Supreme Court of India
KAZI AKILODDINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 505
- Decided
- 10 July 2024
- Bench
- SURYA KANT
Holding
The High Court was not justified in declaring the entire land a Blue Zone; only the strip within 15 m of the river is a no‑construction zone, and the appropriate market value is Rs 100 per sq ft for the balance of the land, with rental compensation at 8% of the enhanced amount.
Summary
The appellant, owner of a 1.25‑lac‑sq‑ft land in Akola, challenged the award of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a flood‑protection wall, contending that the land was not wholly within the statutory ‘Blue Zone’ and that the market value should be based on arm‑length transactions. The Supreme Court examined whether the land fell within the Blue Zone, the extent of the no‑construction zone under the 1974 Building By‑laws, and which sale exemplars were appropriate for valuation. It held that the acquiring body failed to prove a statutory demarcation of a Blue Zone as of the Section‑4 notification date (03‑06‑1999), and that only the strip within 15 m of the riverbank is a no‑construction zone. Consequently, the market value for the remaining 68.3% of the land is Rs 100 per sq ft, while the portion within 15 m is valued at the rate fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Court also affirmed the appellant’s entitlement to rental compensation at 8% of the enhanced amount and modified the operative order accordingly. The High Court’s declaration that the entire land was in the Blue Zone was set aside and the award was partially altered.
Issues considered
- What is the market value of the appellant's land as on 03‑06‑1999?
- Does the land fall within the statutory ‘Blue Zone’?
- If in the Blue Zone, what compensation rate applies?
- If not in the Blue Zone, what is the extent of the ‘No Construction Zone’ under the applicable by‑laws?
- What market value is payable for land inside and outside the No Construction Zone?
- Which sale exemplars (unrelated vs. related parties) should be used for valuation?
- Should development charges be deducted when acquisition is for a flood‑protection wall?
- Is the appellant entitled to rental compensation for the period of possession before the award?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 4, s. 6
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966s. 14(j), s. 21, s. 22(j)
Subjects
Land AcquisitionCompensationMarket value of landBlue ZoneNo Construction ZoneDevelopment chargesExemplarsRental compensationFlood protection wall
Judgment
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2248 : 2024 INSC 505
Kazi Akiloddin
v.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 6776-6777 of 2013)
10 July 2024
[Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
What should be the market value of the land of the appellant as on
03.06.1999; does the site of the appellant fall within ‘Blue Zone’ as
contended by the acquiring body-Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation (VIDC); if it falls within the ‘Blue Zone’, what should be
the market value for the land; if the land or any part thereof is not
to be determined as a ‘Blue Zone’, what was the ‘No Construction
Zone’ as per the extant laws; and what should be the market value
payable for that portion; what should be the market value payable
for any portion, falling outside the ‘No Construction Zone’.
Headnotes†
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – ss.14(j),
21, 22(j) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4 – Land of the
appellant, if fell within the blue zone – Market value thereof
as on 03.06.1999, the date of the Section 4 notification:
Held: High Court not justified in declaring the entire land of the
appellant as falling within the blue zone – If an acquiring body
relies on a statutory injunction, to establish that the land has
no potential, then the burden is on the said acquiring body to
demonstrate without any ambiguity that such a statutory interdict
is in place – VIDC did not discharge the burden in demonstrating
that statutorily there was a valid demarcation of a “Blue Zone”
on the date of the s.4 notification, under the Act – What was
established was only the existence of the bye-law i.e. “Standardised
Building Byelaws and Development Control Rules for “B” and “C”
Class Municipal Councils of Maharashtra” – As on 03.06.1999,
i.e. the date of the s.4 notification for the appellant’s land, the no
construction zone can only be taken as 15 meters from the defined
boundary of the water course which is the Morna river – If the site
to the extent it is within the 15 meters of the defined boundary of
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2249
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
water course, that part alone could be said to have no potential
for development – The land beyond the 15 meters mark from the
defined boundary of the water course in the site of the appellant
should be treated independently – Land of the appellant except
to the extent of 15 meters from the defined boundary of the water
course is not covered by the no construction zone – Considering
the potentiality of the land and its situs, except for the lands upto
15 meters from the defined boundary of the water course, Rs.100/-
per sq.ft. awarded for 68.3% of the total admeasuring area –
Thus, appellant entitled to Rs.100/- per sq. ft. for the 68.3% (approx.)
of the balance area, after excluding the land area, if any, which
falls within the 15 meters from the defined boundary of the water
course – For the land falling within the no construction zone, if
any, as per the Standardized Building Byelaws, he will be paid at
the rate determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the
award – Appellant entitled to rental compensation @ 8% of the
awarded amount, as directed – Operative order of the Reference
Court modified. [Paras 41, 43, 45, 56, 57, 66]
Land Acquisition – Exemplars – Reliance upon – Two
transactions, one between independent/unrelated parties and
the other between related parties – Both transactions took
place without much time gap:
Held: When there is a choice between an exemplar where the
transaction is between unrelated parties dealing at arm’s length
and between an exemplar where the transaction is between related
parties of a higher value, both of which are broadly around the
same period, prudence would dictate and common sense would
command that the value set out in the transaction between unrelated
parties is accepted – In the present case, the transaction which is
at arm’s length is accepted and the market value of the amount
of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. is accepted and the claim of Rs. 175/- per
sq. ft is rejected. [Paras 62, 65]
Land Acquisition – Development charges – Determination –
Acquisition for construction of a flood protection wall:
Held: The purpose for which the land is acquired must be taken
into consideration while determining development charges – Since
the acquisition was for construction of a flood protection wall, thus
there can be no question of any development or any cost thereof –
Land was ripe for use for building purposes – In the special facts
and circumstances of the case, no deduction ordered based on the
2250 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
cost for incurring development – Value fetched by smaller plots,
when can be applied in valuing larger tracts of land, discussed.
