Mahanti Devi vs M/S. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. .

was passed on 27.01.2006. Compensation was computed by the Land Acquisition Collector at the rate of

Rs.2,10,000/- per bigha for cultivated land and Rs.40,369/-

per bigha for uncultivated land. In the reference filed

under Section 18 of the Act, the Appellants were held

entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.5 lakh per

bigha. The sale deeds which were executed in 2004, i.e.,

one year prior to the issuance of the notification under

Section 4 of the Act were brought on record. According to

the well-established law as laid down by this Court, the

sale deed representing the highest market value was taken

into account by the Reference Court for the purpose of

computing the compensation. Exhibit PW2/A pertained to

sale of 2 biswas of land for Rs.1,20,000/- as per which the

market value of one bigha would be Rs.12 lakhs. In view

of the said sale deed pertaining to a small piece of land,

the Reference Court imposed a deduction of 60% of the

value of the land in Exhibit PW2/A and concluded that the

Appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.5

lakhs per bigha.

2. It is clear from a perusal of the judgment of the High

Court of Himachal Pradesh which heard the appeals filed

by the Respondent and the cross-objections filed by the

Appellants, that the logic followed by the Reference Court was adopted and the compensation of Rs.5 lakhs per bigha

was maintained. There was no detailed discussion either

by the Reference Court or the Appellate Court by taking

into account the relevant factors for making a deduction of

60% from the market value of a sale deed which was

executed.

3. It was held by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor

v. State of Gujarat1 as under:-

“20. 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 the area depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality (vi) level vis-à-vis land under (vi) some special 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”.

1 (2005) 4 SCC 789 p 797

4. We are informed by the learned counsel that a large

number of cases pertaining to the acquisition in issue in

this case are pending before the High Court and the

Reference Court.

5. We deem it proper to remit these matters to the High

Court by setting aside the judgment in RFA No.178 of 2013

for a fresh consideration on the justifiability of imposition

of 60% deduction on the market value, while computing

the compensation to be paid to the Appellants. The High

Court would be well advised to take into account the

principles laid down by this Court for the purpose of

deductions to be made on the market value.

6. The appeals are disposed of.

..................................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..................................J. [M.R. SHAH]

New Delhi, February 08, 2019