Bhikabai & Ors Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr  Insc 65 (6 February 2002)
Khare & Ashok Bhan Bhan, J.
by the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in reducing the compensation
payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and claiming more, fair and
equitable compensation for the acquired land the claimants have come up in
On 15th May, 1974 State of Gujarat issued a Notification under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for
acquisition of 78 hectares, 32 acres and 54 sq. meters of land in Village Gorva,
which is situated within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Baroda, Gujarat, for the Gujarat Housing Board. It was published in the
official Gazette on 8th
Notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 12th July, 1977 and was
published in the Gazette on 21st July, 1erests of the applicants were in
conflict with that of ALC and in view of the same, it is essential in the
interest of justice to separate their petitions for Special Leave to appeal of
the applicants and they be permitted to be represented by another advocate of
their choice. The ALC has contested the applications filed by the claimants on
points arise for consideration in these appeals. The first point is for the
determination of the fair compensation payable to the claimants/ALC for the
land acquired. On this point, the interest of the ALC and other claimants
including 22 claimants, who have filed the application for separating their
special leave petition, is common. The second point is the inter se dispute
between the 22 claimants-appellants who have filed the application for
separating their special leave petition and the ALC in whose favour they have
transferred their right to get compensation over and above Rs. 1.35 per sq. ft..
first point after going through the evidence it is seen that the claimants had
relied upon three instances of sale. The first was the sale of Survey No. 8 of
Village Gorwa in which the agreement to sell was executed on 25.6.1972. The
land was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs. 3.50 per sq.ft. to the housing
society. The sale deed was to be executed within six months after obtaining the
necessary permissions from the State Government. Because of the said condition
the actual sale deed was executed in the year 1979. Next sale instance relied
upon was in respect of Survey No. 9. The sale deeds are Exs. 71 to 75 dated
30.11.1973, 1.12.1973, 4.12.1973, 5.12.1972 and 6.12.1973 respectively. The
land was sold at the rate of Rs. 2.38 per sq. ft. The third sale instance
relied upon was for the land situated within the Abadi deh of Village Gorwa
executed on 5th December 1973 which was sold at the rate of Rs. 7 per sq. ft. The
High Court discarded the first sale instance on the ground that the land sold
by the sale deed was better located than the land under acquisition. Moreover,
the parties to the sale did not expect the sale to be completed within a short
time and this factor must have been taken into consideration for fixing a price
higher than the prevailing price. The third sale deed was excluded as the same
was situated in the Abadi area.
High Court accepted the second instance, where the land was sold for Rs. 2.38
per sq. ft. but reduced it by Rs. 0.50 paise per sq. ft. It was held that at
the first instance the land had been agreed to be sold to Datta Land
Corporation for Rs. 1.88 per sq. ft. which later on sold the same to the Jay Satyanarayan
Co-operative Housing Society at Rs. 2.38 per sq. ft. The High Court reduced the
price by Rs. 0.50 per sq.ft. because Datta Land Corporation did not need the
land and transaction entered into by them was speculative in nature. The
consideration paid to Datta Land Corporation was reduced from the sale price of
Rs. 2.38 per sq. ft., thus fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 1.88 per
sq. ft. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court on the
second instance of sale. There was no justification for reducing the payment
which had been made to Datta Land Corporation. Once the sale price of Rs. 2.38
per sq. ft. is accepted to be the price prevailing in December 1973 then it
could not be reduced by the sum paid to the intermediary in whose favour the
first agreement to sell had been executed. The price of the land could not be
reduced on the ground that intermediary after having agreed to purchase the
land at Rs. 1.88 per sq. ft. had later sold the land to the vendee at Rs. 2.38
per sq. ft. on making a profit of Rs. 0.50 paise per sq. ft.
price of Rs. 3.50 per sq. ft. which was the agreed sale price for Survey No. 8
in the first sale instance cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the
land in Survey No. 8 (first sale instance) and the land in the Survey No. 9
(second sale instance) are adjoining to each other. The sale in the second sale
instance was in December, 1973 and the prevailing price at that time was Rs.
