LexRAJENDRA VASSUDEV DESHPRABHU (DEAD) A THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RETD.) & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PANAJI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 817 RAJENDRA VASSUDEV DESHPRABHU (DEAD) A THROUGH LRS. & ORS. . v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RETD.) & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PANAJI (Civil Appeal No. 8539 of 2011) s OCTOBER 11, 2011 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 - C ss. 18A, 1 BK and 3 - Enhancement of compensation for the acquired land - Land subjected to tenancy- Land Acquisition Officer apportioned compensation at the rate of 50 % for landlord and 50 % for tenant - Award passed by Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 17 per sq. m. enhanced D to Rs. 175 per sq. m. by the Reference Cowt - High Court restored the award of Rs. 171- per sq.m. - On appeal held: When the Notification was issued for land acquisition, the Land Use Act whereby land vest in tenant could be valued only as an agricultural land, was not in force - Thus, market E value of the land could be determined with reference to the development potential for non-agricultural purposes - Mere fact of obtaining of sanction from Mamlatdar for sale of such land would not depress the price of the land nor affect its potential for being developed as residential or industrial use F - lnspite of s. 3 which prohibits conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use in public interest, compensation was determined as Rs. 78 per sq. m. for neighboring agricultural land acquired under the same Notification which has attained finality and there is no reason why the said rate should not G apply to the instant case - Order of High Court holding that compensation for the land should be less than compensation for the land which is not subjected to tenancy, is not correct- Thus, order of High Court is modified by increasing the 817 H 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A compensation for the acquired land from Rs. 17 per sq. m. to Rs. 78 per sq. m. - Goa Land Use (Regulations) Act, 1991 -s. 2. Appellants -are the legal heirs of the co-owners of 8 land. Notification was issued for acquisition of certain land including the land of the co-owners. The said land was tenanted and is in occupation of tenants and vested in them on the Tiller's Day in terms of Section 18A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the C acquired land at the rate of Rs. 17 per sq. m. As the co- owners admitted their tenancy rights, the Land Acquisition Officer directed that the compensation to be divided between the owners and the tenants at the rate of 50% each. The Reference Court increased the D compensation from Rs. 17 per sq. m. to Rs. 75 per sq. m. The High Court set aside the judgment and award of the Reference Court and restored the award of Rs. 17/- per sq. m. by the Land Acquisition officer. E Appellants contended before this Court that in regard to the remaining extent of land acquired under the same Notification, the High Court by judgment dated 14.11.2008 in FA No. 123/2003 (The Deputy Collector (Dev.) & LAO, Panaji vs. Smt. Sita Devi) determined the compensation as F Rs.78 per sq.m. and therefore, the compensation should have been the same in regard to the land of the appellants also. ·· Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1. Section 2 of the Goa Land Use (Regulations) Act, 1991 provides that no land which is vested in a tenant under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 shall be used or allowed to be used for any purpose other than H agriculture. If the Land Use Act was af.lplicable to the land RAJENDRA VASSUDEV DESHPRABHU (D) THR. LRS. v. 819 DY. COLLECTOR & ANR. at the time of acquisition, then the land could be used · A only as agricultural land and could be valued only as an agricultural land. But the Land Use Act, came into force with effect from 2.11.1990. The relevant date for the purpose of determination of compensation is the date of publication of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is 1.2.1990. On that day the Land Use Act was not in force and consequently there was no restriction that the use land vested in the tenant should be used only for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the market value of the land could c . be determined with reference to the development potential for non-agricultural purposes. [Para 7) [825-E- H] 1.2. Under Section 18K of the Tenancy Act, the mere fact that t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.