LexSHANKARRAO BHAGWANTRAO PATIL ETC. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 239 SHANKARRAO BHAGWANTRAO PATIL ETC. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5712-5713 of 2021) SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 [HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Deduction towards development cost – Appellants’ land acquired – Compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector – Dissatisfied, reference sought – Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.70 per square feet – In appeal, High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.317/- per square meter (29 per square feet) – Held: Land in question was rocky and had a moorum soil – Such land is not cultivable – In the facts of the present case, deduction towards the development cost at the rate of 50% is warranted – Order of the Reference Court is justified in law – High Court reduced the compensation drastically without any reasonable basis – Appellant entitled to a compensation at the rate of Rs.70/- per square feet from the date of award by the Land Acquisition Collector with interest as directed – Constitution of India – Art.142. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Compensation – Exemplar of a smaller plot as compared to a larger area – Deductions on account of – Discussed. Disposing of the appeals, the Court Held: 1.1 The reliance of the appellant on the Exemplar Exhibit 31 (one of the two sale deeds relied on by the appellant, the other being Exhibit 30) is absolutely untenable and based on a false representation. Exhibit 31 is excluded from consideration inter alia for the reason that the property was sold on 4.9.1996, but still it continued to be reflected in the name of the vendor and even the permission to raise construction after the sale was granted to the vendor. Exhibit 30 is part of the same survey number whereby land was sold at the rate of Rs.137.76 square feet. In the present case, there is no evidence that the sale exemplar Exhibit 30 was a part of any developed layout but is an [2021] 9 S.C.R. 239 239 A B C D E F G H 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R. isolated instance of sale. Such sale of a small area as compared to the acquisition of 9000 square meters can be taken into consideration after a suitable deduction is made on account of the development cost. The land in question was rocky and had a moorum soil. Such land is not cultivable. Still further, the State has taken possession of a part of the land in 1984 and another part in 1992 as is apparent from the reading of the two awards of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It has also come on record that the land, subject matter of the appeals, is similarly situated and forms a part of Bhoom Municipal Council. The Bhoom town has a small population of 17150. The possession of the land was taken for construction of government quarters and a road. Since the use of the land for a government quarter was known, therefore, the smaller area was sold keeping in view the intended use of the land acquired for the residential purposes. The deduction of 50% is proper as the sale deed was executed after 11 years of possession of rocky land and moorum soil was taken. Therefore, deduction towards the development cost at the rate of 50% is warranted in the facts of the present case. Thus, the compensation to be awarded is (137.76/2 = 69 rounded off to Rs.70 per square feet) which was the market value assessed by the Reference Court as well. [Paras 10, 16][246-A-D; 249-B-F] Meharawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab (2012) 5 SCC 432 : [2012] 4 SCR 24 – held inapplicable. Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Anr. (1988) 3 SCC 751 : [1996] 2 SCR 444; Lal Chand v. Union of India and Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 769 : [2009] 13 SCR 622; Kasturi and Ors. v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 117 – relied on. 1.2 The order of the Reference Court is justified in law whereas the High Court has reduced the compensation drastically without any reasonable basis. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a compensation at the rate of Rs.70/- per square feet from the date of award by the Land Acquisition Collector. Apart from statutory benefits, such compensation has been arrived at keeping in view the development activity that has already taken A B C D E F G H 241 place by the virtue of possession of the acquired land delivered to the State. The possession of the land acquired was taken in the year 1984/ 1992. Instead of remitting the matter to the Land Acquisition Collector for determi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.