BILKIS AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 733 · Decided: 05-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 733 
BILKIS AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No(s). 2706-2707 of 2004) 
APRIL 5, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
A 
B 
Acquisition of land - Compensation - Land·acquired for c 
development of tourism - Reference court enhancing 
compensation from Rs.3001- to Rs.6501- per 'Aar' holding that 
the land was permitted to be converted to non-agricultural use 
- High Court reducing the compensation to Rs.5001- per Aar 
- HELD: The potential to which the land is reasonably 
D 
capable of being used in future by the owner should be taken 
into account in assessing the compensation - In the instant 
case, the /arid has been converted to non-agricultural land and 
is a/so adjacent to the highway, only 6- 8 km. away from an 
internationally famous tourist destination - Judgment of High 
E 
Court set aside and the award of the reference court restored. 
The entire land of the predecessor-in-interest of the 
appellants was acquired pursuant to notification dated 
16.4.1990 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
for the development of tourism. The award was made on 
F 
22.7.1993 awarding the compensation@ Rs.300/- per Aar. 
The reference court held that the Land Acquisition Officer 
had wrongly ignored the fact that the land under 
acquisition had been converted into non-agricultural land 
in 1993. It enhanced the compensation for the land to G 
Rs.650/ per Aar. The High Court dismissed the appeal of 
the claimants and partly allowed the appeal of the State 
holding that while permission for non-agricultural use 
had been given for the acquired land, it should not be the 
733 
H 
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A sole basis to treat the entire land as being non-agricultural 
or being used for commercial purpose. It, accordingly, 
reduced the compensation to Rs.500/· per Aar. 
Aggrieved, the claimants filed the instant appeals. 
B 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
• 
HELD: 1.1. Though the claimant has been unable to 
prove the existence of a hotel, it has been found that 
some structures for the same existed. Therefore, there is 
some development on the acquired land. Further, 
C admittedly, travellers would stop by and utilize the hotel 
services provided by the claimants. The land is also 
adjacent to the Aurangabad.Jalg~°in highway and is only 
6 to 8 km. away from the Ajantha caves, an internationally 
famous tourist destination. Thus, there is great future 
D potential for development with respect to the acquired 
land. The potential to which the land is reasonably 
capable of being used in future by the owner should be 
taken into account in assessing the compensation. [Para 
13] [739-C·E] 
E 
Smt. Kam/abai Jageshwar Joshi and others v. State of 
Maharashtra and others AIR 1996 SC 981 and State of 
Maharashtra and others v. Digamber Bhimashankar Tandale 
and others 1996 (2) sec 583 - distinguished 
F 
1.2. In the circumstances, the compensation awarded 
by the reference court appears to be just and reasonable, 
having been determined after correctly appreciating all 
the material evidence on record. There was no need for 
the High Court to reduce the same. Accordingly, the 
G judgment of the High Court is set aside and the award of 
the reference court restored. [para 14] [739-F] 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
2706-2707 of 2004. 
BILKIS AND ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 735 
ORS. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 3.4.2003 of the High 
A 
Court of Judicature at Bombay bench at Aurangabad in F.A. 
No. 1127 of 2002 & F.A. No. 3260 of 2002. 
Vinay Navar for the Appellants. 
Anantbhushan Kanade, Asha Gopalan Nair, Prashant R. 
B 
Dahat for the Respondents. 
· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GANGULY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
·· 2 .. The deceased Shaikh Rasheed Shaikh Latik was the ' 
owner of the land gut no. 29 adms. 80 Aar situated at Thana 
Tq. Soyegaon. His entire land was acquired by the Land 
Acquisition •Officer (hereinafter 'LAO') for the development of 
c 
, tourism plan ofAjintha villages Fardapur and Thana, taluka 
D 
Soyegaon, district Al.Jrangabad. A notification was published 
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
(hereinafter 'the Act') on 16.4.1990. It was followed by the 
notification under Section 6 published on .12.9.1991. 
3. The LAO passed an award dated 22. 7 .1993 wherein 
he classified the lands into two groups,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.