SMT. KAMALABAI JAGESHWAR JOSHI AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 30-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. KAMALABAI JAGESHWAR JOSHI AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 30, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.J 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Land Acquisiti01r-Compe11satiott-Enhancement by High Court-Fur-
C titer enhancemellf-Claim based 011 unconc/uded agreement betwew land-
owner and acquisitioning authority-Rejection of-Compensatiott-Enhance-
ment-Claim on the basis of maximum price detennined under sale deeds in 
case of other acquisitions-Held not pemiissible in view of different nature of 
land i.e. agricultural and non-agricultural. 
D 
The appellants' land measuring 62.5 acres was acquired for which 
compensation @ Rs. 250 per acre was awarded. The Reference Conrt 
enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2000 per acre and on appeal High Court 
further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7000 per acre. In appeal to this 
Court it was contended for the appellant that (i) before acquisition 
E 
proceedings the land offered by appellants @ Rs. 4 per sq. yard was 
accepted by the Department and therefore the High Court should have 
granted compensation on that basis and (ii) having accepted the three sale 
deeds which served as instances of comparable market value the High 
Court should have granted compensation on the basis of maximum price 
determined nnder those sale deeds. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. It cannot be said that there is a concluded agreement 
between the requisitioning authority and the appellant to purchase the 
G lands @ Rs. 4 per sq. yd. The concerned engineer had written to the 
appellant to give his offer for acquisition of the land whereas he had 
quoted at Rs. 4 per sq. yd. There was no acceptance thereof. However, the 
matter was referred to the Collector for acquisition. In these circumstan-
ces, it remained to be at the stage of offer without any acceptance. [10-D] 
H 
2. The lands covered under the three sale deeds are situated in green 
8 
KJ.JOSH! v. STATE 
9 
belt area. There was no development and the lands remained to be agricul- · A 
tural land. Having become aware of the proposal for acquisition, the 
permission for converting the lands into non-agricultural lands was ob-
tained by the appellant with a vi.W to inOating the market valne. All the 
sale deeds relate to small extents of agricultural lands purchased on 
square feet basis. They would offer no reasonable basis to further enhance B 
the compensation though they fetched higher market valne worked out at 
Rs. 33,000 per acre. No reasonable and prudent purchaser would offer to 
purchase this. vast extent of land at that rate. The High Court having had 
the advantage of considering the entire evidence, rightly determined the 
compensation at Rs. 7,000 per acre. There is no justification to further 
enhance the compensation. [10-G-H, 11-A] 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1211 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.84 of the Bombay High 
Court in F.A. No. 68 of 1973. 
D 
V.B. Joshi for the Appellants. 
S.M. Jadhav for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published 
· on May 10, 1962 acquiring a total extent of 62.5 acres belonging to the 
appellant for extension of the South Eastern Railway Station. The award 
under s.11 was made on May 13, 1965 determining the compensation @ 
E 
Rs. 250 per acre. On reference under s.18 by award and decree dated F 
December 8, 1971, the Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,000 
per acre. On further appeal under s.54, the Division Bench of the High 
Court by .iudgment and decree dated September 29, 1984 further enhanced 
the compensation to Rs. 7,000 per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the appel-
lant has filed this appeal by special leave. The State did not file any appeal G 
against the enhanced compensation. 
Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the 
appellant, even before the acquisition was initiated , had offered the land 
@ Rs. 4 per sq. yd. and the Department had agreed and proceeded with 
the acquisition. 
The High Court should have granted compensation at H 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A Rs. 4 per sq. yd. It is also contended that the High Court having accepted 
the sale deeds item 1, 2 and 7 which served as instances of comparable 
market value, they would form reasonable basis to determine the compen-
sation. But the High Court committed grievous error of law in ignoring the 

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