GOA HOUSING BOARDversusRAMESHCHANDRA GOVIND PAWASKAR & ANR.

              [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.-735


                 GOA HOUSING BOARD                           A
                             v.
    RAMESHCHANDRA GOVIND PAWASKAR & ANR.
          (Civil Appeal No. 8540 of 2011)
                   OCTOBER 11, 2011
                                                             B
    [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, P. SATHASIVAM AND A.K.
                      PATNAIK JJ.]

    Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991:
                                                             c
    Object of its enactment - Discussed. ·

     ss.2, 13 - Compensation - Determination of -
Acquisition of 358730 sq.m. of land - LAO determined
compensation @ Rs. 18 per sq.m. which was affirmed by
reference court - High Court awarded Rs.100 per sq.m. as D
compensation - On appeal, held: The acquired land vested
in the respondent who was the tenant under the provisions of
the Tenancy Act, therefore, the respondent could not have
used the land for any purpose other than agriculture or even
allow anyone else to use the same for any purpose other than E
agriculture - In view of permanent restriction regarding user
and the bar in regard to any non-agricultural use, the acquired
land would have to be valued only as an agricultural land and ·
could not be valued with reference to sales statistics of other
nearby lands which had the potential of being used for urban F
development - Merely by notifying the regional plan showing
certain agricultural lands as earmarked for industrial purpose,
those lands would not cease to be agricultural lands - At least
50% would have to be deducted from market value of freehold
land with development potential to arrive 13t market value of G
such land which could be used only for agricultural purposes
- Market value of neighbouring land being Rs.1101- per sq.m.,
appropriate compensation for acquired land would be 50%

                           735                               H
    736   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   thereof, that is Rs.55 per sq.m. - Goa, Daman and Diu
    Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964.

       Land acquisition - Compensation - Determination of, in
  respect of similarly situated land in the same area - Held:
  Similarly situated land in the same area, having the same
8
  advantages and acquired under the same notification should
  be awarded the same compensation - But if an acquired land
  is subject to a statutory covenant that it can be used only for
  agriculture and cannot be used for any other purpose
  necessarily it will have to be sold as agricultural land as the
C land owner cannot sell it for any purpose other than
  agriculture and the purchaser cannot sell it for any purpose
  other than agriculture.

      Land acquisition - Vacant land vis-a-vis land in
D possession of long term lessee - Compensation -
  Determination of.

       The Respondent was declared as the tenant of land
  measuring 374,000 sq. mts. under the Goa, Daman and
E Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. On payment of the
  purchase price of Rs.59,980 determined under sections
  18C and 180 of the Tenancy Act, a purchase certificate
  was issued to him under section 18H of the Tenancy Act
  confirming that he was deemed to be the purchaser of
  the said land under the provisions of the Tenancy Act,
F subject to the condition that the said land shall not be
  transferred without the previous sanction of the
  Mamlatdar under section 18K of the Tenancy Act. An
  extent of 358730 sq.m. of land belonging to the
  respondent was acquired in pursuance of the preliminary
G notification.
      The LAO made an award determining the
  compensation payable as Rs.18 per sq.m. The reference
  court declared the compensation awarded at Rs.18 per
H sq.m. to be reasonable and affirmed the award of the
     GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHANDRA                 737
              GOVIND PAWASKAR
 LAO. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the     A
 High Court seeking increase in compensation. The High
 Court found that in regard to the adjoining land acquired
 under the same notification, compensation was awarded
 @ Rs.136.50 per sq.m. and as the land in Survey No.102/
 1 belonging to the landholder was much larger, the'High       B
 Court deducted Rs.36.50 per sq.m. and awarded Rs.100
 per sq.m. as the compensation. Both the Board and the
 landowners filed the appeals challenging the order of the
 High Court.

     Disposing of the appeals, the Court
                                                               c
       HELD: 1.1. Having regard to section 2 of the Goa,
   Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, it is clear
  that notwithstanding anything contained in the Town and
  Country Planning Act or any scheme thereunder or the         D
  Land Revenue Code, no land which is vested in a tenant
  under the provisions of the Tenancy Act shall be used or
  allowed to be used for any purpose other than
  agriculture. In the instant case, the acquired land vested
  in the respondent-land owner who was the tenant under        E
  the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, the
  respondent could not have used the land for any purpose
  other than agriculture or even allow anyone else to use
  the same for any purpose other than agriculture. The only
  manner in which the land use could be changed was by         F
  an acquisition for a public purpose. Thus, the prohibition
  in regard to any use other than agriculture is not with
  reference to any person or holder with reference to the
  land itself. Any land which vested in a tenant under the
  provisions of the Tenancy Act attracted the bar contained    G
  in section 2 of the Land Use Act and there was a
· permanent bar against the use of such land for purposes
  other than agriculture either by the tenant in. whom the
  land is vested or any of his transferees or successors-
  in-interest. [Para 11] [750-E-H; 751-A]
                                                               H .
    738   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      1.2. There can be no doubt that similarly situated land
  in the same area, having the same advantages and
  acquired under the same notification should be awarded
  the same compensation. But if an acquired land is
  subject to a statutory covenant that it can be used only
B for agriculture and cannot be used for any other purpose
  necessarily it will have to be sold as agricultural land as
  the land owner cannot sell it for any purpose other than
  agriculture and the purchaser cannot sell it for any
  purpose other than agriculture. As a consequence, the
c price fetched for such land will be low even if it is situated
  near any urban area. But if the same land is not subject
  to any prohibition or restrictive covenant regarding use
  and has the potential of being developed either as a
  residential layout or put to commercial or industrial use,
  the land will fetch a much higher price; and the market
0
  value of such other land with development potential can
  be determined with reference to the sale price of nearby
  residential plots by making appropriate deduction for
  development. On the other hand if the land is to be used
E only for agricultural purposes, it may not be possible to
  arrive at the market value thereof with reference to the
  market value of nearby residential plots. Therefore, in
  regard to the land in question, in view of the permanent
  restriction regarding user, that is it should only be used
  for agricultural purposes, and the bar in regard to any
F non-agricultural use, it will have to be valued only as an
  agricultural land and cannot be valued with reference to
  sales statistics of other nearby lands which have the
G potential of being used for urban development. [Paras 11,
  12, 17) [751-C; 755-E-H; 756-A-B]

      Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector,
  Varanasi 1988 (2) SCC 150: 1988 (2) SCR 1025; Chimanlal
  Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona
H 1988 (3) SCC 751: 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 531; Subh Ram
    GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHANDRA                   739
             GOVIND PAWASKAR
v. State of Haryana 2010 (1) SCC 444: 2009 (15) SCR 287        A
- relied on.

