NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 18001 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.24199/2016]

MADHUSUDAN KABRA & ORS.     APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, declining to grant land value to the extent they had prayed before the Reference Court.  The acquisition is pursuant to the  Notification  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 1992.  The Land Acquisition Collector  relied  on  exemplar  of  1988  and  granted compensation to the tune of Rs.23,500/- per hectare. The  Reference  Court  declined  to  grant  any enhancement.  The High Court, taking note of the fact that  the  acquisition  is  of  the  year  1992  but  the exemplar  taken  is  of  1988,  granted  10%  annual increase on the exemplar and thus granted a further

1

amount  of  Rs.8,400/-  thus  total  compensation  of Rs.32,000/-  per  hectare  was  granted  towards acquisition for the purpose of a canal. Though the appellants  took  several  contentions  before  this Court, while issuing notice by order dated 12.08.2016 we have made it clear that the scope of inquiry by this Court would be limited to two aspects, one the percentage of enhancement and the other, whether it should be on the simple or compound basis. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the interests of justice would be served by fixing annual increase on the exemplar, in the peculiar facts of this case by 15% at compounding rate. 4. We  are  conscious  of  the  fact,  while  granting relief,  as  above,  the  appellants  have  not  been granted separate compensation for the fruit bearing trees. 5. Accordingly, the order passed by the High Court will stand modified to the above extent.  As we have already  made  it  clear  vide  our  order  dated 12.08.2016, the appellant would not be entitled for any statutory benefits for the period of delay. 6. The  respondents  are  directed  to  deposit  the amount before the Executing Court within a period of three months. 7. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

2

8. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 9. There shall be no orders as to costs.

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

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 06, 2017.

3