LexDY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & ANR. versus MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 523 DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & ANR. A v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 204 of 2000) JULY 29, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: s.23 - Acquisition of land that would submerge in river c water in process of construction of a dam on the river - Compensation - Computation of - Criteria for - Positive and negative factors to be taken into consideration - Explained - Exemplars considered - Market value of lands acquired determined accordingly. D ~ s. 23 - Acquisition of land with construction - Determination of compensation - HELD: For extent of land on which godowns stand, separate compensation need not be paid, when compensation based on rental value of godowns is being paid - Land Acquisition Officer to calculate the E compensation accordingly following the method adopted by High Court. Large tracts of agricultural and non-agricultural lands situate on bo!h sides of river Thebi in three villages, F namely, Amreli, Baxipure and Giriya in the State of Gujarat were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the said area would sub-merge in water in the process of construction of a dam on river Thebi. The area on eastern bank of the river including the lands in village G Giriya :was developed whereas the area on the weste.rn bank including the lands of villages Baxipura and Amreli was under developed. A portion of the acquired land also fell within municipal limit of Amreli town. Compensation 523 H 524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 11 S.C.R. A was awarded to land owners at different rates according to the lands falling in different groups. For fands covered under Group I, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. mtr. for the lands falling in Group II, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation B at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq. mtr. for 'Baayat' land, Rs.8/- per sq. mtr. for 'Jirayat' land, and Rs.50/- per sq. mtr. For non-agricultural land. The reference court awarded compensation at uniform rate of Rs.400/- per sq. mtr. The High Court maintained the compensation for non- e agricultural land, but reduced it to Rs.300/- per sq. mtr. for agricultural land. For the lands of Group Ill, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.50/- per sq. mtr. for agricultural land, and Rs.150/- for non- agricultural land. The reference court enhanced 0 compensation to Rs.160/- per sq. mtr. for agricultural land, and Rs.240/- for non-agricultural land. The High Court confirmed the order. Disposing of the appeals, the Court E HELD: 1.1. Determining the market value of the land acquired would depend upon a large number of positive and negative factors. Criteria for determinatio'1 of the market value of the agricultural land and homestead land may be different. Amount of consideration mentioned in F a deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of acquisition notification is also a relevant factor. In the absence of any such exemplars the market value can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of G number of fruit bearing trees. [Para 24 and 25] [543-G, H; 544-D] H Viluben Jha/ejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 sec 789, relied on. - - l DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & 525 ANR. v. MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. Group I A 1.2. In view of the Constitution Bench decision* an application filed by the appellant for placing additional documents on record was allowed by this Court's order dated 23.10.2008. Therefore, the said transactions as well 8 would be taken into consideration. [Para 23] [543-F] *Cement Corporation of India Ltd. etc. etc. v. Purya and others etc. etc. (2004) 8 SCC 270; P. Ram Reddy and Ors. Vs. Land, Acuisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 305; Ranvir C Singh and another v. Union of India (2005) 12 sec 59 and Land Acquisition Officer & Manda/ Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah (2001) 3 SCC 530, relied on . . ' 1.3. In the instant matters, the High Court mixed up o the awards made in respect of the lands situated on the eastern side of the River with that of the western side. Admittedly, there was no development on the western side of the river. There was no railway line connecting the village with any big city nor was there any State highway E passing through the ar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.