    K. Periasami v. Sub-Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) 1994
(4) SCC 180; Delhi Development Authority v..Bali Ram
Sharma 2004 (6) SCC 533 - referred to.
                                                               B
        2. The matter can be seen from a slightly different
 perspective. A vacant land has a particular value. If such
 land is in the occupation of a long term ldssee, and the
owner wants to sell it without possession, he will only get
a far lesser price that what he would get as price for the C
same land if vacant posses·sion can be given to the
purchaser. If such land in the occupation of a long term
 lessee is acquired, as the lessee's rights are also taken
over, the compensation awarded for the land will be the
full value as awarded for any neighbouring property D
which is not subject to any tenancy. But the entire
compensation will not be received by the land owner/
landlord. The landlord will have to share the
compensation with the long term lessee. In other words,
the landlord will not get the entire value as compensation E



~
   ut will only get a part of the market value and the tenant
    ill get the balance. In that sense even if the market value
   f the land without any restrictive covenants is
c_onsidered to be Rs.110 per sq.m., having regard to the
fact that the land is incapable of being used for purposes
                                                                F
other than agriculture and the price of Rs.110 is arrived
at with reference to a land which can be used for all
purposes, an appropriate percentage will have to be
deducted from the value of Rs.110 per sq.m. to arrive at
the land subject to the statutory restriction regarding use.
On the facts and circumstances, having regard to the G
prohibition regarding use of land for any purpose other
than agriculture, the land will have to be treated and
valued as agriculture land without any development
potential for being used as residential/commercial/
industrial plots. At least 50% will have to be deducted H
    740   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A from the market value of freehold land with development
  potential to arrive at the market value of such land which
  can be used only for agricultural purposes. The market
  value of neighbouring land (which is not subject to the
  prohibition under Land Use Act) is determined as Rs.110/
8 - per sq.m. An appropriate compensation for the acquired
  land should be 50% thereof, that is Rs.55 per sq.m. [Paras
  18, 19] [756-C-H; 757-A-B]

    Prohibition under Section 2 of Goa Land Use (Regulation)
    Act, 1991 - Inapplicability to the acquired land.
c
       3.1. The object of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act,
  1991 is to ensure that agricultural land which vested in a
  tenant as a deemed purchaser on account of special
  provisions of the Tenancy Act subject to payment of a
o nominal price, (thereby denying the ownership and the
  market value to the original owner) is not sold or used
  for any non-agricultural purpose. If the land was non-
  agricultural land, the tenant would not have got the title
  to the land as a deemed purchaser and the land would
E have continued under the ownership of the landlord.
  Therefore the object of the Act is that no tenant in whom
  a land had vested under the provisions of the Tenancy
  Act shall use the land for any purpose other than
  agriculture. To see that he does not easily defeat the said
  bar by transferring the property, a prohibition was
F attached to the land itself by providing that no land which
  vested in a tenant under the Tenancy Act shall be used
  or allowed to be used for any purpose other than
  agriculture .. But for the exemption contained in section 3,
  when such a property is acquired under the Land
G Acquisition Act for public purpose, the prohibition under
  section 2 in regard to use of the land for any purpose
  other than agriculture would have continued to apply.
  Therefore it was necessary to make an exemption in
  regard to the lands acquired for public purpose. That is,
H
   GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHANDRA              741
            GOVIND PAWASKAR
even though a land which vested in a tenant under the· A
Tenancy Act was subject to a covenant that it could not
be used for any agricultural purpose in future, once it
was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for a public
purpose and .vested in the government, the prohibition
contained under section 2 would cease to operat~, and B
the state government or the beneficiary of acquisitlofl
could use it for any purpose. Section 3 is therefore a
provision which entitles the State Government or
beneficiary of acquisition to use it for any purpose other
than agriculture. The said section will not enable the c
landowner to get the market value of the .land as one with
non-agricultural potential. In so far as the landowner is
concerned, the compensation to which he is entit~d
would be what he would have got if he had sold it in open
market to a willing purchaser who could have used it only 0
for agricultural purpose. [Para 22] [757-F-H; 758~A-F]

