SMT. SHAKUNTALABAI AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 23-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. SHAKUNTALABAf AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASflTRA 
NOVEMBER 23, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Land Acquisition-Compensation-Principles for detennination-Ad-
C mission of claimant as to market value for acquired land-Need to travel 
beyond the acquired land is obviated-Owner himself purchasing land under 
acquisition-Price mentioned in sale~deed-Relevance of. 
The respondent-S~ate acquired 20 acres of land belonging to the 
appellants for which compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition 
D Officer. The Reference Court took into account two sale-deeds in respect of 
lands which were adjacent to t~e acquired land and enhanced the compen-
sation. On further appeal, the High Court set aside the award and decree 
of the Reference Court and confirmed that of the Land Acquisition Officer. 
E 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended for the appellant that the 
High Court has committed illegality in omitting to consider the value 
mentioned in the two sale-deeds for the lands adjacent to the acquired 
lands. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1. The High Court had not committed any manifest error of. 
law or omitted to apply any correct principle of law. If there is evidence or· 
admission on behalf of the claimant as to the market value commanded 
by the acquired land itself, the need to travel beyond the boundary of the 
acquired land is obviated. The need to take into consideration the value of 
G the lands adjacent to the acquired land or near about the area which 
possessed same potentiality to work out the prices fetched therein for 
determination of market value of the acquired land would arise only when 
there is no evidence of the value of the acquired land. In a case where ' 
evidence of the value of the acquired land itself is available on record, it 
H is unnecessary to travel beyond that evidence and consider the market 
618 
SHAKUNTALABAI v. STATE 
619 
value prevailing in the adjacent lands. Since the appellant himself had A 
purchased the acquired lands in 1957, the High Court was right in its view 
to consider the very same evidence to determine the compensation to the 
acquired land. It s not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the 
Constitution. [621-C-F; 622-E] 
2. The Reference Court blissfully overlooked the admission of the 
owner on the surmise that it is an estimate made by the claimant and the 
evidence of the sale deeds being prevailing prices, it acted thereon and 
determined the compensation. The approach of the Reference Court is 
clearly illegal. The Reference Court committed manifest error in determin-
ing the compensation on sq. ft. basis. When lands to the extent of 20 acres 
are offered for sale in an open market, no willing and the prudent pur-
chaser would come forward to purchase that vast extent of land on sq. ft. 
basis. [621-G-H; 622-A-B] 
State of M.P. v. Santabi & Ors. CA No. 2844/84 and Salgoankar v. 
B 
c 
Union of India, CA No. 3800/89 decided on 11.1.1990 by Supreme Court; D 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3557 of 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25/28.7.80 of the Bombay High E 
Court in F.A. No. 183 of 1973. 
V.A. Mohta, S.V. Deshpande and Pramit Saxena for the Appellants. 
V.N. Ganpule, M.N. Shroff and Ms. Reema Bhandari, for the 
Respondent No. 2. 
S.M. Jadhav for A.S. Bhasme for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 G 
(for short, 'the Act') acquiring an extent of 20 acres of land in Survey No. 
24/2 situated in Akola town for construction of the houses to weaker 
sections and middle income group people, was published in the State 
Gazette on August 11, 1965. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award 
dated March 26, 1971 determined the market value of the front portion of H 
620 
SUPREME COURTREPOR'tS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A land admeasuring 4 acres 18 gunthas at Rs. 5,500 per acre and for the rest 
of 15 acres and 32 gunthas at 4,500 per acres. Dissatisfied therewith, the 
appellant sought reference under section 18 of the Act and the Senior Civil 
Judge in his award and decree dated September 26, 1972 enhanced the 
compensation in respect of the lands in the front portion at Rs. 1.25 per 
B sq. ft. and to the rest of the land at Rs. 1 per sq.ft. He also deducted Rs. 
3,000 per acre towards development charges and 30% land was left over 
for roads etc.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.