State Of Goa & Anr vs Gopal Baburao Gaudo & Ors

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10598/2009

STATE OF GOA & ANR. ... PETITIONERS

- VS.-

GOPAL BABURAO GAUDO & ORS. ... RESPODNENTS

O R D E R

Acquisition proceedings were initiated in regard to

several lands including Survey No. 85 of Curti Village

belonging to the respondents under preliminary notification

dated 14.2.1991 for construction of Panda By-pass road. The

Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate

of Rs.7/- per sq.m. The Reference Court increased the

compensation to Rs. 154/- per sq.m. The High Court did not

disburse the amount awarded by the Reference Court, as it

found that in an appeal arising from the award in LAC No.

48/1995 relating to a comparable land compensation at a

higher rate had been awarded at the rate of Rs.200/- per 2

sq.m. Leave is sought to challenge the said judgment of the

High Court dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner alleges that the acquired land

measuring 2715 sq. meters, was a narrow strip which fell

within the 40 meters margin from the centre of the highway

where constructions were prohibited. It is contended that

as the acquired land could not be used for construction,

the land had to be considered as not having any development

potential; and that therefore it could not be compared with

the land (which was the subject matter of LAC No. 48/1995)

for which compensation had been determined having regard to

its potential for development. It was also contended that

being a narrow strip it was also not of much use even for

agriculture purposes.

3. A long strip of land measuring more than two-third of

an acre lying alongside and adjoining the Highway cannot be

treated as a land without value or without any potential

for development, merely on the ground that the law relating

to Highways prohibited construction on either side of the

Highway, upto a depth of 40 meters from the centre of the

Highway. All that was required to create or realize

potential of such land was to annex or merge the said strip 3

of land with the land to its rear. In that event, the strip

of land will become the `access' to the rear-side land from

the main road and will also become the frontage of the

aggregate land, thereby enhancing the potential and value

of the rear-side land, as also creating a potential for its

own use. The contention that a land adjoining the Highway

should be treated as having no development potential (and

therefore as land without much value except as ordinary

agricultural land), while considering the lands to its rear

which are farther away from the road, or other adjoining

lands of the same extent, but having more depth (so as to

extend beyond the 40 meters margin) as having potential for

development, is illogical and cannot be accepted.

4. We may demonstrate the absurdity of such a contention

with reference to an illustration. Let us take the example

of a residential plot of land measuring 60' X 100'. Let us

assume that the Municipal Bye-laws require a front (road

side) set-back of 20' for construction of houses in a plot

of that size. Therefore, the owner would leave a twenty

feet wide front strip in the said plot free of any

construction while putting up the construction in the plot.

Obviously, he cannot thereafter construct in that front

strip. Let us further assume that the front strip is 4

acquired for road widening. Can the acquiring authority

deny compensation to that strip on the ground that the said

20' strip acquired for road widening could not in any event

be used for any construction purpose and therefore, was not

of any value? Obviously not.

5. Therefore, determination of market value of the

acquired land with reference to the value of comparable

land cannot be faulted.

6. Another argument put forth by the petitioners is that

if the statutory benefits like solatium under section 23(2)

and additional amount under section 23(1A) of Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short), and interest are

added to the compensation awarded, the compensation would

bloat up having severe financial implications, and

therefore, while determining compensation, the extent of

statutory benefits should be taken note of or kept in view.

There is absolutely no merit in the said contention. It is

well-settled that the solatium, additional amount and

interest have no bearing on the determination of the market

value under first clause of section 23(1) of the Act. The

reason for grant of the additional statutory benefits are

clearly different. The additional benefit under section 5 23(1A) is to mitigate the hardship to the owner on account

of deprivation of enjoyment of the land because of the

delay in making the award and offering payment. The

solatium under section 23(2)is in consideration of the

compulsory nature of acquisition. Interest under section 28

of the Act is paid for delay in paying the compensation

from the date on which possession is taken. They are

distinct from the determination of market value. The fact

that the landowner would also be entitled to statutory

benefits cannot be taken into account, when determining the

market value of the acquired land for purpose of

compensation.

7. We find that the High Court has rightly decided the

matter with reference to the facts of the case. The

judgment does not call for interference. The Special leave

petition is therefore dismissed as having no merit.

...............................................................J. (R V RAVEENDRAN)

...............................................................J. (B SUDERSHAN REDDY) New Delhi;

September 14, 2009