     3.2. The contention was raised on behalf of the
respondent that by notification issued under section 13
of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town & Country Planning
Act, 1974, the said land (Sy. No.102/1) along with other E
lands in Colvale village were notified for proposed
change of use from cultivable land to industrial land; and
that by a notification issued under section 15 read with
section 17 of the Town Planning Act, the Chief- Town
Planner notified the amended regional plan for Goa as F
approved by the government which showed that the said
land was earmarked fof'. industrial use. The said
contention based on section 15 of Town Planning Act has ,
no merit. Merely by notifying the regional plan showing
certain agricultural lands as earmarked for industrial G
purpose, those lands will not cease to be agricultural
lands. Publication of a regional plan under section 15,
therefore, only means that on and from the date of
publication of the regional plan, any development
programme or development work undertaken should H
   742    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A conform to the provisions of the Regional plan and
  nothing more. As the land was not converted to non-
  agricultural industrial use under Sections 30 and 32 of
  the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, the
  land did not become industrial land. Once the Land Use
B Act came into force, notwithstanding anything contained
  in the Town Planning Act or in any plan or scheme made
  thereunder, a land vested in a tenant under the ·Tenancy
  Act could not be used or allowed to be used for any
  purpose other than agriculture. [Paras 23, 24] [758-G-H;
c 759-A-D-G-H; 760-A-B]
      4. Section 18A of the Tenancy Act provides that on
  the Tiller's Day (that is, 8.10.1976, the date of introduction
  of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Fifth
  Amendment) Act, 1976 in the Legislative Assembly), every
D tenant shall subject to the other provisions of the Act, be
  deemed to have purchased from his landlord the land
  held by him as a tenant and such land shall vest in him
  free from such encumbrances on that day. Section 18E
  provjdes that on determination of the purchase price by
E the Mamlatdar under section 18C, the tenant shall deposit
  the purchase price with the Mamlatdar as provided in
  section 18E. Section 18H provides that on deposit of the
  purchase price the Mamlatdar shall issue a certificate of
  purchase to the tenant-purchaser in respect of the land;
F and the purchase will be in effective on tenant-
  purchaser's failure to pay the purchase price. Section 18J
  provides that where purchase of any land by. the tenant
  under section 18A becomes ineffective under section 18C
  or 18H or where the tenant fails to exercise the right to
G purchase the land held by him within the specified period
  under section 188, the Mamlatdar may direct the land or
  part thereof, shall be disposed of in the manner provided
  therein. In this case, in terms of section 18E, the
  Mamlatdar required the respondent to deposit the
H purchase price of Rs.59,840/- and on such deposit, a
   GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHANDRA                  743 -
            GOVIND PAWASKAR
 certificate of purchase was issued to the respondent A
 under section 18H only on 6.5.1993. Until such a
 certificate was issued, the~e was a pos&ibility of
 resumption and disposal under section 1BJ. By the time,
the certificate of purchase in regard to the land was
 issued on 6.5.1993, Goa Land Use (Regulations) Act, 1991 B
 had came into force on 2.11.1990. Further, under section
30 of the Land Revenue Code, no land ·used for
agriculture shall be used for any non-agricultural purpose
except with the permission of the Collector under section
32 of the Code. Section 32·provides for the procedure for C
conversion of use of land from agricultural to non-
agricultural use. It requires an application to be made by
the land holder to the Collector and a permission being ·
granted by Collector for conversion, subject to payment
of the fees prescribed therein. It is not the case of the
respondent that the land has been converted to non- 0
agricultural use under sections 30 and 32 of the Land
Revenue Code. In fact, before the issue of a purchase
certificate on 6.5.1993, it may not be possible for a tenant-
purchaser to apply for conversion to non-agricultural use.
It is, thus, clear that the land in question was agricultural E
land as on the date when the Land Use Act came into
force and when the land was acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act. Therefore, the contention that it was not
agricultural land, is rejected. Consequently the appeal
filed by the Board is accepted and the compensation F
awarded for land from Rs.100/- per sq.m. is reduced to
Rs.55 per sq.m. The respondent would be entitled to all
statutory benefits as awarded by the l:iigh Court. As a
consequence the appeal filed by· the landowner for
increase of compensation stands rejected. [Paras 25, 26] G
[760-C-H; 761-A-F]
     6. CA No.8542 of ,2011 is related to acquisition of
9,153 sq.m. of land in the said Sy. No.102/1 of Colvale
village under preliminary notification dated 26.9.1991
                                                             H.
    744    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A belonging to the respondent. This appeal related to an
  acquisition initiated under preliminary notification dated
  26.9.1991. In this case, the relevant date for purpose of
  determination of market value is 26.9.1991, about one and
  half years after 23.3.1990 (the date of the relied upon sale
8 transaction). By applying the same principle, the market
  value of the land as on 26.9.1991 will be Rs.90 per sq.m.
  The said value is with reference to land with potential for
  development. As the land acquired was subject to a
  prohibition under the Land Use Act, a deduction of 50%
C is made for to arrive at the. value of the land with
  agricultural potential only. Consequently, the market
  value of the acquired land is determined as Rs.45/- per
  sq.m. [Para 27] [761-G-H; 762-C]
                        Case Law Reference:
D
          1994 (4) sec 180      referred to         Para 12
          2004 (6) sec 533      referred to         Para 12
          1988 (2) SCR 1025     relied on           Para 13
E         1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 531    relied on      Para 14
          2009 (15} SCR 287     relied on           Para 15
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    8540 of 2011.
F
        From the Judgment & Order dated 26.9.2008 of the High
    Court of Bombay in FA No. 216 of 2003.
                                WITH
G C.A. Nos. 8541 and 8542 of 2011.

        S. Ganesh, L.N. Rao, Dhruv Mehta, Pratap Venugopal,
    Surekha Raman, Dileep P., P.K. Jain, Varun Singh, Namrata
    Sood, K.J. John & Co., Shriniwas R. Khalap, Wajeeh Shafiq,
    Anupam Lal Das, A. Raghunath, Yashraj Singh Deora, Sriram
H
    GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHANDRA                         745
             GOVIND PAWASKAR
Krishna, Sarv Mitter, Mitter & Mitter Co. Siddharth Bhatnagar,        A
Pawan Kumar Bansal and T. Mahipal for the appearing parties.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                      B
CA Nos. 8540 and 8541 of 2011 [@ SLP(c) Nos.149 and
9591 of 20091

