LexHASANALI WALIMCHAND (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
HASANALI W ALIM CHAND (DEAD) BY L.RS. A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA JANUARY 6, 1998 [DR. A.S. ANAND ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Compensation-Determination of -Land situated at a distance of one and a half miles from city-Urban character and future potential of land to C be taken into account-Award of reference court restored with modification that out of the amount fued by reference court deduction @ 50 paise per square foot would be made towards development charges. State of Orissa v. Brij Lal Misra & Ors., ( 19951 5 SCC 203 and P. Ram D Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & Ors., (19951 2 SCC 305, cited. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8911of1983. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.12.81 of the Bombay High Court E in First Appeal No. 19of1974. Krishan Mahajan, Amit Dhingra and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants. G.B. Sathe and D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : F This order will dispose of both appeals as they arise out of the same judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay, dated 26.9.1979. Land measuring 14 acres and 9 Gunthas, which is subject matter of these appeals, situate in village Kedgaon, Taluka Nagar, District Ahmednagar, Maharashtra was acquired by the State. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition G Act (hereinafter the Act) was issued on 1.3.1969. Notification under section 6 of the Act was published in the gazette on 26.6.1969. The land was acquired for public purpose for extension of living place for the population as also for • construction of government godowns. The Land Acquisition Collector, vide Award dated 29.9.1970 determined the market value of the land at Rs. 3,000 H I 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 1 S.C.R. A per acre and Rs. 3200 per acre. Compensation amounting to Rs. 49,301 was awarded. Aggrieved by the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the . ,o,. claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned joint Civil judge, vide his Award dated 28th August, 1971, determined the market value @,Rs. 1 per square foot, inter-alia after taking into account rates fixed by a Cooperative Housing Society for sale of plots by it to its members and B outsiders in the vicinity of the acquired land. The reference court awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6, 16, 118.60 ps. The respondent - State approached the High Court against the award of the reference court. On 26.9.1979, the High Court set aside the award of the reference court made under Section 18 of the Act and restored that of the Land Acquisition Collector, dated 29th C September, 1970. Hence, these appeals by special leave by the claimants. Mr. Krishan Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the judgment and order of the High Court principally on the ground th.at the High Court failed to take into account future potentiality and instead based itself only on the realized possibility and thus committed an error. D Learned counsel has, in support of his contention, relied on State of Orissa v. Brij fol Misra & Ors., (1995] 5 SCC 203 and P. Ram Reddy & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & Ors., [1995] 2 SCC 305. Both the judgments do support the submission of Mr. Mahajan. E Mr. Sathe, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the judgment and order of the High Court and submitted that the land was agricultural land, the High Court rightly took into account that fact and disapproved the approach of the reference court which, according to the learned counsel, was influenced by the rates fixed by the Ambika Cooperative F Housing Society which consideration \Vas not a relevant consideration since the land of the Ambika Cooperative Housing Society was developed land and had been sold in plots to its various members and outsiders. G We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the bar. The High Court has noticed .in the impugned judgment and order that the 'location' of the land indicates that it has building potential but fell into an error in ignoring that factor by observing: 1 H "There is no record of any income being received by any of the land HASAN ALI W ALIMCllAND v. STA TE 3 owners. These lands must, therefore, be valued as agricultural land _t\ with no potentiality whatsoever i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.