[Paras 67, 66]
Case Law Cited
State of Orissa v. Brij Lal Misra and Others [1995] Supp. 2 SCR
354 : (1995) 5 SCC 203; Sardara Singh and Others v. Land
Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Rupnagar and Others
(2020) 14 SCC 483; Om Parkash and Others v. State of Haryana
(2016) 13 SCC 190; Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda
and Others [2010] 5 SCR 164 : (2010) 5 SCC 708; Administrator
General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi [1988] 2 SCR 1025 :
(1988) 2 SCC 150; Himmat Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Anr. (2013) 16 SCC 392; Nelson Fernandes v. Land
Acquisition Officer [2007] 3 SCR 563 : (2007) 9 SCC 447; Bhag
Singh and Others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the
Land Acquisition Collector, Chandigarh [1985] Supp. 2 SCR 949 :
(1985) 3 SCC 737; Ashok Kumar and Another v. State of Haryana
[2016] 1 SCR 1084 : (2016) 4 SCC 544 – relied on.
Kazi Akiloddin Sujaoddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2013] 7
SCR 382 : (2013) 14 SCC 8; Munusamy v. Land Acquisition Officer
[2021] 9 SCR 1 : (2021) 13 SCC 258; Mehrawal Khewaji Trust
(Registered), Faridkot and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
[2012] 4 SCR 24 : (2012) 5 SCC 432; Bhagwathula Samanna
and Others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer,
Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam [1991] Supp. 1 SCR
172 : (1991) 4 SCC 506; Charan Dass (Dead) by LRs. v. H.P.
Housing & Urban Development Authority & Ors. [2009] 14 SCR
163 : (2010) 13 SCC 398; State of M.P. v. Radheshyam [2022]
9 SCR 743 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162; State of Maharashtra
and Others v. Digamber Bhimashankar Tandale & Ors. [1996] 2
SCR 90 : (1996) 2 SCC 583 – referred to.
List of Acts
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
List of Keywords
Land Acquisition; Compensation; Market value of the land;
Exemplars; Development charges; Special Land Acquisition Officer;
Acquisition for construction of a flood protection wall; Blue Zone;
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2251
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Blue colour; No Construction Zone; Water course; Potentiality of
the land; Potential value; Building Byelaws; Rental compensation;
Transactions, Independent/unrelated parties; Related parties;
Agricultural purposes; Non-agricultural purposes; Non-agricultural
land; Proximity; Developed areas.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6776-6777 of
2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2013 of the High Court
of Bombay at Nagpur in FA No. 1210 of 2008 and FA No. 6 of 2009
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7322, 7323, 7324, 7325, 7326, 7327, 7328 and
7329 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., R. B. Agrawal, Satyajit A Desai, Ansuman
Singh, Siddharth Gautam, Gajanan N Tirthkar, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar,
Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Lav Kumar, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Nishant
R. Katneshwarkar, Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Ms. Srishty
Pandey, Uday B. Dube, Himanshu Chaubey, Siddharth Garg, Srijan
Sinha, Ms. Pallavi Aggarwal, S. S. Shroff, Shrirang B. Varma,
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla,
Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
I. Civil Appeal Nos. 6776-6777/2013 (Kazi Akiloddin Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
A. Facts
1. These Civil Appeals call in question the correctness of the judgment
dated 17.06.2013 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur in First Appeal No. 1210 of 2008 (filed by the appellant
herein) and First Appeal No. 6 of 2009, which was a cross appeal
2252 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
filed by the State of Maharashtra & Ors. By the said judgment, the
High Court had dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Dealing with
the appeal of the State, the High Court, while allowing the same,
directed that the appellant shall refund the excess amount withdrawn
with interest @ 9% p.a. from the respective dates of withdrawal.
2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The appellant is the owner of the
land bearing Survey No.1 admeasuring 1 hectare and 1700 sq. meters
(1,25,937 sq. ft.) at Mouza Akola (Bujurg), Taluk and District Akola.
3. A Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short ‘the Act’) was issued for acquisition of the subject land on
03.06.1999. Prior to this, on 15.11.1998, in view of the proposal to
acquire the subject land for construction of a flood protection wall, the
appellant was approached for handing over the subject land on the
assurance of rental compensation. On 15.11.1998, the possession
was also taken. A Section 6 notification under the Act was issued
on 02.12.1999. In the award proceedings, the appellant claimed
compensation @ of Rs. 500 per sq. ft. On 04.08.2000, the Land
Acquisition Officer passed an award to the tune of Rs. 5,61,000/-
per hectare for the subject land, which works out to Rs. 5/- per sq.
ft. (approx.). Importantly, in the award, there is no reference to the
land falling under ‘Blue Zone’ which has become the main issue in
controversy between the parties before the Reference Court, the
High Court and this Court.
4. Before the Reference Court, the appellant claimed additional
compensation of Rs. 4,30,84,000/- @ of Rs. 500/- per sq. ft. for the
acquired land of 84,481 sq. ft. on the premise that in the said area
43 plots have been carved out by him. In the break up given for
1 Hectare, 17 R totalling 1,25,937 sq. ft. following was provided:
Total under plots area - 84481 sq. ft. (68.3% approx.)
