NAVANATH & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 632 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 632 
NAVANATH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 92-105 of 2004) 
APRIL 15, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition. Act, 1894: Compensation -
Determination of - Relevant factors - Held: For computation 
C of compensation, large number of factors to be taken into 
consideration, namely, nature and quality of land, whether 
irrigated or unirrigated, facilities for irrigation like existence of 
well etc., presence of fruit bearing trees, location of the land, 
closeness to any road or highway, the evenness thereof, 
o whether there exists any building or structure - Reference 
court awarded compensation on the basis of classification of 
lands as also on the ground that there were fruit bearing trees 
thereon - Finding of fact arrived at by reference court was 
interfered with by High Court on the surmises and conjectures 
E - High Court's order set aside. 
The Government of Maharashtra required lands in 
question for "Uthala Irrigation Project". The Special Land 
Acquisition Officer in his award fixed the market value of 
the lands from Rs.1301- to Rs.230/- per Acre. In addition 
F thereto, compensation was granted for fruit bearing trees, 
wells, pipe lines, structures of cow-shed/Gotha and 
Bandh etc. holding that some of the lands under 
acquisition were Jirayat and some were Bagayat lands 
but not notified as such. Relying on the revenue record 
G for the last three years, it was held that though the lands 
were shown as wetlands but they were in fact seasonally 
irrigated, and hence could not be treated as bagayat 
lands. The valuation of the said lands, therefore, was 
H 
632 
.. 
NAVANATH & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 633 
.... ,. 
... 
made treating them as Jirayat lands. Statutory allowance A 
was also granted as provided by Section 23(2) of the Land 
Aquisition Act. Additional compensation @ 12% per 
annum of the market value from the date of publication 
of notification i.e., 28.10.1998 till the date of award, i.e., 
27.7.1990, was also granted. 
B 
..... 
The Reference Court classified the lands principally · 
~ 
in two categories. It disagreed with the opinion of the 
· Collector that only the entries made in the revenue 
records of right particularly the registers 7 and 7/12 were c 
to be considered for determining the market value of the 
lands acquired opining that the land revenue assessment 
is only one of the factors but t9gether therewith, 
comparable sale instances, quality and fertility of the 
lands acquired, their potential value, location, etc. were 
D 
also relevant. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare was fixed 
as market value for the Bagayat lands; Rs. 75,000/- per 
hectare was determined for the Jirayat lands besides 
other statutory dues. The entitlement for additional 
amount of compensation towards the value of fruit 
bearing trees was upheld. Reference Court also held that E 
the existence of irrigation facility in the form of wells and 
development of orchards on the acquired lands shows 
,; )'-
that they had huge potential value and no evidence in 
rebuttal was adduced by the respondents on this point. 
F 
The High Court allowed the appeals in part upon re-
classifying the entire land under acquisition into four 
groups. It held that compensation granted separately for 
the land as also on the basis of valuation of the fruit 
bearing trees was impermissible; that when potential of G 
""'-
land is taken into consideration, the irrigation facilities 
' 
available and crop pattern, the acceptable method of 
fixing market value should be only comparable sales 
instance. Aggrieved claimants filed these appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
H 
634 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. A large tract of lands situate in different 
villages were acquired. Evidently, they belong to different 
categories. Some of the lands were Pot - Kharab lands, 
i.e., waste lands. A holder of a land has a statutory right 
to ask the Collector by a written application that the 
B matter be referred for determination of the court in regard 
to amount of compensation in terms of Section 18 of the 
Land Acquisition Act while taking objection to the amount 
of compensation awarded by the Collector. The owner of 
the land may raise various contentions including the 
c measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, 
the persons to whom it is payable, etc. For determination 
of compensation, the applicant may Jurthermore raise 

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