STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. Vs. SATISH KUMAR KHATRI

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 3673 of 2007, Judgment Date: Jan 21, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3673 OF 2007

MADHUKANTA M. CHINCHANI & ORS.                                  Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.                        Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
1.    The appellants are aggrieved since they are not granted just and  fair
land value in respect of the land acquired from them.  In the nature of  the
order we propose to pass, we do not think it necessary to go  in  detail  to
the factual matrix, which to the extent relevant, is available at  paragraph
4 of the impugned Judgment, which reads as under :-
"In the present case the land under acquisition is from the same cluster  of
lands which was the subject matter of the same award.  The Land  Acquisition
Officer in his award referred to the fact  that  the  Appellants'  land  has
frontage on Mahatma Phule Road  and,  therefore,  valued  the  land  of  the
appellants at the rate of Rs. 60 per sq. mt. as against Rs. 40  and  Rs.  45
for the lands which are the subject matter of LAR Nos. 44 and  46  of  1978.
Ordinarily the appellants would be entitled  to  compensation  at  the  same
rate which was awarded by the learned single Judge in LAR Nos. 44 and 46  of
1978.  However, it is seen from the record that the land of  the  appellants
is much larger compared to the properties involved in the LAR  Nos.  44  and
46 of 1978.  The area of the Appellants' land is 16,631 sq. mts. as  against
the area of 7598 sq. mts. in LAR No. 44 of 1978 and 5440 sq. meters  in  LAR
No. 46 of 1978.  Having considered  the  submissions  made  by  the  learned
counsel for parties we feel that deduction of 15% would be  appropriate  and
the price of Rs. 110 per sq. meter can be safely estimated as  market  price
of the land under acquisition.  The appellants thus  would  be  entitled  to
enhanced compensation of Rs. 50 over and above the compensation  awarded  by
the SLAO along with all the statutory benefits."
2.    There is no dispute that the Land Acquisition Officer had  fixed  only
Rs. 40 and 45 for the lands covered by LAR Nos.  44  and  46  of  1978,  for
which the High Court has granted Rs. 130 per sq. meter.  There  is  also  no
dispute that those are adjoining lands.  It is also an  admitted  fact  that
the land of the appellants has road frontage  whereas  that  lands  in   LAR
Nos. 44 and 46 of 1978 does  not  have  that  advantage.   The  only  reason
stated by the High Court in the  impugned  order  for  not  granting  Rs.130
sq.meters is that the land of the appellants is 16631.95 sq. meters, but  it
has to be seen that the land covered by LAR Nos. 44 and  46  of  1978  which
are adjoining to that of the appellants are not very small  in  size.   They
are having an area of 7598 sq. meters and 5440 sq.  meters.   The  advantage
of road frontage has missed the notice of the court.
3.    Hence, we are of the view that on the principle of  parity,  the  High
Court should have granted at least Rs.  130/-  per  sq.  meter,  though  the
appellants claimed Rs. 175/- per sq. meter before the  Reference  Court  and
Rs. 300/- per sq. meter before the High Court based on  the  report  of  the
valuer of the appellants.
4.    Therefore, this appeal is partly allowed.   The  appellants  shall  be
entitled to the land value at the rate of Rs.  130  per  sq.meter  with  all
other statutory benefits.  There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                   .......................J.
                                                           [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                   [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]

      New Delhi;
      January 21, 2016.