Total under roads area – 30106 sq. ft.
Total under open space area – 11298 sq. ft.
He also claimed compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs for the expenditure
made on the road and also prayed for damages of Rs. 50 lakhs. Except
for claiming expenditure for laying road to the tune of Rs. 25 lakhs,
no enhanced compensation was claimed for an area of 41,404 sq. ft.
(The area of the road and the open space area as stated above).
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2253
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
5. Before the Reference Court, the appellant examined himself as PW-1,
Mohd. Nadir, photographer, was examined as PW-2 and T.N. Bhoob,
Civil Engineer, was examined as PW-3. The State examined K.S.
Bhoyar, Sub-Divisional Engineer, as DW-1 and Laxman Bhika Raut,
Land Acquisition Officer, as DW-2. The appellant in his deposition
stated that he had planned to convert the land to non-agricultural
purposes. Accordingly, the appellant deposed that he had measured
and demarcated all the 43 plots in the land; that the land was allotted
Seat No. 28-D and Plot No. 20 in Akola City Nazul record and that the
payment receipt evidencing payment for conversion to non-agricultural
purpose was also available on record. The appellant deposed that
the land was touching the Akola Gaothan and that all the adjacent
lands were put to residential use; that the surrounding lands have
been converted to non-agricultural purpose; that the acquired land
was within the municipal limits of Akola City surrounded by police
quarters, other government quarters, Maratha Mahasangh Hostel,
Swami Vivekanand Ashram, Jaju Housing Society, Geeta Nagar,
Laxmi Nagar, Sneh Nagar, A.P.M.C. Sub-Market, Luxury Bus Stand,
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, BR High School and Kamala Nagar.
6. As exemplars, certified copies of sale transaction dated 10.05.1999
(exhibit-71) whereby plot no. 50 of an area of 3,000 sq. ft. out of
layout Survey No. 7/2 purchased for a consideration of Rs. 5,25,000/-
averaging to Rs. 175/- per sq. ft. was produced by the appellant.
A Sale Deed of 17.11.1999 (exhibit-72) evidencing an average price
of Rs. 601/- per sq. ft. was also produced. Index of Sale Deed of
14.07.1998 @ of Rs. 1047 per sq. ft. (exhibit -73) was produced.
Sale Deed of 24.08.1998 @ of Rs. 422 per sq. ft. (exhibit-33) was
produced. The appellant/claimant pleaded that the above transactions
were at a nominal distance of 200 ft. to 500 ft. and on that basis,
he claimed an additional compensation @ of Rs. 500/- per sq. ft.
for the 84,481 sq. ft. land as indicated above.
7. PW-2 Mohd. Nadir, photographer, also spoke about the land being
adjacent to the Akola Gaothan and the existence of Rahat Nagar
Police locality towards west and Maratha Mahasangh towards north.
Photographs were marked.
8. PW-3, T.N. Bhoob, deposed that he referred to the town planning
development plan at the time of inspection of the property and that
the acquired land did not fall within the ‘Blue Zone’ area.
2254 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
9. DW-1, K.S. Bhoyar, deposed that a joint measurement was carried
out and a map was prepared depicting the acquired land. In the map,
the zones were shown. According to DW-1, the land in question in
field survey no. 1 was situated in ‘Blue Zone’ and was also on the
river bed. DW-1 stated that the land was an agricultural land but at
the relevant time, it was barren and was never converted to non-
agricultural purpose. According to DW-1, the land was valueless
as it came under ‘Blue Zone’; that the land was always covered
by water whenever there was flood and that is the reason why the
land was taken for the construction of flood protection wall and
even the appellant executed a Rajinama letter. DW-1 stated that he
had consulted the Town Planning Authority and collected the town
planning map also.
10. In the cross-examination on 22.01.2008 , DW-1 deposed that he
had not brought the original map on the basis of which Exh.141
was prepared and that he was not in a position to say in which
year Exh.141 was prepared. He though added that it could have
been prepared probably in 1998-99 but even he could not definitely
provide the date and month of its preparation. DW-1 also stated
that after joint measurement, the Taluka Inspector of Land Records
(TILR) office gave the measurement map and in that map the ‘Blue
Zone’ is not shown. He denied the suggestion that there was no
joint measurement and no map was prepared.
11. DW-2 Laxman Bhika Raut, Land Acquisition Officer, deposed that he
visited the site and inspected the same and found the land to be in
the river bed and comes under ‘Blue Zone’. DW-2 stated that in the
award he had not noted the location and other descriptions of the
property and he could not assign any reason as to why he had not
so mentioned in the award. DW-2 admitted that he did not mention
in the award about the inspection of the property. DW-2 stated that
the sale instance referred to in the case of Brijmohan Bhartiya was
not considered as that land was far away from the suit property.
DW-2 admitted that there was no reference in the award Exh.46
to the effect that the suit property was in a ‘Blue Zone’ and that he
could not assign any reason why it was not so referred.
