STATE OF GOA & ANR. versus GOPAL BABURAO GAUDO & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 14-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN, B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
f 
[2009) 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R. 496 
:. 
A 
STATE OF GOA & ANR. 
~ 
..,,,____
v. 
GOPAL BABURAO GAUDO & ORS. 
~ 
·(Special Leave Petition (C) No.10598 of 2009) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND 8. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 
>-
·C 
s. 23 -
Acquisition of tand adjoining highway -
Construction on the land prohibited - Compensation - Held: 
}-
A long strip of land lying alongside and adjQining the Highway 
cannot be treated as a land without value or without any 
potential for development, merely on the ground that the law 
relating to Highways prohibited construction on elther side of 
..;~
D 
... 
the Highway -
Potential of such land is in its being 
appurtenant to the land to its rear - In the event, the strip of 
land becomes the 'access' to the rear--side land from the main 
road and also becomes the frontage of the aggregate land, it 
l.-
E enhances potential and value of the rear-side land, as also 
creates a potential for its own use. 
~ 
I 
ss. 23(1), 23(1A), 23(2) and 28- Determination of market 
~ 
value of acquired land -
Plea that while determining 
~ 
compensation, statutqry benefits like solatium, additional 
~ 
F amount and interest should be taken note of- Held: Solatium, 
I 
additional 'amount and interest have no bearing on 
'• 
determination of market value under first clause of s.23(1) -
The reason for grant of the additional statutory benefits are 
clearly different- Additional amount uls 23(1A) is to mitigate 
·G the hardship to the owner on account of deprivation of 
enjoyment of the land because of the delay in making the 
..... 
award and offering payment - Solatium u/s 23(2) is in 
consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition - Interest 
u/s 28 of the Act is paid for delay in paying the compensation 
H 
496 
STATE OF GOA & ANR. v. GOPAL BABURAO GAUDO 
497 
& ORS. 
... 
from the date on which possession is taken - They are distinct A 
)<. 
from the determination of market value - The fact that the 
landowner would also be entitled to statutory benefits cannot 
be taken into account while determining market value of the 
acquired land for purpose of compensation. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 
10598 of 2005. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 6.8.2008 of the High 
Court of Bombay at Goa in First Appeal No. 242 of 2002. 
c 
A Subhashini for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
.-
ORDER 
....j 
D 
Acquisition proceedings were initiated in regard to several 
lands including Survey No. 85 of Curti Village belonging to the 
respondents under preliminary notification dated 14.2.1991 for 
construction of Panda By-pass road. The Land Acquisition 
Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq.m. 
E 
The Reference Court increased the compensation to Rs. 154/ 
- per sq.m. The High Court did not disturb the amount awarded 
.. 
by the Reference Court, as it found that in an appeal arising 
from the award in LAC No. 48/1995 relating to a comparable 
land compensation at a higher rate had been awarded at the 
F 
rate of Rs.200/- per sq.m. Leave is sought to challenge the said 
judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal of the 
petitioner. 
2. The petitioner alleges that the acquired land measuring 
2715 sq. meters, was a narrow strip which fell within the 40 G 
. ~ 
meters margin from the centre of the highway where 
constructions were prohibited. It is contended that as the 
acquired land could not be used for construction, the land had 
to be considered as not having any development potential; and 
that therefore it could not be compared with the land (which was· H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A the subject matter of LAC No. 48/1995) for which compensation 
.'f ' 
had been determined having regard to its potential for 
development. It was also contended that being a narrow strip 
it was also not of much use even for agriculture purposes. 
B 
3. A long strip of land measuring more than two-third of 
an acre lying alongside and adjoining the Highway cannot be 
treated a~ a land ~ithout value or without any potential for 
development, merely on the ground that the law relating to 
Highways prohibited construction. on either side of the Highway, 
).._ 
c upto a depth of 40 meters from the centre of the Highway. All 
that was required to create or realize potential of such land was 
to annex or merge the said strip of land with the land to its·rear. 
In that event, the strip of land 

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