DIGAMBER Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .
Bench: G.S. SINGHVI,V. GOPALA GOWDA
Case number: C.A. No.-005346-005346 / 2013
Diary number: 8396 / 2006
Advocates: LAWYER S KNIT & CO Vs
ANIL SHRIVASTAV
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5346 OF 2013
DIGAMBER & ORS. .. APPELLANTS VS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
Leave has been granted by this Court vide order
dated 8.7.2013.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 05.10.2005 passed by the High Court of
Page 2
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad passed in
First Appeal No. 646 of 1998 whereby the High Court
set aside the judgment and award dated 02.05.1998 of
the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded
passed in land acquisition reference case and restored
the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.50,000/-
per hectare by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Nanded by allowing the appeal filed by the
respondents.
3. It is contended by Ms. Bina Madhavan, the learned
counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment
is contrary to the legal evidence on record
particularly Exhs. 20-21 which are the sale deeds of
the plots covered in the same area that were prior to
the notification that is before 14.06.1990 which sale
instances were very well considered by the reference
court for comparison and the finding of fact was
recorded that the said instances are comparable to the
acquired land to that of the plots covered in the sale
2
2
Page 3
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
deeds. Therefore, it is contended that the acquired
land has the similar non agricultural potentiality and
the State Government had acquired the said land in
favour of the Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation (in short ‘the Corporation’) for the
purpose of formation of industrial estate and sale of
the plots for commercial purposes. It is urged by the
learned counsel that the judgment and award passed by
the reference court is erroneously set aside by the
High Court as it has found fault with it in placing
reliance upon the sale instances and has wrongly re-
determined the market value of the land which findings
recorded by the High Court in its judgment are not
only erroneous in law but also suffers from error in
fact and therefore, the same is liable to be set
aside.
4. The further legal contention urged by the learned
counsel for the appellants is that learned reference
Judge has rightly awarded the compensation of the
3
3
Page 4
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
acquired land after re-determining its market value
based on legal evidence on record at the rate of
Rs.5/- per sq. feet. The documentary evidence produced
by the appellants are sale deeds marked as Exhs. 22
and 23 pertaining to years 1991 and 1993 respectively
and Exhs. 24 and 25 pertaining to the year 1994, ie.
post acquisition notification period. That the plots
covered in the said sale instances are non
agricultural plots of Venkateshnagar Layout which are
comparable to the acquired land is the finding of fact
recorded by the learned Judge of the reference court
on proper appreciation of legal evidence on record.
The same is supported by the decision of this Court in
the case of The special Land Acquisition Officer,
BTDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahbi Bawa Sahib1,
wherein this Court in the aforesaid case has held that
the reference court can take into consideration the
plots which are covered in the sale instances which
were small bits of land, if the acquired land is
comparable to the land covered in sale deeds and that 1 JT 2002 (3) SC 176
4
4
Page 5
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
placing reliance on such sale instances by the
reference court for re-determination of the market
value of the acquired land is permissible in law. It
is further urged by the learned counsel that this
vital aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the
learned Judge of the High Court while passing the
impugned judgment and award by setting aside the
judgment and award of the reference court and restored
the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer which is vitiated both on facts and on law.
Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and the
judgment of the reference court must be restored.
5. Further, it is contended by her that the learned
Judge of the High Court has erred in affirming the
compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer at Rs. 50,000/- per hectare of the acquired
land ignoring its potentiality as it is acquired for
the purpose of formation of industrial estate with a
view to carve out the plots and allot the same in
5
5
Page 6
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
favour of allottees/private industrial entrepreneurs
at commercial rates for construction of the commercial
and industrial buildings upon such allotted plots.
6. It is further contended that the impugned judgment
and award of the High Court is otherwise contrary to
the principles of law laid down by this Court in a
catena of cases, and, therefore requested this Court
to award just and reasonable compensation as awarded
by the reference court.