2.38 per sq. ft. Therefore, the price of the adjoining land on 25th June, 1972 in Survey No. 8 could not have been
Rs. 3.50 sq. ft. The same seems to be highly exaggerated. As the parties did
not expect the sale deed to be completed within a short time, they must have
taken this factor into consideration while fixing the price at a higher rate
than the prevailing price. The agreements to sell were of 1972 whereas the sale
deeds were executed in the year 1979. The third sale instance which was of the Abadi
land was rightly discarded by the High Court.
the map shown to us we find that the acquired land is not far away from survey
Nos. 8 and 9. The total distance between the two may not be more than 60 to 70 yds
from each other. Keeping in these factors in view, we are of the opinion that
the prevailing market price in the first week of December, 1973 of the acquired
land was Rs. 2.38 per sq. ft.. In May 1974 when the notification under Section
4 was issued the price may have been little higher than Rs. 2.38 per sq. ft. as
rapid development was taking place in and around the area where the land under
reference was situated. Land comprising in Survey No. 8 which was sold measured
2800 sq. yds. Keeping in view the fact that large areas of land do not fetch
the same price as the small piece of land and a large amount is required to be
spent for developing the land, we fix the price of land at Rs. 2.00 per sq. ft.
instead of Rs. 1.88 per sq. ft. thus enhancing the compensation by Rs. 0.12
paise per sq. ft. The claimants would be entitled to statutory solatium @ 30%
as has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India &
Another vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Etc. [1989 (2) SCC 754] as the award
of the reference court was made after the coming into force of the amendments
introduced by the amending Act of 1984.
appearing for the claimants contended that the claimants would be entitled to
an additional compensation @ 12% as provided under Section 23 (1A) of the Act.
This contention cannot be accepted in view of a Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama,
1990 (1) SCC 277 which held that additional compensation under Section 23 (1A)
of the Act would not be available to a claimant in which the acquisition
proceedings commenced and the award was made by the Collector prior to April
30, 1982. If the Collector made the award before 30th April, 1982 then the additional amount under Section 23 (1A) cannot be
awarded. The pendency of the acquisition proceedings on 30th April, 1982 before the Collector was essential
for attracting the benefit under Section 23 (1A) of the Act. It was held:
of additional amount provided under Section 23 (1-A) depends upon pendency of
acquisition proceedings as on April 30, 1982
or commencement of acquisition proceedings after that date. Section 30 sub-
section 1(a) provides that additional amount provided under Section 23 (1-A)
shall be applicable to acquisition proceedings pending before the Collector as
on April 30, 1982 in which he has not made the award before that date. If the
Collector has made the award before that date then, that additional amount cannot
30 sub-section (1)(b) provides that Section 23 (1- A) shall be applicable to
every acquisition proceedings commenced after April 30, 1982 irrespective of the fact whether the Collector has made an
award or not before September
24, 1984. The final
point to note is that Section 30 sub-section (1) does not refer to court award
and the court award is used only in Section 30 sub- section (2)." No
judgment taking a contrary view to the above-referred case was cited before us.
Accordingly, it is held that the appellants would not be entitled to the
additional compensation provided under Section 23 (1A) of the Act.
would be seen that the reference court as well as the High Court have held that
the claimants are bound by the agreement entered into by them with the ALC in
view of the admissions made by them in their reference applications and the
statements made in the Court. Claimants had accepted that they had entered into
an agreement to transfer their interest in the compensation payable over and
above Rs. 1.35 per sq. ft. in favour of the ALC. They had specifically stated
that the amount of compensation over and above Rs. 1.35 per sq. ft. be paid to
the ALC. We are not opining on this matter as this might prejudice the rights
of the parties in suit No. 156 of 1980 between the ALC and the seven claimants
in the Civil Court at Nadiad.
claimants-appellants who have asked for separating their interest did not
contest the right of the ALC to get the higher amount of compensation as per
agreement either before the reference court or before the High Court.
material has been placed before us to record a finding to the contrary.
these facts in view, we direct that the enhanced amount be paid to the ALC,
reserving the rights that the claimants to recover the same from the ALC, if
permissible in law, on taking recourse to an appropriate proceedings in a court
of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law.
appeals are partly allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
N. Khare ) .J.