STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus GURAPPA HIROJIRAO AND ORS. AND VICE VERSA

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 336 · Decided: 25-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
GURAPPA HIROJIRAO AND ORS. AND VICE VERSA • 
JANUARY 25, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Ss. 4, ~ 12, 18-Agricultural Land lying 
within limits of Municipal Corporation-Acquisition of-Compensa-
tion-Determination of-Held, High Court was right in referring to evidence 
C as to long period of waiting by land owners involved in obtaining approval of 
Town Planning Authorities in the event of selling whole extent of acquired 
plots of lands in the lay out to be formed, extent of land to be set out for 
roads, drains and open spaces in the lay out-Determination of rr.arket value 
of lands acquired made by High Court cann,ot be interfered with unless it is 
shown that High Court has failed to follow method of valuation of land 
D warranted by law or has misapplied any principle of valuation in appreciation 
of evidence. 
The State Government acquired under the Land Acquisition, 1894, 
about 108 acres of agricultural land of certain land owners lying within 
E 
the limits of a certain Municipal Corporation. The State Land Acquisition 
Officer made an award. Some of the claimants not satisfied with the award, 
caused a reference made under s.-18 of the Act, and claimed enhancement 
in the compensation. The reference-Court enhanced the compensation to 
Rs. 0.80 per sq. foot. 
F 
The State filed appeals whereas the claimants filed cross objections 
in the High Court seeking reduction and enhancement respectively iD. the 
compensation. The High Court enhanced the market value of a· small 
extent of land carved out as building sites before their purchase by the 
claimants, but reduced the market value of the remaining almost the whole 
G acquired extent of, land to Rs. 0.38 per sq. foot. However, out of said lands 
it increased the market value of some of the lands by 10 per cent having 
regard to its closure proximity to the well developed township. Aggrieved, 
the State as well as the claimants filed the appeals and the cross-appeals 
by certificate. 
H 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
336 
+ 
--t 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. HIROJIRAO 
337 
HELD: 1. Questions of interference with the determination of market A 
value of lands acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act, 1894 made by 
the High Court cannot arise unless it is shown that the High Court, in 
determining such market value, has failed to follow the method of valua· 
ti on of land warranted by law or has misapplied any principle of valuation 
in appreciation of evidence or has committed a manifest error, resulting B 
in gross under-valuation or over-valuation of the acquired land. [340·B] 
· 2.1. The High Court has determined the market value of the acquired 
lands on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case and has examined 
the instances of sales and awards relied upon the contesting parties. to 
form the basis as comparable sales and awards for determination of the C 
market value of the acquired lands. [340-D] 
2.2. When the High Court, having referred to the evidence in the 
cases as to the long period of waiting by the owners which would hav~ been 
involved if they had to sell the whole lot of sites covering the whole extent 
of acquired plots of lands in the layout to be formed by obtaining approval D 
of the Town Planning Authorities concerned, the extent of land to be set 
apart for roads, drains and open spaces in the layout concerned, has 
arrived at the average price of 38 paise per sq. foot of the entire acquired 
lands at the time of preliminary Notification, it cannot be said that the 
High Court was not justified in reaching such a conclusion. Nor can it be E 
said that the High Court was not justified in increasing the price of some 
of the lands by 10 per cent ou 38 paise per sq. foot hr.ving regard to its 
close proximity of developed township. [341-H; 342-A·B] 
3. The High Court, in determining the market value of the acquired 
lands, has not adopted any method of valuation which was unwarranted F 
by law and, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, has not misapplied 
any principle of valuation which it had adopted for determining the market 
value of the acquired lands, nor has it committed any manifest error which 
has resulted in fixing either grossly high value or grossly low value for the 
acquired lands. There is no warrant for interfering with the judgment and G 
decrees of the High Court. [342-C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 596 to 
601 

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