7. Mrs. Asha Gopalan Nair, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.Shyam Divan, learned
Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 have sought to
justify the impugned judgment of the High Court, inter
alia, contending that the learned single Judge of the
High Court has rightly set aside the impugned judgment
in the First Appeal after recording valid and cogent
reasons for rejecting the finding recorded by the
reference court on contentious issues by placing
6
6
Page 7
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
reliance upon the pre and post sale instances in
relation to the non residential plots which are not
comparable to the acquired land. Therefore, it is
submitted that the High Court has rightly came to the
conclusion on proper re-appraisal of evidence and held
that the finding of fact recorded by the reference
court in placing reliance upon the sale instances is in
relation to small plots, whereas the land acquired is a
bigger area. Therefore, the plots covered under sale
instances are not comparable to the acquired land in
order to arrive at a conclusion and record finding that
the acquired land is comparable to the plots referred
to supra. Further, the land of the owners has not
acquired non agricultural potentiality and re-
determination of the market value by the learned
reference Judge on the basis of sale instances is
erroneous and contrary to the judgments of this Court.
The High Court, in support of its findings and
conclusions has placed reliance upon the judgment of
this Court reported in Saraswati Devi and others Vs.
7
7
Page 8
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
U.P. Government & Anr2. and another judgment in Union
of India Vs. Zila Singh and Ors.3 wherein this court
after interpretation of Section 23 of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (in short ‘the L.A. Act), has held that the
sale price in respect of a small piece of land (one
bigha in that case) cannot be the basis for
determination of market value of a vast stretch of
land (5484 bighas in that case). Therefore, the
impugned judgment of the High Court in setting aside
the judgment of the reference court must be accepted by
this Court and does not call for interference by this
Court. Hence, they have prayed for dismissal of this
appeal.
8. With reference to the above rival legal contentions,
the following points would arise for consideration of
this Court:
2 AIR 1992 SC 1620 3(2003) 10 SCC 166
8
8
Page 9
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
I. Whether the impugned judgment passed by
the High Court by reversing the
judgment and award of the reference
court is vitiated on the ground of
erroneous finding and also error in
law?
II. For what award the appellants are
entitled to in this appeal?
9. The first point is required to be answered in the
affirmative in favour of the appellants for the
following reasons:-
The State of Maharashtra in exercise of its
statutory power acquired the lands in favour of the
Corporation by publishing the notification in the
government gazette on 7.09.1991, and final notification
published in the government gazette on 12.07.1992, for
the purpose of industrial development by the
Corporation in the State of Maharashtra. Undisputedly
the acquisition of land is for non residential purpose
9
9
Page 10
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
as it was required to establish industries through
industrial entrepreneurs in the acquired land by
forming industrial estate and carving out the
industrial plots by the Corporation, which is purely a
commercial purpose. This important aspect of the
matter was required to be kept in mind by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer at the time of determining the
market value of the acquired land in exercise of his
statutory power under Section 11 of the L.A. Act and
the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded
compensation at Rs. 50,000/- per hectare of the
acquired land which does not reflect the correct market
value.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the said award the
appellants herein sought for reference to the reference
court by filing claim petition under Section 34 of the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 for
enhancement of compensation by re-determining the
market value. The Collector made reference to the
reference court by acceding to the request of the land
10
10
Page 11
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
owners for re-determination of the market value of the
acquired land. The appellants produced documentary
evidence of sale instances of the plots which are
situated in the near proximity of the acquired land and
the reference court has examined their claim for
enhancement of compensation and rightly re-determined
the market value of their land by placing reliance upon
the sale instances. The said claim was opposed by the
respondents by filing their written statement, inter
alia, contending that compensation awarded by the land
acquisition officer is as per the sale consideration of
the land covered in the sale instances which are
situated nearby the acquired land. The claimants have
rightly placed strong reliance upon the sale instances
of small plots which are formed in the New
Venkateshnagar layout. The sale deed Exh. 21 dated
17.3.1989 shows that the 120 sq. feet was sold for Rs.
