SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 123

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)
Civil Appeal Nos. 596 to 601 of 1973
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Versus
GURAPPA HIROJIRAO AND OTHERS
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 365-370 of 1972
GURAPPA HIROJIRAO AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Civil Appeal Nos. 596 to 601 of 1973 with Civil Appeal Nos. 365-370 of 1972{From the Judgment and Order dated December 22, 23 and 24, 1971 and February 28, 1972 of the Bombay High Court in F.A. Nos. 479, 481, 482 and 484 to 486 of 1971}, decided on January 25, 1994
Advocates appeared :
S.K. Dholakia, Senior Advocate (S.M. Jadhav and A.S. Bhasme, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant;
U.R. Lalit, Senior Advocate (Vineet Maheshwari and R.K. Maheshwari, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 133(1)(a) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 6 , 11 and 18 - Land in Final Plot No. acres of land out of land in Final Plot No. acres of land out of land in Final Plot No guntas of land in Final Plot No. guntas of land in Final Plot No. being agricultural lands lying within the limits of Municipal Corporation were required for establishment of an Agricultural Produce Market - Government of State of Maharashtra got published a Notification in Gazette dated October 10, 1965 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, proposing acquisition of said lands in that behalf Section 6 of Act in respect of lands - Thereafter, Special Land Acquisition Officer made award under Section 11 of Act determining market value of the land in Final Plot No.an acre – Held, High Court in determining market value of the acquired lands has not adopted any method of valuation was unwarranted by law and in the facts and circumstances of the cases, has not misapplied any principle of valuation which it had adopted for determining market value of acquired lands and further has not committed any manifest error which has resulted in fixing either grossly high value or grossly low value acquired lands find no warrant for interfering with judgment and decrees of High Court questioned in the present appeals and cross-appeals of the State and claimants, respectively - Appeals and cross-appeals are dismissed

Judgment

N. VENKATACHALA, J.-Civil Appeal Nos. 596-601 of 1973 and Civil Appeal Nos. 365-370 of 1972 are appeals and cross-appeals by certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India in respect of a common judgment and separate decrees rendered by it in certain land acquisition appeals and cross-objections filed therein.

2. 42 acres, 23 guntas and 6 1/2 sq. yards of land in Final Plot No. 7-A, 28 acres of land out of the land in Final Plot No. 8, 35 acres of land out of the land in Final Plot No. 97, 3 guntas of land in Final Plot No. 6/33 and 4 guntas of land in Final Plot No. 6/34 being agricultural lands lying within the limits of Sholapur Municipal Corporation were required for establishment of an Agricultural Produce Market at Sholapur. Government of State of Maharashtra got published a Notification in the Gazette dated October 10, 1965 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, proposing acquisition of the said lands in that behalf. After the holding of necessary inquiries, it published the declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of those lands. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Special LAO) made an award under Section 11 of the Act determining the market value of the land in Final Plot No. 7-A at Rs 6000 an acre, Final Plot No. 8 at Rs 5500 an acre, Final Plot No. 97 at Rs 5000 per acre, 75 paise per sq. foot for land in Final Plot No. 6/33 and 25 paise per sq. foot for land in Final Plot No. 6/34, and ordered payment of the same to the landowners (claimants) along with 15 per cent solatium payable on the market value of lands in all the plots except that in Plot No. 7-A and interest at 4 per cent on the aggregate of both amounts. 14 claimants out of 23 of them, who were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded for their lands, caused the Special LAO to make references to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sholapur under Section 18 of the Act and claimed from the Court grant of enhanced compensation for their acquired lands. That Reference Court on consideration of the evidence adduced by contending parties in the references before it, enhanced the market value of the acquired lands respecting which enhanced compensation had been sought, at 80 paise per sq. foot and ordered payment of the enhanced compensation to the claimants concerned, by rendering a common judgment and separate decrees in that regard.

3. While the State preferred appeals in the High Court against the common judgment and separate decrees of the Reference Court seeking reduction in the amount of compensation determined by it, the claimants preferred cross-objections in those appeals seeking further enhanced amount of compensation. The High Court, on reappraisal of the entire evidence in the cases, enhanced the market value of a small extent of land carved out as sites in Plot No. 8 before their purchase by the claimants as building sites, at the same value in which they had been purchased before the acquisition. But it reduced the market value of the remaining, almost the whole extent of acquired land in Final Plot No. 8 and the entire area of acquired lands in Final Plot Nos. 7-A, 97, 6/33 and 6/34 to 38 paise per sq. foot. However, it increased the market value of land in Final Plot No. 7-A by 10 per cent having regard to its closer proximity to the well developed township of Sholapur. It modified the judgment and decrees of the Reference Court questioned before it accordingly by its common judgment dated December 23-24, 197 1/February 28, 1972 and decrees made thereon.

4. The State and the claimants have preferred the present appeals and cross-appeals against the said common judgment and decrees of the High Court seeking reduction and enhancement respectively, in the market value of lands acquired out of Final Plot Nos. 8, 97, 6/33 and 6/34 for which market value is determined at 38






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top