B. Findings of the Reference Court
12. The Reference Court, by its judgment dated 02.08.2008, after setting
out the legal position that the potentiality of the acquired lands is to
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2255
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
be seen as relevant consideration, set out to analyze the evidence. It
noticed the deposition of the claimant witnesses to the effect that the
land was abutting the Akola Gaothan; that adjoining properties have
been converted to non-agricultural purpose; that the suit property
was surrounded by residential houses, societies, sub-markets and
luxury bus stand; that maps and photographs establishing the said
fact have been produced and held that the claimant had discharged
the initial onus. Dealing with the evidence of the State, it held that
maps produced at Exh.57 to Exh.59 and Exh.141 only showed that
a small strip of blue colour was shown as passing through the suit
property and that it was not clear whether the whole area of the
property is covered under ‘Blue Zone’. It highlighted the fact that in
the award Exh.46 there was no reference about the suit property
falling in the ‘Blue Zone’ and that the said factor had no bearing while
computing the award amount. After discussing the proximity of the
property to developed areas, it held that the acquired property was
within the municipal limit of Akoli city and that evidence on record
showed that the property was surrounded by public offices, roads
and Government residential quarters.
13. The Reference Court held that the Land Acquisition Officer had not
worked out the market value properly since many relevant factors
were ignored. It referred to Exh.71 Sale Exemplar dated 10-5-1999
and the index II extracts at Exh.73(14-7-98) and Exh.74(27-8-1998)
to conclude that the suit property had high potential value. It noticed
that under award Exh.46, the suit property (Survey No. 1), Survey
No. 5/2, Survey No. 7 and Survey No. 2 situated at Akoli (Bk) were
acquired by the same notification for the same purpose of construction
of the said protection wall. On that basis, it held that the claimants
were entitled to get the compensation at the same rate. It took on
record the certified copy of the award passed in LAC No. 183 of
2000 dated 15.10.2005 at Exh.88 and found that in that case the
Reference Court determined the market value @ of Rs. 100/- per sq.
ft. It also noticed that copy of the award of LAC No. 209 of 2022 dated
10.08.2006 with regard to Survey No. 6, Survey No. 7 and Survey
No. 60 of Akoli Khurd were acquired by another notification for the
same purpose. In that case also, the Reference Court determined
the market value @ of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. Though the certified
copy of the said award was not exhibited, it was taken on record
as Exh.131 C. Thereafter, it held that the appropriate market value
2256 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
would be Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. for the acquired property and ordered
the same with all the other consequential benefits.
C. Findings of the High Court
14. The appellant and the State filed Appeals and cross Appeals before
the High Court. The High Court held that on perusal of the maps, it
was clear that the suit land was just on the bank of the river Morna
and that the other Survey Nos. 5, 6 and 7 [which were the lands
acquired in the awards relied upon by the Reference Court] were
well above survey no. 1 beyond the Gaothan of Akoli (Bk) away
from the river. The High Court found that Survey Nos. 5, 6 and 7
were further sub-divided and Survey No. 7/2 had been converted
to non-agricultural use by order dated 08.07.1982. According to the
High Court, the sale deed (Exh.71) dated 10.05.1999 was in respect
of Plot No. 50 admeasuring 3000 sq. ft. from Survey No. 7/2 @ of
Rs.175 per sq. ft. The High Court held that the sale deed (Exh.71)
could not be taken into account since the acquired land in the present
appeals (Survey No. 1) were never converted to non-agricultural use.
Insofar as the sale deed (Exh.72) dated 17.11.1999 was concerned,
it rejected the same holding that the sale deed was after the Section
4 notification and that the sale deed dealt with a small piece of land
and also appeared to be suspicious for the reason that while Exh.71
showed value @ of Rs. 175 per sq. ft., Exh.72 which was after the
notification under Section 4 showed value @ of Rs. 601 per sq. ft.
Insofar as Exh.33 was concerned, the High Court held that it was
not shown from which survey number it arose and as to when the
property was converted to residential use.
15. The High Court further held that the acquired land in the appeal was
situated on the bank of river Morna and relied on the evidence of
DW-2 Laxman Bhika Raut, the Land Acquisition Officer in support of
the same. It relied on the findings of the Reference Court with regard
to the blue colour only affecting a small strip of the land and held that
the appellant had not seriously challenged the findings. It further held
that upon perusal of Exh.141 map the finding of the Reference Court
that only a small strip of land was affected by blue colour was also
wrong since in Exh.141, major area of the suit land was in the ‘Blue
Zone’. Thereafter, it held that since the suit property was affected by
the ‘Blue Zone’, the same could not have been converted into non-
agricultural use like other adjoining survey numbers and observed
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2257
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
that perhaps that was why no attempt to convert the land to non-
agricultural use was made. It relied on Exh.67 dated 25.02.2000 which
was a communication by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Akola
to the Land Acquisition Officer. That letter mentioned in para 2 that
the acquired land in the appeal fell in a no development zone and
as such was not eligible to be converted to non-agricultural purpose.
16. Thereafter, the High Court concluded that the suit land was not having
non-agricultural potential unlike Survey Nos. 5/2, 6, 7 and 8. It held
that the award @ of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. was incorrect. It rejected
the contention about the proposed layout of 43 plots since the land
could not be converted.
17. In spite of noticing that certain areas claimed by the appellant as
developed areas were reckoned and excluded from the computation
of market value, the High Court still held that the value required for
carrying out development ought to be deducted. Holding so, it held
that deduction to the extent of 70% area was required to be made
and as such went on to allow the appeal of the State and restored
the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. It further ordered refund
by the appellant of the compensation withdrawn with interest @ 9%
p.a. Ultimately, the Appeal of the appellant was dismissed and that
of the State allowed. Aggrieved, the appellant is in Civil Appeal Nos.