3500/- and Exhs. 20 and 22 dated 03.11.1989 which plots
measuring 1200 sq. feet sold for Rs.9000/- i.e. Rs.
7.50/- per sq. feet. The aforesaid sale deeds are no
11
11
Page 12
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
doubt prior to the issuance of preliminary notification
under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The other sale
instance produced by the claimants, Exh. 23 from GRC
136 shows that plot No.22 about 1500 sq. feet has been
sold for 18,000/- at the rate of Rs. 12 per sq. feet.
The sale deed is dated 31.05.1993 i.e. three years
later from the date of issuance of preliminary
notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. Another
sale deed Exh. 14 is in respect of G.No.605 wherein
plot No. 8 measuring 45 x 14 sq. feet was sold for Rs.
35,000/- on 21.12.1994. The appellants also produced
the sale deed dated 16.02.1990 at Exh. 33 showing that
plot No. 34 and 35 admeasuring 60 x 30 feet situated at
Venkateshnagar Layout was sold for Rs. 11,000/-.
Another sale deed Exh. 34 shows that one plot No. 13
measuring 40 x 30 feet was sold for Rs. 9,000/- on
02.11.1991 which are all after the preliminary
notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. The
learned reference Judge has rightly placed reliance
upon the said sale instances for comparison and held
12
12
Page 13
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
that the acquired land is comparable to the plots
covered in the sale deeds referred to supra, as it has
acquired non-agricultural potentiality and the acquired
land is situated in the near proximity to the plots
covered in the sale deeds.
11. The learned Judge of the reference court has
referred to the notes of inspection of the site made by
the Assistant Collector and Land Acquisition Officer on
21.11.1990, wherein they have stated that the acquired
land is situated adjacent to Bhokar and on the eastern
side of Bhokar Umri Road i.e. towards southern side of
Bhokar - Bhainsa Road, and population of Bhokar is
about 12000. It is further stated that there are
various facilities in the said area like school and
college. Bhokar is connected by Railway and State Road
Transport. The learned reference Judge after referring
to the factual contention urged on behalf of the Land
Acquisition Officer and the claim of the appellants and
placing reliance upon the documentary and oral evidence
on record, passed judgment by awarding just and
13
13
Page 14
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
reasonable compensation by re-determining the market
value. The land G.No.133 is acquired for the purpose
of Mini MIDC i.e. for non agricultural purpose and
further with reference to Map. 4, the acquired land is
on Nanded Bhokar – Bhainsa Highway. Further, on the
basis of receipts produced at Exhs. 17 and 18, the
claimant No. 2 Ashok Narayan Kondalwar has converted
his share of land from G.No. 123 into non-agricultural
purpose. To substantiate this fact the claimants
produced the certificate issued by the Talathi, which
is marked as Exh. 19. The learned reference Judge has
also taken note of the fact that there is no evidence
to prove that the acquired land was converted for non
agricultural purpose prior to 14.06.1990. From Exhs.
40 and 41, it is clear that the possession of this land
was taken on 19.6.1995 and prior to that date claimant
No. 2 Ashok Narayan Kondalwar had converted his share
of land into non agricultural purpose. The learned
Judge did not consider the said documentary evidence
and erroneously held that they are not helpful to the
14
14
Page 15
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
appellants. However, he has rightly placed reliance
upon the sale instances on record and come to the
correct conclusion and held that there is tendency for
price of the land to increase in the locality and found
fault with the Land Acquisition Officer in not
determining the market value of the acquired land at
the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. feet after deducting 40%
area of the acquired land which is used for the purpose
of development. Therefore, the appellants are entitled
for compensation as awarded by the learned Judge of the
reference court.
