THE PRESIDENT, A.P.M.C., TALUKA DARWHA, DISTRICT YAVATMAL,MAHARASHTRA versus MANIKANT AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 11-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE PRESIDENT, A.P.M.C., TALUKA DARWHA, DISTRICT 
A 
YAVATMAL,MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
MANIKANT AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 11, 1996 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
Compensation-Award of-Enhancement of by Courts below-Held: C 
When large extent of land is acquired no willing purchaser would be prepared 
to purchase the land on square foot basis-171erefore the High Court was in 
error in enhancing the compensation. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.13268 of 
1996. 
]) 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30/31.7.92 of the Bombay High 
Court in F.A.No.241 of 1988. 
S.V. Deshpande for the Appellant. 
V.A. Mohta, R.S. Lambat and D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel on both sides. 
Notification under Section 4 [1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
E 
F 
[for short, the "Act"] was published initially on January 8, 1970 acquiring G 
an extent of nearly 3 acres and odd of land; part of the same was withdrawn 
by notification under Section 48 [1]. Subsequently, another notification was 
issued on September 6, 1993 acquiring a part of the land which was 
withdrawn by notification under Section 48(1]. Ultimately, the land ac-
quired now remains is 3 acres 33 gunthas. The Land Acquisition Officer 
determined the market value @ Re.0.36 per sq. foot. On reference, the H 
621 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A Civil Judge enhanced the market value to Re.1 per sq. foot. The appellants 
have not carried the matter in apptal to the High Court against the market 
value enhanced by the reference Court. On further appeal by the claimants, 
the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1.30 per sq. foot for the 
land covered under the second notification by impugned judgment dated 
B July 30/31, 1992 made in Appeal No.241/88. Thus this appeal by special 
leave. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The Land Acquisition Officer in his award has described the typo-
graphy and potentiality of the land thus : 
· "The land under acquisition falls within the Municipal limit of 
Digras. Digras is a pressures [sic] and commercial town. Previously 
it was a renowned cotton market. This land falls on Digras-Manora 
District Major road. It is also adjoining to Darwha-Pusad Road. 
The market yard, godown and offices of A.P.M.C. Digras, are just 
adjoining to the Abadi of the town. A new locality of Shastry Nagar 
is on the Western side of this land. Now constructions of the 
buildings are in progress in the vicinity of this land. This is a plan 
and table land. The Ginning Factory of Digras cooperative Society 
is also adjoining to this land. The existing cotton market is just 
adjoining to this land. The shade of the grain market is also 
adjoining to this land. The construction of residential houses of 
D.Y.K. S. Cooperative Society are also constructed on eastern side 
of this land. Since the plot No. sheet no. is given in Nazul record 
to this land it was already converted into non-Agricultural pur-
poses. So this land had non-agricultural potentiality in view of the 
above description." 
That was affirmed by the reference Court. The claimants relied upon 
the sale deeds, Exs. 43, 40 and 61. Ex. 43, sale deed executed on January 
8, 1970 relates to 4 acres of land sold at the rate of Rs.4000 per acre. It 
was on the same date of publication of the notification. Ex.40 relates to 
G sale transaction of 1 acre of land dated December 6, 1970, one year 
thereafter sold for Rs. 15,000. Ex. 61 is dated August 27, 1971 under which 
3 acres 33 gunthas of land was sold for Rs. 61,501 which worked out to the 
rate of Rs. 16,000 and odd per acre. Therefore, the courts below were not 
justified in enhancing the compensation @ Re.I per sq. foot and Rs.1.30 
H and Rs.1.70 sq. foot as . determined therein. 
-; 
PRESIDENT, AP;M.C. v. MANIKANT 
623 
It is now well settled legal position that when a large extent of land A 
was acquired for establishment of market yard, no willing purchaser would 
be prepared to purchase the land on square foot basis. Therefore, the very 
principle on which the courts below had proceeded to determine the 
compensation is vitiated by obvious error of law. However, the appellants 
did not challenge the award of the reference Court which had become final B 
as against them. Therefore, any inference even by this Court would not be 
beyond what was determined by the reference Court though done wrongly 
o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.