      2. These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated
26.9.2008 in FA No.216/2003, the first by the Goa Housing             c
Board and the second by the land owner. As the ranks of the
parties differ, the Goa Housing Board (appellant in the first
matter and second respondent in the second matter) for whose
benefit the acquisition was made will be referred to as the
'Board' or the appellant. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar               D
(first respondent in the first matter and appellant in the second
matter) whose land was acquired will be r~erred to as the
'respondent'. The Land Acquisition Officer (second respondent
in the first matter and first respondent in the second matter) will
be referred to as 'the LAO'.
                                                                      E
      3. By an order dated 31.1.1977 passed by the Mamlatdar,
Bardez, the respondent was declared as the tenant of Survey
No.102/1, Colvale village, Bardez, Goa measuring 374,000 sq.
mts. under the Goa, Daman and Diu~Agricultural Tenancy Act,
1964 ('Tenancy Act' for short). On payment of the purchase            F
price of Rs.59,980 determined under sections. 18C and 18D
of th·e Tenancy Act, a purchase certificate dated 6.5.1993 was
issued to-him under section 18H of the Tenancy Act confimfing
that he was deemed to be the purchaser of the said land under
the provisions of the Tenancy Act, subject to the condition that      G
the said lan.d shall not be transferred without the previous
sanction of the Mamlatdar under section 18K of the Tenancy
Act. An extent of 358730 sq.m. of land in the said Survey
,No.102/1 belonging to the respondent was acquired in
pursuance of the preliminary notification dated 9.6.1994              H
    746    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A (gazetted on 16.6.1994) corrected by corrigendum dated
  26.9.1994 (gazetted on 27.9.1994).
       4. The LAO made an award dated 28.2.2003 determining
  the compensation payable as Rs.18 per sq.m. The respondent
  sought reference to the civil court for claiming a higher
B compensation. The Reference court by its judgment and award
  dated 28.2.2003 declared the compensation awarded at Rs.18
  per sq.m. to be proper and reasonable and affirmed the award
  of the LAO. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal
C before the High Court seeking increase in compensation.

       5. Before the High Court, the Board contended that having
  regard to the provisions of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act,
  1991 ('Land Use Act' for short), a tenant in whom the land had
  vested under the Tenancy Act could not use it or allow it to be
D used for any purpose other than agriculture; and therefore the
  valuation of such land could not be with reference to its potential
  for use for non-agricultural building purposes, but should be only
  as agricultural land. In support of its contention, the Board relied
  upon a decision of a division bench of the High Court in Janaki
E N. Morajkar vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (First Appeal
  No.221/2003 decided on 9.2.2005). It was therefore submitted
  that the market value of agricultural land determined by the
  reference court at Rs.18/- per sq.m. affirming the determination
  by the LAO was correct and there was no need to increase the
F compensation.

       6. The High Court found that in regard to the adjoining land
  (Survey No.102/1A of Colvale) acquired under the same
  notification, compensation was awarded at the rate of
  Rs.136.50 per sq.m. As the land in Survey No.102/1 belonging
G to the landholder was much larger, the High Court deducted
  Rs.36.50 per sq.m. and awarded Rs.1'00 per sq.m. as the
  compensation. Though the High Court noticed the contention
  of the Board with reference to the prohibition under the Land
  Use Act, and the decision in Janaki N. Morajkar, it did not
H choose to follow the said decision. Nor did it hold that the
   GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHANDRA                          747
  . GOVIND PAWASKAR [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
decision in Janaki N. Morajkar was wrongly decided or A
inapplicable. The High Courtavoided the issue by observing
that it was not necessary to go into the larger controversy as
to whether Janaki N.Morajkar was rightly decided. The High
Court held that the Board cannot pick and choose only some
of the acquired. lands for applying the provisions of the Land B
Use Act; that the contention based on the Land Use Act was
not taken in regard to other lands acquired under the same
notification, was evident from the decision in Goa Housing
Board vs. Pandurang V.Sawant - (FA N0.204/2003 dated
16.4.2008); that compensation should be on the same lines in          c
regard to all lands acquired under the same notification and
therefore it was not necessary to examine the contention based
on Land Use Act, that the valuation should be only as the •
agricultural land.

    7. Feeling aggrieved the Board has filed an appeal                D
contending as follows:

    (a) In view of the bar contained in the Land Use Act in
    regard to use of land vested in a tenant under the
    provisions of the Tenancy Act for any purpose other than          E
    agriculture, compensation could not be determined with
    reference to the sales statistics relating to residential plots
    on the assumption that the agricultural land in question had
    development potential for residential use.
                                                                      F
    (b) Having regard to clause 8 of section 24 of the Land
    Acquisition Act which provides that "the court shall not take
    into consideration any increase to the value of the land on
    account of it being put to any use which is forbidden by
    any law or opposed to public policy" and the bar contained
    in the Land Use Act in regard to any use other than               G
    agriculture, the High Court could not have taken note of the
    development and building potential of the acquired land for
    the purpose of determining compensation.

    (c) The High Court ought to have followed the decision of         H
    748     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A         another divisic;in bench of the High Court in Janaki N.
          Morajkar, on an identical issue. If the High Court was not
          in agreement with the view in Janaki N. Morajkar, it ought
          to have either referred it to a larger bench, or distinguished
          it or held that it was inapplicable. It could not have ignored
B         the decision.

      8. The respondent has also filed an appeal contending that
  compensation at Rs.110 per sq.m. was very low and claiming
  higher compensation. On the contentions urged, the following
C questions arise :
           (i)    Having regard to section 2 of the Land Use Act,
                  whether th~ acquired land should be valued only as
                  agricultural land or whether it could be valued as
                  land with development potential for being used as
D                 building sites?
           (ii)   Whether the compensation awarded by the High
                  Court is excessive as contended by the Board or
                  inadequate as contended by the respondent and
                  what should be the compensation?
E
        9. At the outs.et we may notice two subsequent events. The
  first is that the special leave petition against the decision in
  Janaki N. Morajkar was dismissed by this Court (Janaki N.
  Morajkar 1. Sp/. LAO - SLP(C) No.13195/2003 decided on
F 19.7.2005). The second is that the appeal against the decision
  in Pandurang VSawantwas allowed by this Court. The market
  value of the acquired land, if it was not subject to any prohibition
  regarding use under the Land Use Act, is now settled by the
  decision of this court in regard to the neighbouring land, in Goa
G Housing Board v. Pandurang V. Sawant [CA Nos.1992-93/
  2010 decided on 19.2.2010). The said decision relates to the
  adjoining land (S'y. No.102/1A) which was the subject matter
  of First Appeal No.204/2003 before the High Court. In that case
  also the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs.18 per sq.m.
H The reference court had increased the compensation to Rs.150
    GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHANDRA                        749
    GOVIND PAWASKAR [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
per sq.m. and on appeal the High Court by judgment dated                  A
16.4.2008 had reduced itto Rs.136.50. But subsequently by
order dated 29.1.2009 the judgment dated 16.4.2008 reducing
the compensation to Rs.136.50 was corrected and the
compensation was determined as Rs.147 per sq.m. This court
reduced the compensation to Rs.110 per sq.m. instead of                   B
Rs.14 7 per sq.m. Thus the market value of freehold land which
is not subject to any restriction regarding use or otherwise as
on 16.6.1994 was Rs.110/- per sq.m. This would mean that if
the contention of the respondent is accepted and the Land Use
Act is found to be inapplicable the compensation will have to             c
be increased from Rs.100 to Rs.110 per sq.m. However if the
contention of the Board that the prohibition in regard to the land
use applied to the land in question having regard to the
provisions of the Land Use Act is accepted, then the market
value will have to be determined taking note of such provision.           D

