BHIKULAL KEDARMAL GOENKA (D) BY L.RS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 7219-20 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jul 28, 2016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7219-20 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.24895-24896 of 2013)
BHIKULAL KEDARMAL GOENKA (D) BY L.RS. .......APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR .......RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Two pieces of the appellant's (since deceased. and is now
represented by his legal representatives) land measuring 2250 and 5034
sq.meters were sought to be compulsorily acquired, vide Notifications dated
30.10.1986 and 13.11.1986 respectively, issued under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Admittedly,
the purpose for which the land was acquired was to raise a structure for a
primary school and to provide playgrounds therefor. Vide awards dated
31.08.1987 and 09.11.1987, the Special Land Acquisition Officer determined
the market value of the land measuring 2250 sq.meters at Rs.110/- per
sq.meter. For the land measuring 5034 sq.meters, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer bifurcated the same. For the land adjoining the road,
he awarded Rs.140/- per sq.meter, and for the remaining land situated away
from the road, he awarded Rs.110/- per sq.meter. In the above
determination, the acquired land was divided into 18 plots, out of which
six were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.140/- per sq.meter, and the
remaining at the rate of Rs.110/- per sq.meter.
Dissatisfied with the determination rendered by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants preferred reference under Section
18 of the Act seeking enhancement of the market value of the land. The
Reference Court, by a common order dated 25.01.1996, determined the market
value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.140/- per sq.meter. However,
for adjusting the value representing large areas of the plot, the Reference
Court considered it appropriate to make a deduction of 1/3rd from the total
amount calculated.
Still not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the
appellant approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench,
Nagpur)(hereinafter referred to as `the High Court') by preferring First
Appeal Nos.638 and 639 of 1996. The same came to be disposed of by the
impugned order dated 15.10.2012. The High Court, after examining the
evidence recorded before the Reference Court, arrived at the conclusion,
that the lands acquired were situated within the heart of the town, and
were surrounded by residential houses, commercial complexes etc. and major
part of the area adjoined the Akola-Akot Road. It is therefore, that the
High Court determined the market value at Rs.200/- per sq.meter. However,
the High Court directed deduction at the rate of 1/3rd towards development
charges and thereupon, arrived at the conclusion, that the market value
payable ought to have been at the rate of Rs.133/- per sq.meter. The High
Court rounded the rate determined, by awarding the appellants Rs.135/- per
sq.meter.
It was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants, that there was no justification whatsoever, for recording any
deduction, specially when there was no question of any internal or external
development, and as such, expenses of such developments should not have
been taken into consideration so as to grant a deduction of 1/3rd of the
amount. In order to substantiate his above contention, learned counsel for
the appellants has referred to the decision in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul
Hamid Mulla (Dead) by Lrs. and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
and others, (2012) 7 SCC 595, and placed reliance on the observations
recorded in para 19 thereof. Having given our thoughtful consideration to
the position expressed in paragraph 19, it is apparent, that while fixing
the market value of the acquired land, which may be undeveloped or
underdeveloped, the courts have approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market
value towards development cost, “except when”, no development is required
to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is
acquired. Admittedly, the public purpose in the instant case is to raise a
school and to provide for play-grounds, for the students to be enrolled in
the school.
The factual position, we are satisfied is, that the land in
question is located within the heart of the city, as is the case projected
at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants. The acquired land
is to be used for raising a school building, and to provide play-grounds
therewith. There would hardly be any requirement for development charges,
in the peculiar facts of this case. We are therefore satisfied, that the
deduction of 1/3rd amount, expressed by the High Court, was wholly
unjustified.
However, we are unable to accept the determination of the High
Court, that the compensation to be awarded to the appellants should be at
the rate of Rs.200/- per sq.meter. The exemplar land, on the basis of which
the appellants desired the determination of market price, itself was sold
at the rate of Rs.161/- per sq.meter (total area 105.90 sq.meters sold at
the rate of Rs.17,000/- vide sale deed dated 02.05.1986). The area of the
exemplar land was rather small, in comparison to the acquired land. There
is therefore no justification on facts, for the acquired land being given
land value more than the exemplar land. For the reasons recorded
hereinabove, we consider it just and appropriate to determine the market
value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.161/- per sq.meter i.e., the
same as the exemplar land. Ordered accordingly.
The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
The appellants shall also be entitled to all consequential
statutory benefits. Since the acquisition of the appellants' land relates
to the year 1986-87, we consider it just and appropriate to direct the
respondents to disburse the compensation payable to the land loser i.e. the
appellants herein within three months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
..........................J.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)
..........................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
..........................J.
(ARUN MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 28, 2016.