IMPORTANT POINT
[The court established that the market value of acquired land must include its potential for non-agricultural use, and that failure to consider such potential constitutes an error in determining compensation.]

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The appellants who are original claimants in L.A.R. No. 68 of 2002 (Old No. 135 of 1998) have challenged the judgment and award dtd. 6/1/2004 passed therein by the 1st Adhoc Additional District Judge, Biloli (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Reference Court") for enhancement of compensation. Under the impugned judgment the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.80,000.00 per hectare from Rs.70,000.00 per hectare in respect of lands of the appellants under acquisition.

2. The backgrounds facts of the case are as follows :

The lands of the appellants bearing survey Nos. 308 and 310 of village Kundalwadi, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded admeasuring 04H 60R were acquired for the purpose of resettlement foor afected persons. Possession of those lands was taken on 16/11/1990 whereas the notifcation under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published on 10/12/1992. Thereafter, the notifcation under Sec. 6 of the Act was published on 18/5/1983, 24/5/1993 and fnally on 27/5/1993. The Special Land Acquisition Ofcer (for short, "the S.L.A.O.") under award dtd. 21/5/1996 granted compensation to the appellants/claimants at the rate of Rs.70,000.00 per hectare by treating the lands under acquisition as agricultural lands. Being aggrieved with the said rate the appellants/claimants preferred the aforesaid L.A.R. on 25/6/1996 by claiming rate of Rs.20.00 per sq. feet in respect of their acquired lands. Alternatively, they claimed market rate at Rs.6,53,400.00 per acre, however, the learned Reference Court after holding trial based impugned judgment and award and held the appellants entitled for the compensation in respect of their lands at the rate of Rs.80,000.00 per hectare only. Hence, this appeal.

3. The learned Reference Court submits that, lands of the appellants were situated within Municipal Council limit of village Kundalwadi and the adjoining lands were converted for the use of non-agricultural purpose. He further submits that, village Kundalwadi is a big market place, which is connected to the major cities. Further, according to him the lands under acquisition was adjacent to the A.P.M.C., Zilla Parishad Primary School, Government Hospital, P.H.C. from Northern side. Further, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants had produced Town Planning Map at Exh. 36 comparable sale instances namely, sale-deeds at exhibits 44, 46, 62 and 64, which clearly indicated that the market rate at the relevant time was much more higher than the rate granted by the learned Reference Court. Further, it was also revealed by the map at Exh.36 that the land under acquisition was residential land. He further submits that, land was surrounded by developed land which was being used for any purpose but the learned Reference Court did not consider all these aspects and granted very meagre amount of compensation. According to him, the learned Reference Court despite observing N.A. potentiality of the land, fnally concluded that the land under acquisition was only used for agricultural purpose and therefore, refused to grant more compensation. Besides the submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on following judgments :-

i. Deep Chand and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Anr., reported in AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 633

ii. Bhagwathula Samanna Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Ofcer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam reported in 1991 DGLS (SC) 477

iii. P. Ram Reddy Vs. Land Acquisition Ofcer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad reported in 1995 DGLS(SC) 148

iv. Atma Singh (died) through LRs and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in 2007 DGLS(SC) 1374

v. State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Disanrao Phadtare and Ors., reported in 2009 (3) Bom. C. R. 833

vi. Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., reported in 2010 DGLS (SC) 278

vii. Trishala Jain and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Anr., reported in 2011 DGLS (SC