   - 10. We may at this juncture refer to the provisions of the
Goa Land Use Regulation Act, 1991. As it is a short Act and
every provision thereof is relevant, we extract below the said
Act in entirety :
                                                                          E
    "An Act to provide for regulation of use of agricultural land
    for non-agricultural purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Goa in the
    Forty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows :-
                                                                          F
    1.   Short title, extent and commencement. - (1) This Act
    may be called the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991. _

    (2) It extends to the whole of the State of Goa.
                                                                          G
    (3) It shall be deemed to have come into force with effect ·
    from the 2nd day of November, 1990.
                                                                     _/
    2. Regulation of use of land. - Notwithstanding anything
    contained in the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country
    Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21 of 1975), or in any plan or · H
    750     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.CR.


A         scheme made thereunder, or in the Goa Land Revenue
          Code, 1968 (Act 9 of 1969), no land which is vested in a
          tenant under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu
          Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) shall be
          used or allowed to be used for any purpose 0ther than
B         agriculture.

          Explanation:- The expression "agriculture", "land" and
          "tenant" shall have the same meaning assigned to them
          under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act,
          1964 (Act 7 of 1964).
c
          3. Exemption. - The provisions of this Act shall not apply
          to acquisition of any land vested in a tenant under the Goa,
          Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 (Act 7 of
          1964) by the State for a public purpose under the provision
D         of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894). "

         11. Having regard to section 2 of the said Act, it is clear
  that notwithstanding anything contained in the Town & Country
   Planning Act or any scheme thereunder or the Land Revenue
E Code, no land which is vested in a tenant under the provisions
  of the Tenancy Act shall be used or allowed to be used for any
  purpose other than agriculture. In this case it is not in dispute
  that the acquired land in question vested in the land owner who
  was the tenant under the provisions of the Tenancy Act.
F Therefore it cannot be disputed that the respondent could not
  have used the land for any purpose other than agriculture or
  even allow anyone else to use the same for any purpose other
  than agriculture. The only manner in which the land use could
  be changed was by an acquisition for a public purpose. Thus
  the prohibition in regard to any use other than agriculture is not
G with reference to any person or holder with reference to the land
  itself. Any land which vested in a tenant under th13 provisions
  of the Tenancy Act attracted the bar contained in section 2 of
  the Land Use Act and there was a permanent bar against the
  use of such land for purposes other than agriculture either by
H
    GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHANDRA                        751
    GOVIND PAWASKAR [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
the tenant in whom the land is vested or any of his transferees      A
or successors-in-interest.

      12. The question is whether such prohibition will affect the
market value of the land. The respondent submitted that this
court had repeatedly held that all lands situated in the same        B
area and acquired by the same riotifJcation, should be awarded
the same compensation. He relied upon the judgment in K.
Periasami v. Sub-Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) [1994 (4) SCC
180] and Delhi Development Authority v. Bali Ram Sharma
[2004 (6) SCC 533]. There can be no doubt that similarly
situated land in the same area, having the same advantages           C
and acquired under the same notification should be awarded
the same compensation. But the question is when one land is
a freehold land not subject to any restrictions in regard to user
and the adjoining land though similarly situated is subject to a
permanent restriction regarding user requiring it to be used only    D
for agricultural purposes, the question is whether the two lands
can be termed as comparable lands which should be subjected
to the same compensation. We may give a few examples to
illustrate the position:
                                                                     E
    {i) A person constructs two identical houses adjoining each
    other. He lets out one of them and keeps the other vacant.
    After some years he sells both the properties. The house
    sold with vacant possession will fetch a better price than
    the adjoining premises which is in occupation of a tenant        F
    and therefore sold without possession. The fact that both
    properties are situated adjoining eac;:h other and have the
    same area of construction and face the same road will not
    mean that the price they will fetch will be the same.

    {ii) There are two adjoining properties belonging to the         G
    same owner. One falls under area earmarked as
    commercial and the other falls under area earmarked as
    residential. Though they are similarly sifuated, the land
    which is capable of commercial use· is likely to fetch a
                                                                     H
     752. SUPREME C.OURT REPORTS (2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R


A        higher price than a land earmarked for residential use.

         (iii) An agricultural land with no development potential sold
         to another agriculturalist for agricultural purposes will fetch
         a price which will be lower than the price fetched by an
         agricultural land with potential of development into
B
         residential or commercial plots sold for development into
         a layout of plots.

         (iv) A small plot measures 10' x 20' and is suitable for
         construction of a shop. If it is to be sold, it will fetch a good
c        price at par with prevailing market value. But if the s.aid
         plot is subject to an easementary right of passage in favour
         of the owner of the property to the rear of the said plot and
         also subject to easementary rights of light and air in favour
         of the owners of plots on either side, the plot cannot be
D        used for construction at all and will have to be kept as a
         vacant plot. Necessarily its market value will be far less than
         the value of such a plot which is not subject to such
         easements.