12. The learned reference Judge has recorded a finding
of fact stating that the acquired land is having non
agricultural potentiality as it has been acquired for
MIDC for the purpose of industrial development and
further, it is an admitted fact that no crops were
raised by the appellants upon the land. The claim of
the appellants was partly allowed by the reference
Judge holding that they are entitled for enhanced
15
15
Page 16
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. feet as
per the calculations made in the judgment of the
reference court.
13. Accordingly, the reference Judge has rightly re-
determined the market value of the acquired land and
awarded all statutory benefits like 30% solatium and
interest and additional compound interest from August,
1993 to 6th March, 1995. Statutory interest under
Section 38 of the L.A. Act was given, on enhanced
compensation from 19.06.1995 to 18.06.1996 and
thereafter @ 15% from 19.06.1996 till the date of
realization of the amount by the appellants.
14. We have carefully examined the factual and legal
contentions urged on behalf of the parties and also
the findings recorded by the learned reference Judge
in the judgment impugned in the First Appeal filed by
the respondents before the High Court. The reference
court has rightly placed reliance upon the sale
16
16
Page 17
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
instances for comparison with that of the acquired
land after satisfying the fact that it has also
acquired non-agricultural potentiality. The subsequent
sale deeds in relation to the residential plots of New
Venkateshnagar Layout, which were sold after the
preliminary notification was issued in relation to the
acquired land, the learned reference Judge has noticed
the same and held that there is a trend of escalation
of the price of land situated in the proximity of the
acquired land. The said finding of fact is erroneously
set aside by the High Court, holding that the learned
reference Judge has erroneously applied the sale
instances of the small residential plots of New
Venkateshnagar Layout to the land acquired by the
State government in favour of the M.I.D.C. The Land
Acquisition Officer while determining the market value
has considered the acquired land as agricultural land
and awarded inadequate compensation in favour of the
appellants.
17
17
Page 18
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
15. We have carefully examined the factual and legal
contentions urged on behalf of the respondents keeping
in view the decision of this Court in the case of
Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer4, wherein this Court after
interpreting Section 23 of the L.A. Act, 1894, referred
to the various legal principles laid down by the Bombay
High Court and this Court regarding the relevant
criteria to be followed by the Land Acquisition
Collector and Courts for determination of the market
value of the land acquired for public purpose. At
paragraph 5 of the above referred judgment, there is a
reference to the Bombay High Court’s judgment rendered
in the case of Nama Padu Huddar Vs. State of
Maharashtra5, the relevant extracted portion is
reproduced below:
“Judicial note can be taken of the fact that the industrial growth in and around Bombay has started with rapid stride from the year 1965 onwards. In fact, the growth is by leaps and bounds in the magnitude of industries as well as number of industries
4 (2012) 7 SCC 595 5 1994 BCJ 316
18
18
Page 19
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
and virtually all the industries of the country are represented on the industrial estates scattered on this highway. It is also an admitted position that on this highway on all sides the facility of electric supply is available as also of abundant water supply. In the area in question it is also an admitted position that all the lands have suitable access roads to Zila Parishad and State Highway including lands which are the farthest from the highway.”
16. Further, in para 7 of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul
Hamid Mulla’s judgment, reference is made to the
judgments in Shashikant Krishanji v. Land Acquisition
Officer6 and Nama Padu Huddar v. State of Maharashtra
(supra), relevant portion of which is extracted
below:-
“The land involved in the reference in hand and the land involved in State of Maharashtra v. Ramchandra Damodar Koli7 are virtually identical situated in the same area bearing similar topographical and physical characteristics covered by the same Notification dated 3-2-1970, when the nearby land of the land under reference fetched market value @ Rs 25 per square metre. On the date of notification, certainly the land under reference will fetch the same market value.”
6 1993 BCJ 27 7 (1997) 2 Mah. LR 325
19
19
Page 20
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
17. Also paras 16 and 17 from Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf
Abdul Hamid Mulla (supra) are quoted hereunder:
“16. We have considered the respective arguments and carefully perused the record. It is settled law that while fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors:
(i) Existing geographical situation of the land.
