Smt. Kamalabai
Jageshwar Joshi & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra [1995] INSC 769 (30 November
1995)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.Majmudar S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 981 1996 SCC (1) 669 JT 1995 (9) 127 1995 SCALE (6)764
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Notification
under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on May 10,1962 acquiring a total extent of 62.5 acres belonging to
the appellant for extension of the South Eastern Railway Station. The award
under s.11 was made on May
13, 1965 determining
the compensation @ Rs.250/- per acre. On reference under s.18 by award and
decree dated December
8, 1971, the Court had
enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,000/- per acre. On further appeal under s.54,
the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment and decree dated September 29, 1984 further enhanced the compensation
to Rs.7,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant has filed this
appeal by special leave. The State did not file any appeal against the enhanced
compensation.
Shri
Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant, even
before the acquisition was initiated, had offered the land @ Rs.4/- per sq. yd.
and the Department had agreed and proceeded with the acquisition.
The
High Court should have granted compensation at Rs.4/- per sq. yd. It is also
contended that the High Court having accepted the sale deeds, item 1, 2 and 7
which served as instances of comparable market value, they would form
reasonable basis to determine the compensation. But the High Court committed
grievous error of law in ignoring the maximum price that were fetched in those
sale deeds and the High Court ought to have granted maximum price determined
under those sale deeds. Having heard the learned counsel on both the counts, we
think that there is no force in either contention.
So far
as the claim @ Rs.4/- per sq. yd. is concerned, it was only an offer made by
the appellant and there was no concluded agreement nor at least acceptance by
the Department to purchase the lands at that rate. The concerned engineer had
written to the appellant to give his offer for acquisition of the land whereat
he had quoted at Rs.4/- per sq. yd. There was no acceptance thereof. However,
they referred the matter to the Collector for acquisition. Under those
circumstances, it remained to be at the stage of offer without any acceptance.
It cannot be said that there is a concluded agreement between the
requisitioning authority and the appellant to purchase the lands @ Rs.4/- per
sq. yd.
With
regard to the three sale deeds, it is true that there is some typographical
error in item 2 with regard to the assessment of the price fetched therein. But
one important factor that cannot, under any stretch of imagination, be lost
right of, is that all the lands including the land covered under item 2 are
situated in green belt area. The land in item 2 is of an extent of 260 x 85 sq.
ft. and the consideration referred to therein was Rs.11,500/-. Even at the time
of acquisition, as per the report of the Land Acquisition Officer in the award,
there was no development, though the lands are situated within the master plan
of the municipal limits. Yet the lands remained to be agricultural lands. It is
true that sanction was obtained for converting the lands into non-agricultural
lands. It would be obvious that having become aware of the proposal for
acquisition, the permission for conversion was obtained by the appellant with a
view to inflate the market value. All the sale deeds relate to small extents of
agricultural lands purchased on square feet basis. They would offer no
reasonable basis to further enhance the compensation though they fetched higher
market value worked out at Rs.33,000/- per acre. No reasonable and prudent
purchaser would offer to purchase this vast extent of land at that rate. Except
obtaining sanction for conversion no further action to develop the lands was
taken.
Considered
from these angles the High Court having had the advantage of considering the
entire evidence, determined the compensation at Rs.7,000/- per acre. We do not
think that we would be justified to further enhance the compensation. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2