E        13. In Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector,
     Varanasi (1988 (2) SCC 150], this court observed thus in
     regard to determination of market value.:

         "The market-value of a piece of property, for purposes of
         Section 23 of the Act, is stated to be the price at which
F        the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing,
         but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length. The
         determination of market-value, as one author put it, is the
         prediction of an economic event, viz, the price-outcome of
         a hypothetical sale, expressed in terms of probabilities.
G        Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages
         and potentialities Ul)der bonafide transactions of sale at
         or about the time of the preliminary notification are the
         usual; and indeed the best, evidences of market-value.
         Other methods of valuation are resorted to if the evidence
H•       of sale of similar lands is not available."
    GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHAND.RA                       753
    GOVIND PAWASKAR [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
     14. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land                   A
Acquisition Officer, Poona [1988 (3) SCC 751] this court set
out the principle regarding determination of market value. One
of the principles mentioned is as under :

     'The determination has to be made standing on the date           8
     line of valuation (date of publication of notification under
     Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser
     willing to purchase land from the open market and is
     prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has
     also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land   C
     at a reasonable price."

Thereafter, this court stated that the exercise of determining the
market value has to be taken in a commonsense manner as a
prudent man in a business world would do and gave some
illustrative facts which have a bearing on the value :                D
"   Plus factors                  Minus factors

1. Smallness of size.             1. Largeness of area.

2. Proximity to a road.           2. Situation in the interior at a   E
                                     distance from the road.

3. Frontage on a road.            3. Narrow strip of land with
                                     very small frontage
                                     compared to depth                F
4. Nearness to developed          4. Lower level requiring the
   area.                             depressed portion to bE;!
                                     filled up.

5. Regular shape.                 5. Remoteness           from        G
                                     developed locality.•

6. Level vis-a-vis land under     6,. Some special disadvant-
   acquisition                        ageous factor which
                                      would      deter  a
                                                                      H
                                      purchaser.
    754     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   7. Special value for an owner of
       an adjoining property to whom
       it may have some very
       special advantage."
                                                  (emphasis supplied)
B
          15. In Subh Ram vs. State of Haryana [2010 (1) SCC
    444), this court observed :

          "It is in ·this context, in some cases, to avoid the need to
          differentiate .the lands acquired under a common
c         notification for a common purpose, and to extend· the
          benefit of a uniform compensation, courts have observed
          that the purpose of acquisition is also a relevant factor. The
          said observation may not apply in all cases and all
          circumstal'\ces as the general rule is that the land owner
J         is being compensated for what he has lost and not with
          reference to the purpose of acquisition.

          The purpose of acquisition can never be a factor to
          increase the market value of the acquired land. We may
E         give two examples. Where irrigated land belonging to 'A'
          and dry land of 'B' and waste land of 'C' are acquired for
          purpose of submergence in a dam project, neither 'B' nor
          'C' can contend that they are entitled to the same higher
          compensation which was awarded for the irrigated land,
F         on the ground that all the lands were acquired for the same
          purpose. Nor can the Land Acquisition Collector hold that
          in case of acquisition for submergence in a dam project.
          irrigated land should be awarded lesser compensation
          equal to the value of waste land, on the ground that
          purpose of acquisition is the same in regard to both. The
G
          pririciple is that the quality (class) of.land, the situation of
          the land, the access to the land are all relevant factors for
          determination of the market value."

     16. While section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act
H enumerates the matters to be considered in determining
    GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHANDRA                          755
    GOVIND PAWASKAR [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
compensation, section 24 enumerates the matters to be                  A
neglected in determining compensation; It provides :

     "But the court shall not take into consideration-xx x xx

     fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely
     to accrue from the use to which it till be put when acquired;     B

     xx xx
                                              .
     eighth/y, any increase to the value of the land on account
     of its being put to any use which is forbidden by. law or         C
     opposed to public policy."

It is thus clear that if there is a prohibition regarding use of the
land for purposes other than agriculture, the value of such land
on account of the same being put to commercial, residential
or industrial use cannot form the basis of determining the             D
market value.

      17. Where an acquired land is subject to a statutory
 covenant that it can be used only for agriculture and cannot be
 used for any other purpose necessarily it will have to be sold E
 as agricultural land as the land owner cannot sell it for any
purpose other than agriculture and the purchaser cannot sell it
 for any purpose other than agriculture. As a consequence, the
price fetched for such land will be low even if it is situated near
any urban area. But if the same land is not subject to any F
prohibition or restrictive covenant regarding use and has the
potential of being developed either as a residential layout or
put to commercial or industrial use, the land will fetch a much
higher price; and the market value of such other land with
development potential can be determined with reference to the
sale price of nearby residential plots by making appropriate G
deduction for development. On the other hand if the land is to
be used only for agricultural purposes. it may not be possible
to arrive at the market value thereof witli reference to the
market value of nearby residential plots. Therefore we are of
the considered view that in regard to the land in question, in H
    756    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A view of the permanent restriction regarding user, that is it should
  only be used for agricultural purposes, and the bar in regard to
  any non-agricultural use, it will have to be valued only as an
  agricultural land and cannot be valued with reference to sales
  statistics of other nearby lands which have the potential of being
B used for urban development.