(ii) Existing use of the land. (iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area. (iv) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near the acquired land.
17. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat8 this Court laid down the following principles for determination of market value of the acquired land: (SCC pp. 796-97)
“17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4.
18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land
8 (2005) 4 SCC 789
20
20
Page 21
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.
19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.”
18. Further, it would be worthwhile to refer to the
portion which is extracted from Atma Singh Vs. State
of Haryana9 which para is referred to at para 18 in
Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla’s case (supra) which reads thus:
“5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined
9 (2008) 2 SCC 568
21
21
Page 22
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, uses to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether nearabout town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration.”
19. In para 22 of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid
Mulla’s case (supra), the judgment of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer Vs. L. Kamalamma10 is referred
to and the relevant portion of which is extracted
hereunder:
“7. … When a land is acquired which has the
potentiality of being developed into an urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid while in respect of the lands on the interior side it should be at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages as well as disadvantages. Many a discerning customer may prefer to stay in the interior and far away
10 (1998) 2 SCC 385
22
22
Page 23
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
from the main road and may be willing to pay a reasonably higher price for that site. One cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to indulge in a meticulous exercise of classification of the land as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land was acquired in one block and therefore classification of the same into different categories does not stand to reason.”
20. Para 18 of this Court's judgment in the case of
Faridabad Gas Power Project, NTPC Ltd.,etc Vs. Om
Prakash & Ors., etc11, is extracted thus:
“18. On the facts and circumstances of the matters before us and difference in quality and potentiality of the lands acquired, we are of the view that market value of the acquired lands for NTPC when compared to the lands acquired for Sector-II Faridabad, should be reduced by at least one-fifth (20%).”
21. It would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of
Privy Council decided on 23.02.1939 in the decision
reported in Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju Vs.
Revenue Divisional Officer12 wherein at para 24 it
reads as under:
“24. It was then claimed on the appellant’s behalf that the spring could but
11 (2009) 4 SCC 719 12 AIR 1939 PC 98
23
23
Page 24
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
for its acquisition, have been used by him as a source of water supply either to the Harbour Authority or to the oil companies and others residing or carrying on business in the harbour area; and the appellant claimed to be compensated upon this footing. After a lengthy hearing before him in the course of which many questions of law and fact not now in issue were discussed, the learned Judge made his award. He found as a fact, and the fact cannot be disputed, that the water of the spring was on 13th February, 1928 capable of being used as a source of water supply to persons outside the plaintiff’s land. He also found that the only possible buyers of the water at that date were the Harbour authority itself and the oil companies and labour camps that might be established as a result of the development of the Harbour and stated that this fact would be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of compensation. But after considering the authorities on the subject, he came to the conclusion as a matter of law that the value to a vendor of a potentiality of his land can be assessed even though there are no other possible purchasers beyond the acquiring authority. Other principles of law stated by him for his guidance in making his award were that it was the contingent possibility of the user that had to be taken as the basis of valuation and not the realized possibility and that the use to which the acquiring authority had actually put the property could be taken as a strong piece of evidence to show that the property acquired could be put to such use by the owner at the date of acquisition.”
(Emphasis supplied)
24
24
Page 25
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
22. The judgment of Bombay High Court extracted in
Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla’s case (supra), and the principles laid down by this Court would
clearly go to show that the relevant consideration for
determination of market value of the acquired land is
virtually identical. The nearby land of the land under
reference fetched market value of Rs.25/- per sq.
metre. In the judgment referred to supra it is held
that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the
industrial growth in and around Bombay has started with
rapid strides from the year 1965 onwards. In fact, the
growth is by leaps and bounds in magnitude as well as
number of industries and virtually all the industries
of the country are represented on the industrial
estates scattered on this highway.
