Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Manohar and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9870 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. of 2025] Diary No. 26900 of 2023 With Civil Appeal No. 9871 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. of 2025] Diary No. 25104 of 2025 With Civil Appeal No. 9872 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. of 2025] Diary No. 25109 of 2025
Decided On : 28-07-2025
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 18, 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 – Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – When there are several exemplars with reference to similar land, usually highest of exemplars which is a bona-fide transaction, will be considered – Only where there are several sales of similar lands whose prices range in a narrow bandwidth, average thereof can be taken as representing market price – Compensation payable to owner of land is determined by reference to price which a seller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser – Land acquired has to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of notification under Section 4 of LA Act but its potential value must be taken into account – In this respect, sale deeds of lands situated in vicinity and comparable benefits and advantages which they have, provide a ready method of computing market value – Land of Appellants was situated in a prime location and they deserve benefit of highest sale exemplar – Compensation granted to Appellants be enhanced from Rs. 32,000/- per Acre to Rs. 58,320/- per Acre – All other consequential benefits of solatium and interest on enhanced compensation in terms of Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to be granted to Appellants. (Paras 33, 40, 41, 46 and 51)
Facts of the case:
Present batch of appeals challenge the common judgment and final order dated 21st April, 2022, passed by a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, whereby First Appeals filed by claimants/Appellants came to be dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Land which is acquired being much larger in area, the Reference Court applied a deduction of 20% in the price determined. Being in agreement with the same, while accepting the sale exemplar at Sr. No. 4 dated 31st March 1990, and having market value of Rs. 72,900/- per Acre, we deem it appropriate to apply a deduction of 20% i.e., Rs. 14,580/- per Acre.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Certainly. Here are the key points from the legal document:
The case involves land acquisition and the determination of fair compensation for the landowners, who are farmers. The land was acquired for setting up an industrial area in Jintur, Parbhani District, Maharashtra (!) (!) .
The initial compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was challenged by the landowners, resulting in a reference to the Court of the Principal District Judge, which partly allowed the claim and increased the compensation (!) (!) .
The landowners relied on several sale exemplars to establish the market value of their land, particularly emphasizing the highest sale price of Rs. 72,900 per acre from a sale deed dated 31st March 1990, which they claimed was a bona fide transaction reflecting the true market value (!) (!) .
The Reference Court initially determined the land value by applying a deduction of 20% to the sale exemplar considered most relevant, resulting in a compensation of Rs. 32,000 per acre (!) .
The Reference Court overlooked the highest sale exemplar (Rs. 72,900 per acre), which was a significant error, as it was a bona fide transaction and more reflective of the market value at the relevant time (!) .
The High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Reference Court's approach, but the Supreme Court found this to be erroneous because the Reference Court did not consider the highest exemplar sale deed, and the High Court incorrectly stated otherwise (!) (!) .
The Supreme Court concluded that the highest bona fide sale exemplar should be given priority in determining market value, and the approach of averaging multiple sale prices with wide disparity was inappropriate in this context (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the land in question was situated in a prime location near Jintur, with non-agricultural potential, and had advantageous features such as proximity to water facilities and transportation routes, supporting a higher valuation (!) (!) (!) .
The Court decided to enhance the compensation from Rs. 32,000 per acre to Rs. 58,320 per acre, considering the highest sale exemplar and relevant factors, along with granting all consequential benefits such as solatium and interest on the enhanced amount (!) (!) .
The previous judgments and awards were quashed and set aside, and the case was remitted for the calculation of compensation based on the highest exemplar sale price, ensuring fair and just compensation for the landowners (!) (!) .
The decision underscores the importance of considering the most recent and highest bona fide sale transactions to determine true market value in land acquisition cases, especially when the land is situated in prime locations with potential for non-agricultural use.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, CJI.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present batch of appeals challenge the common judgment and final order dated 21st April, 2022, passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter “High Court”) whereby the First Appeals filed by the claimants/Appellants came to be dismissed.
FACTS
4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as given below:
4.2. It appears that the land of the Appellants and other adjoining lands were sought to be acquired in the 1990s under the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter, “Act of 1961”) for setting up an Industrial Area near Jintur town in Parbhani District.
4.3. On 16th January, 1992, the Land Acquisition Officer & Deputy Collector, Hingoli (hereinafter “Land Acquisition Officer”) issued a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act of 1961.
4.4. On 6th December, 1994, the Respondent-State took possession of the Appellants’ land and an Award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In terms of the said Award, the total area subject matter of the acquisition was 89 Hectares and 44 Are and the total compensation awarded was Rs. 45,70, 508/-.
4.5. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the Appellants accepted the compensation under protest and simultaneously filed a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter “LA Act”) in the year 1997.
4.6. Vide judgment and award dated 7th June 2007, in L.A.R. No. 61 of 1997, the Court of Principal District Judge, Parbhani (hereinafter “Reference Court”) partly allowed the reference with proportionate costs and directed the Respondent-State to pay the Appellants an amount of Rs. 46,26,013/- along with future interest @ 15% per annum from the date of award until the payment is made on the additional market value of Rs. 16,43,224/-.
4.7. Aggrieved still, the Appellants filed a First Appeal bearing No. 1179 of 2008 before the High Court.
4.8. Vide impugned judgment and final order, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the First Appeal.
4.9. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals came to be filed by way of special leave.
4.10. Vide order dated 22nd September, 2023, this Court issued notice on the application for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petition as well as on the Special Leave Petition.
SUBMISSIONS
5. We have heard Mr. Bharat Thakorlal Manubarwala, learned counsel for the Appellants, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. Shyamali Gadre, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3.
6. Mr. Manubarwala submitted that the Appellants are farmers, who lost their only source of sustenance and ever since are prosecuting their claim for fair, just and reasonable compensation based on the highest exemplar dated 31st March 1990. He further submitted that the Reference Court having found the highest exemplar sale to be a bona-fide transaction erred in ignoring the same without any reasoning. He, therefore, submitted that the finding of the High Court, that the Reference Court considered the highest exemplar sale deed, is contrary to the record.
7. Mr. Manubarwala submitted that Reference Court and High Court ought to have given benefit of the highest exemplar sale deed to the Appellants. He further submitted that the Courts having found that, the lands acquired in the acquisition are situated near T-point of Nashik-Nirmal State Highway adjacent to Jintur town which is a prime location with percolation tank just opposite to the lands with sufficient water, ought to have enhanced the compensation based on the highest exemplar sale deed dated 31st March, 1990.
8. To buttress his submissions, Mr. Manubarwala plac
Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – When there are several exemplars with reference to similar land, usually highest of exemplars which is a bona-fide transaction, will be considered.
(1) Acquisition of land – Quantum of compensation – Process of assessing or affixing compensation is not tethered to precision but is rather aimed at a nuanced estimation of pertinent factors.(2) Acq....
Market value for land acquisition must be assessed based on comparable sales proximate to the acquisition date, reflecting fair compensation principles.
The market value of the land for the purpose of determining the compensation should be assessed by considering the smallness of the plot, the highest exemplar, and the purpose of acquisition, and by ....
The potentiality of acquired land and comparable sale instances are crucial for determining fair compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
The market value of acquired land should be assessed based on the comparable sale exemplars of the contemporaneous period with respect to the parcels of land, either forming part of the acquired land....
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
