Page 1

1

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

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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.