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

2012 Supreme(SC) 418

2012 (4) Supreme 323
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.
Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) by L.Rs. and others — Appellants
versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3590 of 2012
with
Civil Appeal No. 3591 of 2012
Civil Appeal No. 3670 of 2012
Civil Appeal No. 3671 of 2012
Decided on : 2-7-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
Factors relevant for determination of market value of land including rule of 1/3 deduction for development charges reiterated.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 28 – Factors relevant for determination of market value of land restated – Rule of 1/3 deduction for development charges reiterated. (Paras 14 to 16 and 20)

        1993 B.C.J. 27; 1994 B.C.J. 316; 1997(2) Mh. L.R. 325 – Referred

        (2005) 4 SCC 577; (2008) 2 SCC 568; (2003) 1 SCC 354; (2003) 10 SCC 525; (2003) 12 SCC 642; (2004) 2 SCC 184; (2004) 10 SCC 745; (2009) 15 SCC 769; (2010) 12 SCC 707; (2010) 1 SCC 444 – Relied upon

        Administration of Justice – Public cause – Directions issued with a view to ensure that the landowners are not fleeced by the middleman. (Para 24)

       Facts of the case:

        This case relates to determination of market value and compensation in land acquisition proceedings.

       Finding of the Court:

        The impugned judgment of the High Court is not sustainable.

       

JUDGMENT

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. With a view to implement the New Bombay Project, the Government of Maharashtra acquired large tracts of land in different villages of the State. The appellants’ land measuring 3,86,790 square meters in Roadpali (Kolekhar) Village, Panvel Taluka, Raigad District was also acquired for the project. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued on 3.2.1970 and declaration under Section 6(1) was issued on 24.8.1972. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed different awards for different parcels of land and fixed market value of the acquired land in the range of Rs.1.75 per square meter to Rs. 2.50 per square meter.

2. The appellants did not file application under Section 18 of the Act for determination of compensation by the Court, but after amendment of the Act with effect from 24.9.1984 and disposal of the references made at the instance of other landowners, they filed an application under Section 28A(1) for redetermination of market value of the acquired land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer held that the landowners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1.20 per square meter to Rs.2/- per square meter. The appellants then filed an application under Section 28A(3) for award of compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per square meter. They pleaded that the acquired land was very close to Sion-Panvel Highway and had tremendous non-agricultural potential, nearby area had been industrialized and District Judge, Raigad-Alibag had awarded higher compensation to other landowners whose lands situated at Village Ambetarkhar (Roadpali), Taluka Panvel had been acquired for the New Bombay Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer controverted the claim of the appellants and pleaded that on the date of Section 4(1) notification, i.e., 3.2.1970, the appellants’ land was undeveloped and was being used only for the purpose of agriculture, which depended on monsoon.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag (hereinafter described as ‘the Reference Court’) framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the claimants prove that the compensation amount awarded by the opponent is insufficient and inadequate in view of the situation, location, sale statistics and N.A. potentiality of the acquired land.

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get enhanced compensation? If yes, what quantum?

3. What order or award?”

4. In support of their claim, the appellants examined Shri Abdul Majid Mulla (one of the landowners) and Shri Vikrant Manohar Vaidya, who had prepared valuation report (Ext.24) and map (Ext.25). They also relied upon certified copies of the judgment of the High Court in F.A. No.544/90 – Chandar Krishan Gayakwad v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel (Ext.29), F.A. No.423/96 – State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Bhiva Patil (Ext.30), F.A. No.1074/89 – State of Maharashtra v. Laxman Bhiva Patil (Ext.31), F.A. No.457/93 – State of Maharashtra v. Ramachandra Damodar Koli and others (Ext.16) as also the awards passed by the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.168/86 (Ext.13), L.A.R. No.172/86 (Ext.14) and L.A.R. No.1334/2000 (Ext.15). On behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, no evidence was produced in support of the assertion that the acquired land was undeveloped and it did not have non-agricultural potential.

5. The Reference Court considered the evidence produced by the appellants and held that the acquired land had non-agricultural potential and the Special Land Acquisition Officer committed grave error by fixing market value on the premise that it was an undeveloped land and was being used for agricultural purposes only. The detailed reasons recorded by the Reference Court for arriving at this conclusion are reproduced below:

“It is an admitted fact that civic amenities were available to Panvel Town prior to 1970. Construction of Thane Creek bridge brought various villages including village Roadpali (Kolhekhar

































































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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top