DIGAMBER & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 1037 · Decided: 01-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 7 &.C.R. 1037 
DIGAMBER & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5346 of 2013) 
AUGUST 1, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
A 
B 
ss. 4, 6 and 23 - Acquisition of agricultural land for c 
industrial development - Compensation - Comparative sale 
transactions - Criteria for determination of market value of 
acquired land - Explained - Held: That the acquisition of the 
land is for commercial purpose should be the relevant criteria 
for determining the market value by both the Land Acquisition 
0 
Officer and reference court - Reference court, while enhancing 
the compensation, was right in placing reliance upon the sale 
instances even in relation to small plots of land and holding 
that there is a trend of escalation of the price of land situated 
in the proximity of the acquired land -- The said finding of fact 
E 
has been erroneously set aside by High Court -- The reference 
court by placing reliance upon the documentary and oral 
evidence on record, and by re-determining the market value, 
has awarded just and reasonable compensation - Judgment 
of High Court set aside and award passed by reference court 
restored. 
F 
Notification uls 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
for acquisition of agricultural land belonging to the 
appellants, for the purpose of industrial development was 
published on 7 .9.1991 and final notification was 
G 
published on 12. 7 .1992. The Land Acquisition Officer 
awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per 
hectare, but the reference court placing reliance on 
comparable sale transactions of the dates prior and 
1037 
H 
1038 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 7 S.C.R. 
A subsequent to the issuance of notification u/s 4, 
enhanced the compensation to Rs.5/- per sq. foot. 
However, the High Court set aside the judgment of the 
reference court and restored the award passed by the 
B 
Land Acquisition Officer. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the acquisition of land 
was for non residential purpose as it was required to 
establish industries through industrial entrepreneurs by 
C forming industrial estate and carving out industrial plots 
by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, 
which was purely a commercial purpose. This important 
aspect of the matter was required to be kept in mind by 
the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the time of 
D determining the market value of the acquired land in 
exercise of his statutory power u/s 11 of the L.A. Act. That 
the acquisition of the land is for commercial purpose 
should be the relevant criteria for determining the market 
value by both the Land Acquisition Officer and the 
E reference court. [para 9 and 23] [1045-C-E; 1054-G] 
1.2 Further, the legal principles laid down in the case 
of Atma Singh, indicate the criteria to be followed for 
determination of the market value of a property keeping 
in view its existing condition with all its existing 
F advantages and its potential possibility when let out in 
its most advantageous manner. The existing amenities 
like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, 
town is developing or has prospect of development in 
future, are very much abundantly available in respect of 
G the acquired land as the said land is within the proximity 
of New Venkateshnagar Layout, wherein residential sites 
are formed, and there is a school and college near the 
Highway. [para 23] [1055-C-G] 
H 
DIGAMBER & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1039 
Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (12) SCR 1120 
A 
= 2008 (2) sec 568 - relied on. 
1.3 The reference court was right in placing reliance 
upon the sale instances even in relation to small plots of 
land. Some sale deeds are of prior to acquisition 
8 
notification and some are subsequent to it. Though it is 
shown from the records that the acquired land on the date 
of notification was an agricultural land, it has got non 
agricultural potentiality as the said land was proposed by 
the District Collector for acquisition after satisfying himself C 
that it was suitable for the purpose of industrial 
development. The reference court has held that there is a 
trend of escalation of the price of land situated in the 
proximity of the acquired land. The said finding of fact has 
been erroneously set ·aside by the High Court. [para 10, 
14 and 23) [1048-F-G; 1054-G-H; 1055-A-B; 1056-C] 
D 
Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mui/a 
Vs. Special L

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