6776-6777 of 2013 before us.
D. Contentions:
18. Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, learned counsel, diligently presented the
case for the appellant. Learned Counsel contended that Exh.141
was prepared on the basis of another map and admittedly the
original map was never produced in Court; that under Section 83
of the Indian Evidence Act, plans made for the purpose of any
cause must be proved to be accurate; that DW-1 K.S. Bhoyar (Sub
Divisional Engineer) deposed that Exh.141 was prepared as part
of joint measurement to show the exact situation of the land and
hence presumption of Section 83 is not available to the State; that
Exh.141 was at best a secondary evidence and is admissible only if
it is proved that the original has been destroyed or lost or when the
party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason
not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in a reasonable
time and as such argued that the ingredients for admitting secondary
evidence has not been established.
2258 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
19. Learned counsel further argued that there was no notification or order
brought on record by the respondent to prove that the subject land
was specified as a ‘Blue Zone’ and that the development plan, as
placed on record by the appellant, showed that no markings were
present. Learned counsel relied on Section 14(j) and 22(j) of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘MRTP Act’) to contend that the master plan must
show the flood control area as the ‘Blue Zone’ and contended that no
such marking was in the master plan. Learned counsel argued that
no rules or regulations have been brought on record to prove that
respondent no. 2 the Special Land Acquisition Officer is authorized
to prepare the map in the absence of any order; that the High Court
erred in only going by the evidence of DW-1, particularly when DW-1
did not remember as to when the map was made and furthermore the
author of the map-Sh. A.K. Kulkarni was also not examined. Learned
Counsel relied on the affidavit filed by the State of Maharashtra
dated 02.04.2024, to buttress his submission.
20. Learned counsel contends that admittedly as on the date of issuance
of Section 4 notification i.e. 03.06.1999, the blue zone lines had not
been demarcated and the construction was solely governed by the
1974 byelaws. Learned counsel contends that even the documents
sought to be relied upon by the respondent-State have been brought
on record for the first time before this Court and admittedly other
than the map i.e. Exh.141, no other document has been brought on
record to establish that the land of the appellant fell under the ‘Blue
Zone’. Learned Counsel contends that the High Court has failed to
consider Exh.52, namely, the map issued by the Authority whereby
the land of the appellant was granted Nazul Sheet No. 28-D and
Plot No. 20. Learned counsel contends that any land for which Nazul
Sheet is issued is considered as a non-agricultural land and relies
on the award dated 05.02.2008 in relation to acquisition of Survey
No. 11 Shahnawazpur, Akola City. Learned counsel contended that
the Land Acquisition Officer did not whisper about the ‘Blue Zone’
issue in his award; and that the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded on
the basis of the exemplar from Survey No. 9/1A and the issue of the
‘Blue Zone’ was raised for the first time before the Reference Court.
21. Learned counsel argued that the potentiality of the land as established
by the evidence has been ignored by the High Court. Learned counsel
submits that pending the Appeal before the High Court, the Income
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2259
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Tax Department had passed an order dated 31.08.2012 wherein
the land of the appellant was considered as an urban land and a
non-agricultural land. Learned counsel stated that the respondent in
the said proceedings did not object to the same and rather acceded
to the finding that the land of appellant which is acquired is a non-
agricultural land.
22. Learned counsel relying on the standardized building byelaws and
Government resolution of 02.04.1974 contended that the acquired
land was not in a no-construction zone and argued that the State
Authorities have failed to bring on record any document to establish
any average flood mark. Learned Counsel stated that as per the
Joint Measurement Report submitted by the respondent-State
Irrigation Department before this Court, the distance between the
land of the appellant and the defined boundary of the water course
is between 15 to 20 meters and therefore, as per the extant byelaws
the land of the appellant is outside the no-construction zone. The
learned counsel argued that the said Joint Measurement Report
was prepared by the respondent at the time of the acquisition and
has even been referred to in the evidence of DW-1. It is stated that
DW-1 further admitted that based on Exh.32 there was an open land
between the river Morna and Survey No. 1. According to the learned
counsel, the explanation offered by the VIDC (Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation) during the hearing that the gap is due
to the curved bank of the river and ought not to be considered as
a gap is unacceptable. According to the learned counsel, such an
argument is itself an admission to the fact that firstly the land of the
appellant was at a height from the river and secondly that there is
a gap between the river and the land of the appellant. According to
the learned counsel for the appellant, the width of the flood wall is
30 meters taking the measurement from the defined boundary water
course till the end of the wall; that as per the Joint Measurement Map
the width of the appellant land is on an average between 50 to 55
meters and the counsel contended that hence the total distance from
the boundary of the water course till the end of the appellant land
is 65 meters. Learned counsel contended that in spite of the rules
declaring that only land upto 15 meters from the defined boundary
of the water course as falling under the no development zone, the
whole land of the appellant has been considered as falling under
the no development zone.
2260 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
23. The learned counsel assailed the finding of the High Court about
failure to convert the land to non-agricultural by contending that the
appellant had obtained a Nazul Plot No. from the revenue authority
and carved out 43 plots and even fees were paid and the receipt
was placed on record; and that the only reason why steps could
not be taken was in the meantime Section 4 notification came to be
issued. Learned counsel contended that sale instances cited have
not been taken into consideration by the High Court. In this regard,
he relied on Exh.33 (Rs. 422 per sq. ft.), Exh.71 (Rs. 175 per sq. ft.)
and the sale index of Survey No. 5/1,in Akholi Bk where there was
a transaction of sale deed dated 12.02.1999 of Rs. 1,50,000/- for
1500 Sq. ft. area of plot no 78. Learned counsel contended that the
highest exemplar should have been considered. Learned counsel
argues that the question of development charges does not arise
since that purpose of acquisition did not entail any development.
