LexKAZI AKILODDIN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2248 : 2024 INSC 505 Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6776-6777 of 2013) 10 July 2024 [Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration What should be the market value of the land of the appellant as on 03.06.1999; does the site of the appellant fall within ‘Blue Zone’ as contended by the acquiring body-Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC); if it falls within the ‘Blue Zone’, what should be the market value for the land; if the land or any part thereof is not to be determined as a ‘Blue Zone’, what was the ‘No Construction Zone’ as per the extant laws; and what should be the market value payable for that portion; what should be the market value payable for any portion, falling outside the ‘No Construction Zone’. Headnotes† Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – ss.14(j), 21, 22(j) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4 – Land of the appellant, if fell within the blue zone – Market value thereof as on 03.06.1999, the date of the Section 4 notification: Held: High Court not justified in declaring the entire land of the appellant as falling within the blue zone – If an acquiring body relies on a statutory injunction, to establish that the land has no potential, then the burden is on the said acquiring body to demonstrate without any ambiguity that such a statutory interdict is in place – VIDC did not discharge the burden in demonstrating that statutorily there was a valid demarcation of a “Blue Zone” on the date of the s.4 notification, under the Act – What was established was only the existence of the bye-law i.e. “Standardised Building Byelaws and Development Control Rules for “B” and “C” Class Municipal Councils of Maharashtra” – As on 03.06.1999, i.e. the date of the s.4 notification for the appellant’s land, the no construction zone can only be taken as 15 meters from the defined boundary of the water course which is the Morna river – If the site to the extent it is within the 15 meters of the defined boundary of * Author [2024] 7 S.C.R. 2249 Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. water course, that part alone could be said to have no potential for development – The land beyond the 15 meters mark from the defined boundary of the water course in the site of the appellant should be treated independently – Land of the appellant except to the extent of 15 meters from the defined boundary of the water course is not covered by the no construction zone – Considering the potentiality of the land and its situs, except for the lands upto 15 meters from the defined boundary of the water course, Rs.100/- per sq.ft. awarded for 68.3% of the total admeasuring area – Thus, appellant entitled to Rs.100/- per sq. ft. for the 68.3% (approx.) of the balance area, after excluding the land area, if any, which falls within the 15 meters from the defined boundary of the water course – For the land falling within the no construction zone, if any, as per the Standardized Building Byelaws, he will be paid at the rate determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the award – Appellant entitled to rental compensation @ 8% of the awarded amount, as directed – Operative order of the Reference Court modified. [Paras 41, 43, 45, 56, 57, 66] Land Acquisition – Exemplars – Reliance upon – Two transactions, one between independent/unrelated parties and the other between related parties – Both transactions took place without much time gap: Held: When there is a choice between an exemplar where the transaction is between unrelated parties dealing at arm’s length and between an exemplar where the transaction is between related parties of a higher value, both of which are broadly around the same period, prudence would dictate and common sense would command that the value set out in the transaction between unrelated parties is accepted – In the present case, the transaction which is at arm’s length is accepted and the market value of the amount of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. is accepted and the claim of Rs. 175/- per sq. ft is rejected. [Paras 62, 65] Land Acquisition – Development charges – Determination – Acquisition for construction of a flood protection wall: Held: The purpose for which the land is acquired must be taken into consideration while determining development charges – Since the acquisition was for construction of a flood protection wall, thus there can be no question of any development
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.