Smt. Shakuntalabai
& Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra [1995] INSC 728 (23 November 1995)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (2) 152 JT 1995 (8) 501 1995 SCALE (6)693
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'),
acquiring an extent of 20 acres of land in Survey No.24/2 situated in Akola
town for construction of the houses to weaker sections and middle income group
people, was published in the State Gazette on August 11, 1965. The Land
Acquisition Officer in his award dated March 26, 1971 determined the market
value of the front portion of land admeasuring 4 acres 18 gunthas at Rs.5,500/-
per acre and for the rest of 15 acres and 32 gunthas at 4,500/- per acres.
Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the
Act and the Senior Civil Judge in his award and decree dated September 26, 1972 enhanced the compensation in
respect of the lands in the front portion at Rs.1.25 per sq. ft. and to the
rest of the land at Rs.1/- per sq. ft. He also deducted Rs.3,000/- per acre
towards development charges and 30% land was left over for roads etc. On appeal
by the State and also on cross appeal by the appellant, by judgment and decree
dated July 28, 1980 the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court set aside the
award and decree of the Reference Court and confirmed that of the Land
Acquisition Officer. Thus this appeal by special leave.
It is
true, as noted by the Reference
Court and also accepted
by the High Court, that the lands are situated in a developing area surrounded
by roads on three sides and the lands had potential value for development for
building purposes. Shri Mohta, learned senior counsel for the appellant,
contended that the High Court totally omitted to consider Exh.38, a sale deed
dated May 14, 1964, in respect of lands of an extent of 5392 sq. ft. for a
consideration of Rs.4,000/- as broken by PW-6, the son of the vendee and Ex.44
dated February 8, 1964 of an extent of 6950 sq. ft. for consideration of
Rs.5,000/- as spoken by PW-8, the clerk of the Yendee who was formerly an
advocate and also was an ex-M.P. These two documents having been executed 18
months preceding the date of the acquisition and the Reference Court having accepted them to be
reflective of having had the same potentialities, since the lands are situated
adjacent to the acquired land, they would establish comparable value. The High
Court committed obvious illegality in not considering this material evidence.
Therefore,
the judgment and decree of the High Court is vitiated by error of law.
Though,
initially, we were inclined to accept the contention of Shri Mohta, on perusal
of evidence on record, we find it difficult to give acceptance to the
contention.
It is
an admitted fact that the claimant as PW-9 admitted in the cross-examination
that in the year 1957 he purchased the very same entire 20 acres of land for
Rs.10,000/-. In other words, he estimated the value of the same land in 1957
taking all potentiality at Rs.10,000/-. He also stated in the cross-examination
that the market value of the lands had increased ten times from 1957 to 1965.
In other words, according to his estimate the acquired land commands market
value in 1965 for a total consideration of around Rs.1 lakh.
The
Land Acquisition Officer considered the evidence and ultimately determined the
market value at Rs.5,500/- and Rs.4,500/- to the different portions of the
land. On belting by average it worked out at a total consideration of Rs.1 lakh.
The
question, therefore, is whether the High Court has committed any manifest error
of law or had applied any wrong principle of law in determining the
compensation and whether its failure to consider Ex.38 and 44 does make any
difference. Having given our consideration to the contention of Shri Mohta, we
think that the High Court had not committed any manifest error of law or
omitted to apply any correct principle of law. It is seen that if there is
evidence or admission on behalf of the claimants as to the market value
commanded by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary
of the acquired land is obviated. The head of take into consideration the value
of the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which
possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for
determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when there
is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where evidence of
the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it is unnecessary
to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market value prevailing in the
adjacent lands.
As
stated earlier, though Ex.38 and 44 might command different market value to the
land situated in approved lay- outs, since the appellant himself had purchased
the self- same acquired lands in 1957 at Rs. 10,000/- for the entire 20 acres
of land, the High Court was right in its view to consider the very same
evidence to determine the compensation to the acquired land. On the assessment
of the increase in the value by 10 times, the High Court had accepted that
assessment of the appellant himself as PW-9 and upheld the award of the Land
Acquisition Collector since it reflects the same price as granted in the award
under Section 11.
It is
seen that the Reference Court blissfully overlooked the admission of the owner
on the surmise that it is an estimate made by the claimant and the evidence of
the sale deeds under ex.38 and 44 being prevailing prices, it acted thereon and
determined the compensation. The approach of the Reference Court is clearly illegal and that of the High Court is quite
correct and it was the only way in which the market value could be determined
on the face of the evidence on record. The Reference Court committed manifest error in determining the compensation on
the basis of sq. ft. When lands of an extent of 20 acres are offered for sale
in an open market, no willing and prudent purchaser would come forward to
purchase that vast extent of land on sq. ft. basis. Therefore, the Reference Court has to consider the valuation
sitting on the arm chair of a willing prudent hypothetical vendee and to put a
question to itself whether in given circumstances, he would agree to purchase
the land on sq. ft. basis. No feats of imagination is necessary to reach the
conclusion. The answer is obviously no. This aspect of the matter was totally
ignored by the Reference
Court and
mechanically accepted the two sale deeds to enhance the compensation at a value
of nearly Rs.35,000/- per acre.
In
State of M.P. vs. Santabai & Ors., (C.A. No.2844/34) and Salgoankar vs.
Union of India (C.A. No.3800/89) decided on 11.1.1990), this Court had accepted
the principle that when the owner himself has purchased the land under
acquisition, the consideration mentioned in the sale deed would form the basis
to determine the market value. Though the High Court has relied on the sale
deeds under Ex.65 and 66 relating to the lands in Nityanand Nagar Colony, it is
also necessary to go into that aspect of the matter in the view we have stated
above.
Considered
from this perspective, we think that it is not a fit case for our interference
under Article 136 of the Constitution. In view of the fact that the appellant
has withdrawn the amount deposited pursuant to the award of the Reference
Court, since the award of the Collector now stands confirmed, respondent No.2
is entitled to recover the same from the appellant. The appellant is given six
months' time for depositing the same with the same interest as was awarded by
the Reference Court.
The
appeal is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without cost.
Back
Pages: 1 2