24. Mr. Uday B. Dube, learned Counsel for the Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corporation (VIDC) strongly opposed the appellant’s
submissions and contended that admittedly the land is situated on the
bank of the river and concurrent findings have been recorded in that
regard. Learned counsel placed reliance on the evidence of DW-1 in
respect of the location of the land. Learned counsel relied on Exh.67
dated 25.02.2000 wherein it is recorded that Survey No. 1 fell in a
no development zone. Learned counsel relied on the evidence of
DW-2-the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Learned Counsel argued
that the soil for the wall was obtained from digging the land of the
appellant. Learned counsel submits that the appellant in spite of
being a developer has not obtained a non-agricultural use permission;
learned counsel contends that the land was prone to floods and that
the award of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. in the case of appellant was totally
untenable. Learned counsel stated that the map relied upon by the
appellant to show that there was a road in between the land of the
appellant and river is completely incorrect and that the dotted land
denoted the slope. Learned counsel prayed that the map produced
during the hearing in this Court should be rejected.
25. Insofar as the issue of ‘Blue Zone’ is concerned, learned counsel
contended that it was the duty of the Irrigation Department to draw
blue or red line and that the Irrigation Department has done its
duty. In the written submission of VIDC, it is categorically averred
as follows :-
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2261
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
“Mere failure on the part of the Town Planning Department
to give effect to it in Development Plan would not have
any bearing on the valuation”.
26. Learned counsel submitted that three sale deeds produced in the
matter of Bhartiyas (LAC No. 183) were suspicious transactions
between related parties, and hence prayed that the Appeals be
dismissed.
27. We have also heard Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, the learned counsel for
the State who has placed reliance on the affidavit dated 02.04.2024
filed by them pursuant to the order of 20.03.2024. We have considered
the affidavit in detail hereinbelow.
28. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions urged
by the parties.
E. Questions
29. The following questions arise for consideration:
(i) What should be the market value of the land of the appellant as
on 03.06.1999? To answer this, the following further questions need
to be considered.
(a) Does the site of the appellant fall within ‘Blue Zone’ as contended
by the acquiring body –VIDC?
(b) If it falls within the ‘Blue Zone’, what should be the market value
for the land?
(c) If the land or any part thereof is not to be determined as a ‘Blue
Zone’, what was the ‘No Construction Zone’ as per the extant laws
and what should be the market value payable for that portion?
(d) What should be the market value payable for any portion, falling
outside the ‘No Construction Zone’?
Reasoning and conclusion:
We have considered question no. 1(a) to 1(d) together for
convenience.
30. During the course of hearing on 20th March, 2024, we made the
following order:
"1. Arguments by the parties remained inconclusive.
Meanwhile, original records have been requisitioned.
2262 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
2. Learned counsel for the parties seek and are granted
time to inspect the original record and make further
submissions.
3. An officer of the Irrigation Department is present along
with some latest photographs of the site. However, he
has not brought the original record regarding fixation
of blue line by the Irrigation Department in purported
exercise of its power under the Maharashtra Regional
& Town Planning Act, 1966.
4. Mr. Uday B. Dube, learned counsel for the respondent
Corporation undertakes to produce such record.”
31. Pursuant to the said Order, a duly sworn affidavit of 2nd April, 2024
has been filed by the Assistant Director of Town Planning (Branch
Office, District Akola) which reveals certain telling facts. The affidavit
states that its contents are confined to marking of flood lines in the
city Akola and the maps thereof. It avers that the land in question in
these Appeals was situated outside the Municipal Council of Akola
which fact, however, is disputed by the appellant. Be that as it may,
the affidavit acknowledges that under Section 14(j) of the MRTP Act,
the proposals for irrigation, water supply and hydro-electric, works,
flood control and prevention of river pollution are the constituents
of the regional plan. It further avers that as per the provisions of
Section 22(j) of the MRTP Act, the proposals for flood control and
prevention of river pollution are constituents of the development plan.
32. Digressing a bit from the affidavit, it may be pointed out herein that
under the MRTP Act, Section 2(25) defines regional plan to mean
a plan for the development or redevelopment of a region which is
approved by the State Government and has come into operation
under the Act. Under Section 21, development plan is defined to
mean a plan for the development or redevelopment of the area
within the jurisdiction of a planning authority and includes revision
of a development plan and proposals of a special planning authority
for development of land within its jurisdiction. Section 14 which deals
with the contents of the regional plan along with sub-clauses - a and j
are extracted herein below:
“14. Contents of Regional Plan
Subject to the provisions of this Act and any rules made
thereunder for regulating the form of a Regional Plan and
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2263
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
the manner in which it may be published, any such Regional
plan shall indicate the manner in which the Regional Board
propose that land in the Region should be used, whether
by carrying out thereon development or otherwise, the
stages by which any such development is to be carried
out, the network of communications and transport, the
proposals for conservation and development of natural
resources, and such other matters as are likely to have
an important influence on the development of the Region;
and any such plan in particular, may provide for all or any
of the following matters, or for such matters thereof as the
State Government may direct, that is to say-
(a) allocation of land for different uses, general distribution
and general locations of land, and the extent to which the
land may be used as residential, industrial, agricultural,
or as forest, or for mineral exploitation;
xxx xxx
(j) proposals for irrigation, water supply and hydro-electric
works, flood control and prevention of river pollution;”
33. Section 21 speaks of the Development plan and Section 22 which
speaks of the contents of the development plan, insofar as they are
relevant, are extracted herein below:
“21. Development Plan
(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act,
but not later than three years after such commencement,
and subject however to the provisions of this Act, every
Planning Authority shall carry out a survey, prepare an
existing land-use map and prepare a draft Development
plan for the area within its jurisdiction, in accordance with
the provisions of a Regional plan, where there is such a
plan [publish a notice in the Official Gazette and in such
other manner as may be prescribed stating that the draft
Development plan has been prepared] and submit the
plan to the State Government for sanction. The Planning
Authority shall also submit a quarterly Report to the State
Government about the progress made in carrying out the
survey and prepare the plan.