          18. We may also look at the matter from a slightly different
    perspective. A vacant land has a particular value. If such land
    is in the occupation of a long term lessee, and the owner wants
    to sell it without possession, he will only get a far lesser price
C   that what he would get as price for the same land if vacant
    possession can be given to the purchaser. If such lar.id in the
    occupation of a long term lessee is acquired, as the lessee's
    rights are also taken over, the compensation awarded for the
    land will be the full value as awarded for any neighbouring
D   property which is not subject to any tenancy. But the entire
    compensation will not be received by the land owner/landlord.
    The landlord will have to share the compensation with the long
    term lessee. In other words, the landlord will not get the entire
    value as compensation but will only get a part of the market
E   value and the tenant will get the balance. In that sense even if
    the market value of the land without any restrictive covenants
    is considered to be Rs.110 per sq.m., having regard to the fact
    that the land is incapable of being used for purposes other than
    agriculture and the price of Rs.110 is arrived at with reference
F   to a land which can be used for all purposes, an appropriate
    percentage will pave to be deducted from the value of Rs.110
    per sq.m. to arrive at the land subject to the statutory restriction
    regarding use. ·

         19. On the facts and circumstances, having regard to the
G prohibition regarding use of land for any purpose other than
    agriculture, the land will have to be treated and valued as
  . agriculture land without any development potential for being
    used as residential/commercial/industrial plots. We are of the
    view that at least 50% will have to be deducted from the market
H
     GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHANDRA                         757
     GOVIND PAWASKAR [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
 value of freehold land with development potential to arrive at        A
 the marl<et value of such land which can be used only for
 agricultural purposes. As we have already determined the
 market value of neighbouring land (which is not subject to the
 prohibition under Land Use Act) as Rs.110/- per sq.m. We are
 of the view that an appropriate' compensation for the acquired        B
 land should be 50% thereof, that is Rs.55 per sq.m.

      20. We may now deal with contentions of the respondent
 that the prohibition under section 2 of the Land Use Act is
 inapplicable to the acquired land.
                                                                       c
      21. The respondent relied on section 3 of the Land Use
 Act relating to exemption and provides that the provisions of
 the Land Use Act shall not apply to acquisition of any land
 vested in a tenant under the Tenancy Act, by the State for a
 public purpose under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,      D
 1894. He contended that once a notification is issued proposing
 to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, the
 provisions of the Land Use Act, in particular, the prohibition
 contained in section 2 will not apply and the acquired land will
 have to be valued as a freehold land without any restrictions.        E

        22. Though the said argument appears to be attractive at
  first blush, on a careful reading of the section, we find it to be
  without merit. The object of the Land Use Act is to ensure that
  agricultural land which vested in a tenant as a deemed
                                                                       F
  purchaser on account of special provisions of the Tenancy Act
  subject to payment of a nominal price, (thereby denying the
  ownership and the market value to the original owner) is not
  sold or used for any non-agricultural purpose. If the land was
  non-agricultural land, the tenant would not have got the title to
  the land as a deemed purchaser ~nd the land would have               G
  continued under the ownership of the landlord. The tenant got
  the land under the statute, because it was agricultural land and
  he was the tenant thereof, that too at a very nominal price, by
  virtue of the special provisions of the Tenancy Act. Therefore
• the object of the Act is that no tenant in whom a land had vested    H
    758   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   under the provisions of the Tenancy Act shall use the land for
    any purpose other than agriculture. To see that he does not
  . easily defeat the said bar by transferring the property, a
    prohibition was attached to the land itself by providing that no
    land which vested in a tenant under the Tenancy Act shall be ·
B used or allowed to be used for any purpose other than
    agriculture. But for the exemption contained in section 3, when
    such a property is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for
    public purpose, the prohibition under section 2 in· regard to use
    of the land for any purpose other than agriculture would have
c   continued to apply. Therefore it was necessary to make an
    exemption in regard to the lands acquired for public purpose.
    That is, even though a land which vested in a tenant under the
    Tenancy Act was subject to a covenant that it could not be used
    for any agricultural purpose in future, once it was acquired under
    the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose and vested in the
0
    government, the prohibition contained under section 2 would
    cease to operate, and the state government or the beneficiary
    of acquisition could use it for any purpose. Section 3 is
    therefore a provision which entitles the State Government or
E beneficiary of acquisition to use it for any purpose other than
    agriculture. The said section will not enable the landowner to
    get the market value of the land as one with non-agricultural
    potential. In so far as the landowner is concerned, the
    compensation to which he is entitled would be what he would
    have got if he had sold it in open market to a willing purchaser
F . who could have used it only for agricultural purpose.

        23. The respond.mt referred to and relied upon the
  Preamble of the Act which provides that the object of the Act
  is to provide for regulation and use of agricultural land for non-
G agricultural purposes. He contended that if on the date when
  th~ Land Use Act came into force, the land in question had .
  ceased to be agricultural land then the Land Use Act would be
  inapplicable. He submitted that by notification dated 9.11.1988
  (gazetted on 24.11.1988} issued under section 13 of the Goa,
H Daman and Diu Town & Country Planning Act, 1974 (for short
    GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHANDRA                      759
    GOVIND PAWASKAR [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
'Town Planning Act'), the said land (Sy. No.102/1) along with      A
other lands in Colvale village were notified for proposed change
of use from cultivable land to industrial land; and that by a
notification dated 12.3.1990 (gazetted on 5.4.1990) issued
under section 15 read with section 17 of the Town Planning Act,
the Chief Town Planner notified the amended regional plan for      B
Goa as approved by the government which showed that the said
land was earmarked for industrial use. The respondent
contended that on 5.4.1990, the land became an industrial land
and consequently ceased to be agricultura! land before the Land
Use Act came into force with retrospective effect from             c
2.11.1990; and therefore the Land Use Act did not apply to the
land in question (Sy. No.102/1 ).

      24. Merely by notifying the regional plan showing certain
agricultural lands as earmarked for industrial purpose, those
lands will not cease to be agricultural lands. Section 15 D
notification is only an initial step in a long process under the
Town Planning Act. Section 18 provided for declaration of
planning area. Section 29 relates to preparation of an outline
development plan. Section 31 provides for preparation of
comprehensive development plan. Section 37 provides when E
the development plan will come into operation. Section 41
empowers the state to acquire any land reserved, required, or
designated in a development plan as a land needed for a
public purpose. Section 42 provides that on and from the date
on which a public notice of the preparation of a development F
plan is published under- section 35(1), every land use covered
by the development plan shall conform to the provisions of the
Act. Publication of a regional plan under section 15 therefore
only means that on and from the date of publication of the
regional plan, any development programme or development G
work undertaken should conform to the provisions of the
Regional plan and nothing more. As the land was not converted
to non-agricultural industrial use under Sections 30 and 32 of
the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 ('Land
Revenue Code' for short) the land did not become industrial H
    760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A land. Therefore the said contention based on section 15 of Town
  Planning Act has no merit. Once the Land Use Act came into
  force, notwithstanding anything contained in the Town Planning
  Act or in any plan or scheme made thereunder, a land vested
  in a tenant under the Tenancy Act could not be used or allowed
B to be used for any purpose other than agriculture.

