Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 751
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Namdeo Shankar Govardhane(D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors. etc.etc. – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10217-10250 OF 2011
WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.10305-10308 OF 2011 AND CIVIL APPEAL No.10309 OF 2011
Decided On : 17-07-2019
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Ms. Gwen Karthika, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR
IMPORTANT POINTS
For determining market price of acquired land the exemplar sale deeds should be proximate to date of acquisition and rate for small chunks of land cannot be applied to large tracts of land.
An issue not pleaded in the appeal cannot be gone into.
Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 11 - Market price of land - Exemplar sale deeds - Should be proximate to date of acquisition - Rate for small chunks of land cannot be applied to large tracts of land. (Para 24)
(b) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - State not filing any appeal for reduction of compensation accepting the order of High Court - Supreme Court will not examine the question of reducing the rate determined by the High Court - It is not permissible. (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
In this case of compensation under land acquisition the Reference court enhanced the compensation awarded by LAO. However the High Court, partly allowing the state’s appeal, reduced the same.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned order does not warrant any interference.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 11.10.2007 in First Appeal Nos.2673, 26782695, 26972708, 27102712 and 26742677 of 2006 and order dated 23.08.2007 in First Appeal No.1241 of 2007.
2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of these appeals, which involve a short question.
3. The appellants are the landowners (claimants) whereas the respondents are the State of Maharashtra and its authorities in the proceedings before the Trial Court out of which these appeals arise.
4. In exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the State of Maharashtra issued a notification on 03.03.1994 for acquiring land measuring 26,554.39 hectares situated in village Sanjegaon, Taluka Igatpuri District Nasik (MH). The purpose of acquisition of the land in question was construction of Mukane Dam. This was followed by issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 17.06.1994. The appellants’ land in question was also acquired in the acquisition proceedings.
5. This led to initiation of proceedings by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) under Section 11 of the Act for determination of compensation payable to the appellants along with other landowners whose lands were also acquired in the acquisition proceedings.
6. By award dated 14.07.1995, the LAO offered compensation to the landowners by classifying the land in three categories, namely, Jirayat land, Bagayat Land and Pot Kharab land at the rates mentioned below:
| Jirayat land | Rs.40,000/to Rs.1,11,000/- per hectare |
| Bagayat land | 1.5 times the rate of Jirayat land |
| Pot Kharab land | Rs.200/- per hectare |
7. The landowners (appellants herein) felt aggrieved by the award made by the LAO and accordingly sought reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. By award dated 24.03.2006, the Civil Court partly enhanced the rate of compensation in appellants’ favour as under:
| Jirayat land | Rs.1,69,231/- per hectare |
| Bagayat land | Rs.2,11,539/- per hectare |
| Pot Kharab land | Rs. 84,616 per hectare |
8. The State felt aggrieved by the award of the Civil Court and filed appeals under Section 54 of the Act before the Bombay High Court. So far as the landowners are concerned, they did not file any cross objection to claim further enhancement in the rate of compensation determined by the Civil Court except complaining of wrongly making the classification of their land by the Civil Court.
9. So, the question before the High Court was whether the Civil Court was justified in partly enhancing the rate of compensation mentioned above. The case of the State in their appeals was that the Civil Court was not justified in enhancing the rate of compensation and whatever the Reference Court had determined, the same should be upheld as being just and reasonable compensation awarded to the landowners (appellants herein).
10. By impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the State's appeals and accordingly reduced the rate of compensation. The rate of compensation awarded by all the Courts are as under:
| For Jirayat Land | For Bagayat Land | For Pot Kharab Land | |
| Land Acquisition Officer | From Rs.40,000/ to Rs.1,11,000/ per hectare | 1.5 times the rate of Jirayat land per hectare | Rs.200/- per hectare |
| Reference Court | @ Rs.1,69,231/ per hectare | @ Rs,2,11,539/ per hectare | @ Rs.84,616/ per hectare |
| High Court | @ Rs.1,26,924/- per hectare | @ Rs.1,58,655/ per hectare | @ Rs.1,07,886/ per hectare |
11. Some landowners (appellants herein) felt aggrieved by the order of the High Court and have filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
12. So, the question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Co