2264 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
22. Contents of Development Plan
A Development plan shall generally indicate the manner
in which the use of development land in the area of a
Planning Authority shall be regulated, and also indicate
the manner in which the development of land therein shall
be carried out. In particular, it shall provide so far as may
be necessary for all or any of the following matters, that
is to say,—
(a) proposals for allocating the use of land for purposes,
such as residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural,
recreational;
....
(j) proposals for food control and prevention of river
pollution;”
34. Reverting to the affidavit of the State dated 02.04.2024, the affidavit
avers that the draft regional plan was of the year 2002 and the draft
development plan (revised) was of the year 2000. It is averred that
under Section 26(1) of the MRTP Act, the publication of notice of
draft development plan was of 03.02.2000. The affidavit avers that
the notice of regional plan for Akoli Washim District in draft form
under Section 16 was published on 25.12.2002. The draft regional
plan itself is of 2002 and the affidavit indicates that it was sanctioned
under Section 15(1) of the MRTP Act on 23.04.2012 and came into
force on 15.06.2012.
35. The State makes out a case that both for the draft regional plan
of 2002 for the Akola Washim region as well as draft development
plan (revised) 2000, the blue and red flood lines which have been
produced by the concerned Executive Engineer, Irrigation Section
Akola vide letter dated 18.01.1999 were taken into consideration
as constituents. It is a case that the blue and red flood lines were
shown on the maps of the peripheral plan of the Akoli City based
on the proposal of the Executive Engineer.
36. The affidavit has certain other interesting averments. It avers that
the development plan for the original limits of the Akola Municipal
Council was in force from 01.04.1977 where Survey no. 1 wherein
appellant’s land is situated, was not included in the No Development
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2265
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Zone. Thereafter, the development plan for the extended limits of
the Akola Municipal Council was sanctioned by the Government
on 30.12.1992 and came into force from 01.03.1993. In the said
development plan, the affidavit states that the land in question was
not part of the sanctioned development plan. The affidavit states
that the Municipal Council was converted into Municipal Corporation
since 01.10.2001 and that the revised development plan which came
into force on 15.12.2004 also did not include the appellant’s land.
Thereafter, the following crucial paras occur in affidavit which have
a great bearing in deciding the present controversy, particularly the
issue as to whether the land of the appellant falls in the Blue Zone:-
“vii. Meanwhile, the Regional Plan for Akola – Washim
Region was published in the year 2002 wherein for
the first time the Blue and Red flood lines were incorporated
by taking into consideration the letter and circular of the
concerned Irrigation Department as mentioned above. The
said map of the Peripheral Plan of the said Regional Plan
which further has been sanctioned by the Government
in Urban Development Department vide Notification No.
TPS-2502/205/CR-106/2009/UD-30, dated 23.04.2012
which came in force from 15.06.2012.
viii) According to the Peripheral Plan of the said Regional
Plan, the land bearing Survey No. 1 of Mouza Akoli (Budruk)
was included in the “Agriculture Zone/No Development
Zone and also the part of this land is situated within the
River Bank and Blue Flood Line, whereas, the other lands
bearing Survey No. 6 and 7 of Mouza Akoli (Khurd) are
included in Residential Zone. A true copy of the part plan
of the said Peripherial Plan showing the aforesaid lands
is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-5.
ix) Now, the Development Plan for the whole limits of the
Municipal Corporation, Akola named as Draft Development
Plan of Original Limit (2nd revision) + First Extended Limit
(R.) + 2nd Extended Limit is being prepared for which
notices has been published in the Maharashtra Government
Gazette dated 25 - 31/01/2024 under the provisions of the
section 26 of MRTP Act and further process is in progress
as per the legal framework of the said Act.
2266 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
x) According to the said draft Development Plan, the land
under reference bearing Survey No. 1 & 7 of Mouza Akola
(Budruk) and other lands bearing Survey No.6, 7 & 60
of Mouza Akoli (Khurd) are proposed to be included in
‘Residential Zone’.
In the said draft proposed development plan, the Blue and
Red Flood lines are shown as per the information available
from Akola Irrigation Department, Akola vide letter No.
5396/Line- 1/2023, dated 06/10/2023. A true copy of the
letter dated 06.10.2023 is annexed herewith and marked
as Annexure R-6.
xi) The land under reference bearing Survey No.1 of
Mouza Akoli (Budruk) is situated between the Blue and
Red Flood lines.”