          25. Section 18A of the Tenancy Act provides that on the
    Tiller's Day (that is, 8.10.1976, the date of introduction of Goa,
    Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Fifth Amendment) Act,
C   1976 in the Legislative Assembly), every tenant shall subject
    to the other provisions of the Act, be deemed to have purchased
    from his landlord the land held by him as a tenant and such land
    shall vest in him free from such encumbrances on that day.
    Section 18E provides that on determination of the purchase
    price by the Mamlatdar under section 18C, the tenant shall
D   deposit the purchase price with the Mamlatdar as provided in
    section 18E. Section 18H provides that on deposit of the
    purchase price the Mamlatdar shall issue a certificate of
    purchase to the tenant-purchaser in respect of the land; and the
    purchase will be in effective on tenant-purchaser's failure to pay
E   the purchase· price. Section 18J provides that where purchase
    of any land by the tenant under section 18A becomes ineffective
    under section 18C or 18H or where the tenant fails to exercise
    the right to purchase the land held by him within the specified
    period under section 188, the Mamlatdar may direct the land
F   or part thereof, shall be disposed of in the manner provided
    therein. Section 18K of the Tenancy Act pro0des that no land
    purchased by a tenant under Chapter llA of the Tenancy Act
    shall be transferred by sale, gift, mortgage, lease or assignment,
    without the previous sanction of the Mamlatdar. In this case, in
G   terms of section 18E, the Mamlatdar required the respondent
    to deposit the purchase price of Rs.59,840/- and on such
    deposit, a cert11cate of purchase was issued to the respondent
    under section 18H only on 6.5.1993. It should be noted that until
    such a certificate was issued, there was a possibility of
H   resumption and disposal under section 18J. By the time, the
    GOA HOUSING BOARD v. RAMESHCHANDRA                          761
    GOVIND PAWASKAR [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
certificate of purchase in regard to the land was issued on             A
6.5.1993, Goa Land Use (Regulations) Act, 1991 had came
into force on 2.11.1990. Further, under section 30 of the Land
Revenue Code, no land used for agriculture shall be used for
any non-agricultural purpose except with the permission of the
Collector under section 32 of the Code. Section 32 _provides            B
for the procedure for conversion of use of land from agricultural
to non-agricultural use. It requires an application to be made
by the land holder to the Collector and a permission being
granted by Collector for conversion, subject to payment of the
fees prescribed therein. It is not the case of the respondent that      c
the land has been converted to non-agricultural use under
sections 30 and 32 of the Land Revenue Code. In fact, before
the issue of a purchase certificate on 6.5.1993, it may not be
possible for a tenant-purchaser to apply for conversion to non-
agricultural use. It is, thus, clear that the land in question was      0
agricultural land as on the date when the Land Use Act came
into force and when the land was acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act. Therefore, the contention that it was not
agricultural land, is rejected.

     26. Consequently we allow the appeal filed by the Board            E
and reduce the compensation awarded for land from Rs.100/-
per sq.m. to Rs.55 per sq.m. The respondent will be entitled to
a!I statutory benefits as awarded by the High Court. As a
consequence the appeal filed by the landowner for increase of
compensation stands rejected.                                           F

CA No. 8542 2011 [@ SLP (C) No.3723/20091

      27. This appeal relates to acquisition of 9, 153 sq. m. of land
in the said Sy. No.102/1 of Colvale village under preliminary
notification dated 26.9.1991 belonging to the respondent. The           G
facts are the same as in the first two appeals as this appeal
                                  '
relates to acquisition of the another    portion of the same land
belonging to the same respondent, the only difference being
that this appeal relates to an acquisition initiated under
preliminary notification dated 26.9.1991. In the other two              H
    762    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) SC R


A   appeals, we had relied upon the decision of th1~; Court in Goa
    Housing Board vs. Panduranga V Samant [CA Nos.199'1-93
    of 201 O decided on 19.2.201 OJ, wherein tt11s Court had
  determined compensation as Rs.110 per sq.m. in regard to
  acquisition of neighbouring land under preliminary notification
g gazetted on 16.6.1994. Determination of market value in
  Pandurang V.. Samant was with reference to a sale transaction
  dated 23.3.~990. This Court had determined the market value
  as Rs.75 p~! sq.m. as on 23.3.1990 and mcreased 1t by Rs.35
  to arrive at the vaiue as Rs.110/- after four years, ::is on
c 16.6.1994. In this case, as the relevant date for purpose of
  determination of market value is 26.9.1991. about one and haif
  years after 23.3.1990 (the date of rhe relied tipon sale
  transaction). By applying the same principle, the market value
  of the land as on 26.9.1991 will be Rs.90 per sq.m. The said
  value !s with reference to land with potential for development.
0
  As the land acquired was subject to a prohibition under the
  Land Use Act, for reasons stated in the first two appeals, a
  deduction of 50% is made for to arrive at the value of the land
  with agricultural potential only. Consequently, the market value
E of the acquired land is determined as Rs.45/- per sq.m.

       28. We accordingly allow this appeal in part and reduce
  the compensation from Rs.140 per sq.m to Rs.45 per sq.m.
  The respondent will be entitled to said compensation with all
  statutory benefits under section 23(1A), section 23(2) and
F section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

    D.G.                                   Appeals disposed of.