2009 Supreme(SC) 1575

2009(6) Supreme 680
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and B Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
State of Goa & Anr. — Petitioners
versus.
Gopal Baburao Gaudo & Ors. — Respondents
Special Leave Pettion (C) No. 10598 of 2009
Decided on : 14-09-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Acquisition of several lands including lands belonging to respondents for construction of Panda By-pass road – Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq.m – Reference Court increased compensation to Rs. 154/- per sq.m – 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 sq.m – Special leave Petition – Plea of petitioner that 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 – Plea of appellant that as the acquired land could not be used for construction,the land had to be considered as not having any development potential-Held a long strip of land measuring more than two-third of an acre lying alongside and adjoining the Highway could not 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 Highway – All that was required to create or realize potential of such land was to annex or merge the said strip of land with the land to its rear – In that event, strip of land would become the ‘access’ to the rear – side land from the main road and would also become the frontage of aggregate land, thereby enhancing the potential and value of the rear-side land, as also creating a potential for its own use – Hence determination of market value of acquired land with reference to the value of comparable land could not be faulted (Paras 3 to 5)

       Market value-Determination of -. 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 23(1A) is to mitigate the hardship to the owner on account of deprivation of enjoyment of the land because of delay in making the award and offering payment – The solatium under section 23(2)is in consideration of 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 market value of the acquired land for purpose of compensation (Para 6)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Acquisition proceedings were initiated in regard to several lands including land belonging to the respondents herein in the instant case. Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq.m. Reference Court increased compensation to Rs. 154/- per sq.m. 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 sq.m.

        2. Present Special leave Petition has been filed against said order of High Court.Plea of petitioner that 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.Plea of appellant that as the acquired land could not be used for construction, the land had to be considered as not having any development potential.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held a long strip of land measuring more than two-third of an acre lying alongside and adjoining the Highway could not 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 Highway. All that was required to create or realize potential of such land was to annex or merge the said strip of land with the land to its rear. In that event, strip of land would become the ‘access’ to the rear-side land from the main road and would also become the frontage of aggregate land, thereby enhancing the potential and value of the rear-side land, as also creating a potential for its own use. Hence determination of market value of acquired land with reference to the value of comparable land could not be faulted

       Result : Petition dismissed