The court upheld the principle that market value for compensation is determined by development potential and proximity to urban areas, allowing enhanced compensation despite procedural challenges in claims.

1. These appeals arise out of the land acquisition proceedings which were initiated at the instance of the Executive Engineer. Irrigation Division, Nasik, for acquiring certain lands comprised in different survey numbers situate at Malegaon, District Nasik, for public purpose, namely, construction of Distributory No. 12 of Mosum Rice Canal. Various portions of different survey numbers were acquired for the above purpose under two different notifications that were issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") both having been published on the same date namely 4th May, 1961. All area of 1 acre and 5 gunthas out of survey No. 148/1 plus 2 situate at Malegaon belonging to Dr. Mohmed Salim Samsuddin and his three brothers was sought to be acquired under notification bearing No. L. A. Q. C. 4368 dated 13th of April 1961 published in the Government Gazette on 4th of May 1961. Similarly under another notification bearing No. L. A. Q. C. 4369 also dated 13th of April 1961 published in the Government Gazette on 4th of May 1961 1 acre out of survey No. 164 belonging to Bhikaji Ananda Pawar was sought to be acquired for the above purpose. Under the said two notifications there were other parcels of land forming part of different survey numbers which were also sought to be acquired for the said purpose but we are not concerned with those other parcels of land in these appeals. These two notifications were followed by two notifications under S.6 of the Act; in respect of the lands covered by the S.4 notification bearing No. L. A. Q. C. 4368 the S.6 notification was published on 12th of October 1961 while in respect of the lands covered by the S.4 notification No. L. A. Q. 4369 the S.6 notification was published on 17th of August 1961. After service of notice under S.9 of the Act owners of survey No. 148/1 plus 2, namely, Dr. Mohamad Salim Samsuddin and his three brothers, filed their claim for compensation. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nasik, by his award dated 8th of June 1962 awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs 20,022.50 which was comprised of (a) Rs. 11,250 for the value of the land at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per acre, (b) Rs. 400 for the price of the well situated in the land, (c) Rs. 1,747.50 being the 15% solatium on the aforesaid two amounts, (d) Rs. 6,125 being damages for severance and injurious affection and (e) Rs. 500 by way of removal charges in respect of the sheds situated in the land. Being dissatisfied with this award the claimants (Dr. Mohamad Salim Samsuddin and his three brothers, who are the appellants before us) asked for a reference under S.18 of the Act which was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 47 of 1962 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik.

2. Similarly after service of notice under S.9 of the Act, Bhikaji Ananda Pawar the owner of survey No. 164 filed his claim for compensation before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. By a separate award dated 8th of June 1962 the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded a total amount of Rs. 11,700 by way of compensation to the claimant which was comprised of (a) Rs. 10,000 for the value of the land at the rate of Rupees 10,000 per acre, (b) Rs. 1,500 for solatium at the rate of 15%, (c) Rs. 25 on account of severance and (d) Rs. 176 on account of injurious affection. Being dissatisfied with the award the claimant Bhikaji Ananda Pawar asked for a reference under S.18 of the Act and the same was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 39 of 1962 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik.

3. It may be stated that along with these two land references there were quite a few other land references bearing Nos. 38 of 1962, 40 of 1962 and 58 of 1962. All these references including the above two references of the appellants before as were tried as companion land references by the learned Judge and evidence in respect of all references was led by the parties and came to be record