State Of Maharashtra Etc. vs Digamber Bhimashankar Tandale& Ors. Etc.
- SCC(1996) 2 SCC 583
- Neutral1996 INSC 176
- SCR[1996] 2 SCR 90
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a large extent of land is acquired, sales of small pieces of land, though genuine, cannot be relied upon as the basis to determine compensation; such sales must be excluded and other acceptable evidence must be sought. Compensation for agricultural land situated within municipal limits but lacking potential value as a building site as of the date of notification cannot be determined on a per square foot or per square yard basis, and must instead be determined on a per acre basis. Where land is acquired for extension of an industrial facility such as a thermal power station and is situated abutting that facility, the possibility of extension for building purposes can be ruled out, and compensation should be fixed at a rate appropriate to such restricted use. The determination of compensation must rest on what the land is capable of fetching in the open market as of the date of notification, having regard to its actual circumstances and potential use at that date, not on hypothetical potential value.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 3377-79 of 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 327-29/95) AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3380-82 OF 1996 [Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 4152-54 of 1996] O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides. The notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the State Gazette on July 14, 1977 acquiring 12.50 acres of land for extension of the Thermal Power Station at Parali Vaidyanath Municipality. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated 20.9.1978 determined the compensation at Rs.3,000/- per acre, namely, 72.5 per Area. On reference, the Additional District Judge by his award and decree dated April 27, 1987 enhanced the compensation at Rs.5/- per Sq. ft. On appeal, the High Court while confirming the said determination, reduced l/3rd of the amount towards development charges. Thus these appeals by special leave by the State 35 well as by the Electricity Board and also by the claimants against the deduction of 1/3rd amount. Thus these appeals are heard together.
The only question is: what will be the just and adequate compensation to which the lands are capable to fetch in open market? It is settled law that the determination of compensation on sq. ft. basis is an illegal principle followed by the courts. The reference Court on feats of imagination has done it. When 12.50 acres of land is sought to be acquired, no reasonable prudent purchaser would come forward to purchase the land on the sq. ft. basis. It would be incredulous to believe such a purchase. Therefore, the premise on which the reference Court and the High Court had proceeded to determine the compensation is obviously illegal. It is not in dispute that as on the date of the notification, the lands were agricultural lands though situated within the municipal limits. It is also in evidence that the lands were converted for non agricultural purpose. But as on the date of notification, there was no development in that area. The oral evidence was adduced in which it was shown that upto a distance of 3/4th km. to the lands there was development. Some illegal constructions were made on the lands. Under those circumstances, as on the date of the notification there was no potential value to the lands though converted into non-agricultural lands. The determination of the compensation on the basis of the potential value is also illegal.
The reference Court has relied upon several sale deeds dated 14.1.1976, Exs.48, 49 and 50 of a small extent of land sold on sq. ft. basis and on that premise the Court had determined the compensation. It is settled law that when a large extent of land is acquired, the sales of small pieces of land though genuine, cannot be relied upon as the basis to determine the compensation. Accordingly, they are excluded. Having excluded those documents, there is no other acceptable evidence to determine compensation on the basis of sq. yd. or sq. mtr. Accordingly, it is not capable to determine the compensation on sq. yd. or sq. mt. basis since the lands are not possessed of potential value as building site as on the date of notification.
The question then is what would be the just, fair and adequate compensation the lands can fetch? In the facts and circumstances and in view of the statement made by the Land Acquisition Officer that the lands are abutting the Thermal Power Station, the possibility of extension for building purpose can also be easily ruled out. However, the compensation for the lands situated near the Thermal Power Station can be fixed at Rs.40,000/- per acre.
Accordingly, the appeals of the State as well as the Electricity Board are allowed and that of the claimants is dismissed. The claimants are entitled only to payment of solatium and interest under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. They are entitled to interest at 9% per annum for one year on enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% till the date of deposit. They are also entitled to payment of solatium at 30% on the enhanced compensation. However, they are not entitled to payment of additional amount under section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. No costs.
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