23. The sale instances in relation to the small
residential plots covered in the sale deeds Exhs. 20-
21 are situated in the same area, which sales were
prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification
25
25
Page 26
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
i.e. before 14.06.1990 and it has similar
topographical and physical characteristics and the
fact is that the land of the appellants is acquired
for the purpose of industrial development, which has
got the potentiality for development of the land as
industrial estate and to carve out industrial plots in
it. That the acquisition of the land is for commercial
purpose should be the relevant criteria for
determining the market value by both the Land
Acquisition Officer and reference Court placing
reliance upon the sale instances even in relation to
small plots of land, though it is shown from the
records that the acquired land on the date of
notification is an agricultural land. But the acquired
land has got non agricultural potentiality as the said
land was proposed by the District Collector after
identifying the land for acquisition and stated that
it is suitable for the purpose of industrial
development. Therefore, the principles laid down at
para 16 of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla's
26
26
Page 27
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
case and the principles laid down in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor’s case referred to supra laid down the criteria for determination of the market value of the
acquired land. Also, in Atma Singh’s case (supra) it was stated that the criteria for the determination of
the market value the potentiality of the acquired land
should also be taken into consideration which has been
explained stating that potentiality means capacity or
possibility for changing or developing into a state of
actuality. Further, the legal principles laid down in
the case of Atma Singh (supra)at para 5 which portion is extracted above, gives us the criteria to be
followed for determination of the market value of a
property keeping in view its existing condition with
all its existing advantages and its potential
possibility when let out in its most advantageous
manner. The various criteria laid down in the above
referred case namely, the existing amenities like
water, electricity, possibility of their further
extension, whether near about the acquired land, town
27
27
Page 28
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
is developing or has prospect of development in
future, have to be taken into consideration by both
the Land Acquisition Collector and the courts for
determination of the market value. The aforesaid
advantages are very much abundantly available in
respect of the acquired land as the said land is
within the proximity of New Venkateshnagar Layout,
wherein residential sites are formed, and it is on
record and there is a school and college near the
Highway. Therefore, the principles laid down in the
aforesaid case are aptly applicable to the fact
situation of the case in hand. Hence, we have to apply
the aforesaid principles laid down in the cases of
Atma Singh & Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (supra) to the case on hand.
24. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the
view that the findings of fact and reasons recorded by
the learned Judge of the reference court in determining
28
28
Page 29
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
the market value of the acquired land are well founded
and the same are based on facts, cogent and legal
evidence adduced on record by the appellants. The same
has been rightly accepted by the learned reference
Judge after having noticed that the Land Acquisition
Officer in a casual manner rejected the claim of the
appellants and determined the meager sum of Rs.
50,000/- per hectare as the market value of the land
which is unrealistic and contrary to the legal evidence
on record and the law laid down by this Court in the
cases referred to supra. The findings of fact recorded
by the reference Judge on the relevant issue has been
erroneously set aside by the High Court without
assigning valid reasons. The findings and reasons
recorded by the High Court in its judgment are contrary
to the facts and legal evidence and various legal
principles laid down by this court in the cases
referred to supra. Therefore, we have to record our
finding that reversing the judgment and award of the
reference court is not only erroneous on facts but is
29
29
Page 30
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
also erroneous in law. Accordingly, we answer the first
point in favour of the appellants.
25. Since, we have answered the first point in favour
of the appellants, the second point is also answered
in favour of the appellants and it would be just and
proper for this Court to restore the judgment and award
passed by the reference court. Since we have affirmed
the award of the reference court, having regard to the
undisputed fact that this acquisition is of more than
23 years, it would be just and proper for this Court to
direct the respondent No.3 – M.I.D.C. to issue the
Demand Draft in favour of the landowners/appellants or
their legal representatives or deposit the same in
their bank accounts within six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment and submit the
compliance report before the reference court.
26. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be
no order as to cost.
30
30
Page 31
C.A. @ SLP© No. 8274 of 2006
…………………………………………………………J [G.S. SINGHVI]
…………………………………………………………J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA]
New Delhi, August 1, 2013
31
31