compound basis.

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

this case, we are of the view that the interests of

justice would be served by fixing annual increase on

the exemplar, in the peculiar facts of this case by

15% at compounding rate.

4. We are conscious of the fact, while granting

relief, as above, the appellants have not been

granted separate compensation for the fruit bearing

trees.

5. Accordingly, the order passed by the High Court

will stand modified to the above extent. As we have

already made it clear vide our order dated

12.08.2016, the appellant would not be entitled for

any statutory benefits for the period of delay.

6. The respondents are directed to deposit the

amount before the Executing Court within a period of

three months.

7. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

2

8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

9. There shall be no orders as to costs.

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

.......................J. [R. BANUMATHI] NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 06, 2017.

3