Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Sajan – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2170-2171, 2172-2173 of 2020, SLP (C) Nos. 16945-16946 of 2018, 6393-6394 of 2020, SLP (C) Diary No. 24459 of 2019
Decided On : 17-03-2020
(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1984 - Section 4 - Courts below finding that 1.44 hectare of acquired land has potential for non-agricultural purpose - State not adducing any evidence to the effect that the land 1.44 hectare of acquired land was mainly used for agricultural purpose and not for the non-agricultural purpose - No reason to differ from courts below. (Para 13)
(b) Land acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - Reference court adopting the rate of Rs.6.90 per sq. ft. in sale deed of a date between date of taking possession and notification u/s 4 - Fair and reasonable. (Para 14)
(c) Land acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 23 - High court deducting 40% as development charges as against the normal 33 1/3% - Deduction for development may range from 20% to 75% depending upon nature of the project and development required - Instantly acquisition being for dam project, 20% deduction will be reasonable. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
This case relates to compensation for land acquisition.
Finding of the court:
Compensation arrived at by reference court is fair and reasonable. Deduction for development @ 40 % by High Court is on higher side. Damages awarded by high Court are reasonable.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. BANUMATHI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and final order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal No. 601 of 1997 along with Cross Objection St. No. 22145 of 1997 in the First Appeal in and by which the High Court partly allowed the appeal and inter-alia reduced the compensation for the land by giving 40% deduction towards development cost.
3. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that land in Gat No. 85 at village Mhasekota, Tehsil Soyegaon, District Aurangabad admeasuring 6 acres (2.40 hectares) owned by the partnership firm of the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was proposed for acquisition for the purpose of construction of Hiwra Dam project by the office of the Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project Division. Accordingly, on 29.03.1982, the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short “Land Acquisition Act”) and on 03.11.1983, notification under Section 6 was published. Out of this acquired land, land admeasuring 0.80 hectares was non-agricultural land used for running the Sugar Mill by the partnership firm and the remaining was cultivable land.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad passed an award dated 01.09.1986 under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act awarding compensation considering valuation of land @ Rs. 29,712/- (Rs. 20,000/- per hectare for 0.80 hectares nonagricultural land, Rs.9500/- per hectare in respect of 1.44 hectare cultivable land and Rs. 200 per hectare in respect of 0.16 hectare Potkharaba land). Apart from the costs of the land, the S.L.A.O. has also fixed the valuation of structure under three heads i.e. (i) Civil part/Building valuation Rs. 3,67,100/- (ii) Electrical installation (now to be demolished) Rs. 1,06,000/- and (iii) Mechanical machinery (dismantling and transportation) Rs. 1,05,000/- total Rs. 5,78,100/-. To this compensation amount, statutory entitlement of 30% solatium and 12% enhancement of compensation value w.e.f. notification under Section 4 was added. The net amount payable was calculated at Rs. 36,00,385.50/-.
5. Aggrieved, the appellant and also respondents No. 2 and 3 filed reference application (Land Acquisition Reference No. 299/94) under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act on the ground that market value has not been properly determined. The appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 further claimed damages and loss of business @ Rs. 5,00,000/- per year since 1981 till 1986 to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The appellants claimed market value @ Rs. 10 per sq.ft and claimed total compensation at Rs. 1,69,45,111/- along with other statutory benefits.
6. The Reference Court-Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, vide judgment and award dated 24.04.1996 awarded compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. for the entire acquired land by treating the entire land as land meant for non-agricultural use and deducted 10% towards development costs, Rs. 3,86,867/- towards demolishing and dismantling charges of electrical, mechanical and machinery installation, Rs. 5,00,000/- was awarded for loss of earning for the period from 1981 to 1986, Rs. 91,000/- towards damages and dismantling charges and Rs. 15,000/- towards transportation, loading and unloading along with the statutory benefits. Thus, total additional claim of the appellant to the extent of Rs. 23,73,011/- was allowed.
7. Respondent-State filed First Appeal No. 601 of 1997 assailing the aforesaid order and the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also filed Cross Objection bearing St. No. 22145 of 1997. Initially this cross-objection was dismissed by the High Court for non-removal of objections. Restoration application was also dismissed on account of inordinate delay and the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
