IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compensation for acquired land must reflect its market value and potentiality, ensuring equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, Darwha, District Yavatmal in Land Acquisition Case No.1030/2004, dated 17.12.2018. It was reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. The said reference was against the award dated 22.5.2000 in LAC No.15/47/1992-1993 of mouza Arni, Tahsil Arni, District Yavatmal. The Survey No.39/1, admeasuring 12 Hectare and 63 R land situated at village Arni, Tahsil Arni, District Yavatmal is adjacent to the road, out of it 25 R land was acquired for construction of Parsoda minor canal of Arunawati project at Arni. The notification was issued as per law. The award was drawn up and an amount of Rs.80,000/- per hectare for acquired land was awarded. It was meager amount. The objections were filed by the claimant. Therefore, reference was made. The Reference Court on merit held in last para No.20 of the impugned judgment that acquired land is having non-agricultural potentiality as on the date of notification. The said finding is not challenged by the respondents-State Government etc.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellant pointed out and submitted that an amount of compensation awarded to the appellant i.e. Rs.100/- per sq. ft. is unfair and not just. The Reference Court erred while concluding an amount of Rs.100/- (para no.21 of the impugned its judgment). He further submitted that in First Appeal No.589/2017 this Court in its judgment dated 1.8.2019 Markandeya Rashi Deosthan, Manpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others observed in para Nos.5,6 and 7 as under :

5] In view of the judgment in First Appeal No. 781 of 2016 alongwith First Appeal No. 782 of 2016 and First Appeal No. 840 of 2016 dated 27.06.2019, all the appellants are entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.275/per square feet.

6] In that view of the matter, First Appeal Nos. 589/2017, 212/2017, 587/2017 and 639/2017 are partly allowed.

7] Respondents/acquiring body are directed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.275/per square feet for the acquired land of all the appellants/land owners in these appeals without deducting any development charges alongwith all statutory benefits and interest etc.

5. The land in question in the said judgment was acquired from the same village and during the same period, therefore, the trial Court erred and allowed the same rate to the present appellant in the said case.

6. Learned Advocate for the appellant is also relying upon the authority of State of Haryana and another Vs. Subhash Chander and others, 2023(5) SCC 435 in which para No.6 of it reads as under :

“6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have gone through the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court and we have also gone through and considered the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Civil Appeal Nos. 11814-11864 of 2017 by which with respect to the lands acquired vide notification dated 25.01.2008, this Court determined the compensation at Rs. 2,38,00,000/- per acre. In the said judgment and order, this Court has specifically observed that the said judgment may not be treated as a precedent. However, it is required to be noted that even on merits also, this Court considered and accepted the sale instances produced on behalf of the land owners ranging between 2007 and 2008. Therefore, as such determination of the compensation at Rs. 2,38,00,000/- per acre with respect to the land acquired vide notification issued on 25.01.2008 can be said to be the base and considering the time gap between 2008 notification and 2010 notification, a suitable enhancement ranging between 8% to 15% is given which is held to be permissible as per the catena of decisions of this Court right from the decision in the case of Pehlad Ram Vs. HUDA; (2014) 14 SCC 778 up to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramrao Sha