(Emphasis supplied)
37. The affidavit clearly indicates that on the date of Section 4 notification
i.e. 03.06.1999 there was no published notice of draft regional plan
or draft development plan. The attempt made is to rely on the letter
of the Executive Engineer of 18.01.1999 containing proposals for
demarcation of red and blue lines. The affidavit further avers that
on 03.06.1999 the statutory scheme that was in force was the
Standardized Building Byelaws and Development Control Rules
for ‘B’ and ‘C’ Class Municipal Councils of Maharashtra which
were applicable for the outside Municipal limits as per Government
resolution dated 02.04.1974. The affidavit avers that according to
Rule No. 17.1.2 no permission to construct a building on a site shall
be granted, if
“the site is within 9 (nine) meters of the highest water
mark, and if there be major water course nearby the
distance of the plots from the same shall be 9 m. from
average high flood mark or 15 mt. from the defined
boundary of water course whichever is more.”
38. The appellant has filed a response to the affidavit on 15.04.2024. The
appellant has pointed out that the map annexed to the Engineer’s
letters as produced by the State Government in its affidavit of
02.04.2024 is at variance with Exh.141 produced before the Reference
Court and submits that either of them cannot be correct. The appellant
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2267
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
also controverts the fact that the land was outside the municipal limits
and relies on the letter of 25.02.2000 issued by the Deputy Director,
Town Planning indicating that the land was within the municipal limits.
The appellant avers that as on date of the acquisition admittedly
none of the sanctioned development/regional plan demarcated the
whole area of survey no. 1 as No Development Zone. The appellant
also relied on the Standardized Building Byelaws and Development
Control Rules for ‘B’ and ‘C’ Class Municipal Councils of Maharashtra
referred to in the affidavit of the State Government.
39. In the written submissions of the appellant, it is submitted that
since there is no valid document determining the flood mark, the
no construction zone will have to be determined with reference to
the defined boundary of the major water course. According to the
appellant, as per the Joint Measurement Report submitted by the
respondent-Irrigation Department, the distance between the land
of the appellant and the defined boundary of the water course is
15 to 20 meters. The appellant disputes the explanation of the VIDC
that the dotted lines indicate the curved bank of the river.
40. Be that as it may, the appellant submits that as per the Joint
Measurement Map, the width of the appellant land is between
50 to 55 meters. The appellant submits that the extant rules declare
that only in land up till 15 meters from the defined boundary of the
water course shall fall in the no development zone and as such
the whole land could not have been considered as falling under no
development zone.
41. Having considered the facts and circumstances including the affidavit
of the State filed before us, we are constrained to hold that the High
Court was not justified in declaring the entire land of the appellant
as falling within the blue zone.
42. As has been demonstrated hereinabove, the statutory documents
under the MRTP Act demarcating the blue zone/blue line came in its
draft form only in 2000 as far as the development plan was concerned
and in 2002 as far as the regional plan was concerned. The Section 4
notification under the Act in this case is of 03.06.1999. Before the
Reference Court, the document that was available was Exh.141 map.
However, we are not inclined to place any reliance on the same for
the reason that DW-1 K.S. Bhoyar, Sub-Divisional Engineer, who
filed his affidavit in chief on 05.01.2008 clearly deposed that he
2268 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
was not in a position to definitely say as to in which year Exh.141
was prepared. He also deposed that he had not brought the original
map on the basis of which Exh.141 was prepared. Since under the
MRTP Act, there is a procedure for notifying the plans and since
the whole process commenced after the Section 4 notification dated
03.06.1999 was issued, it will be very unsafe to proceed on the basis
of the proposal, if any, in the letter of the Executive Engineer dated
18.01.1999, though it may have the basis for ultimately drafting the
regional plan and the development plan.
43. If an acquiring body relies on a statutory injunction, to establish
that the land has no potential, then the burden is on the said
acquiring body to demonstrate without any ambiguity that such a
statutory interdict is in place. In the present case, the VIDC has not
discharged the burden in demonstrating that statutorily there was
a valid demarcation of a “Blue Zone” on the date of the Section 4
notification, under the Act. What has been established is only the
existence of the byelaw i.e. “Standardised Building Byelaws and
Development Control Rules for “B” and “C” Class Municipal Councils
of Maharashtra”.
44. The statutory regime that was in force admittedly, according to the
State, was the Standardized Building Byelaws and Development
Control Rules for ‘B’ and ‘C’ class Municipal Councils of Maharashtra
which by a Government resolution of 02.04.1974 was even made
applicable to lands outside Municipal limits. Going by that, the building
permissions could be denied only if the site was within 9 meters of
the highest water mark and if there be a major water course nearby,
the distance of the plot from the same shall be 9 meters from the
average high flood mark or 15 meters from the defined boundary of
water course whichever is more.
45. There is no definitive evidence on record to indicate as to what
was the highest water mark or the average high flood mark, with
the result we conclude, in the peculiar facts of the case, that as
on 03.06.1999, i.e. the date of the Section 4 notification for the
appellant’s land, the no construction zone can only be taken as
15 meters from the defined boundary of the water course which is
the Morna river. If the site to the extent it is within the 15 meters
of the defined boundary of water course, that part alone could be
said to have no potential for development. The land beyond the
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2269
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
15 meters mark from the defined boundary of the water course in
the site of the appellant should be treated independently and as to
what would be the value thereof, we shall discuss herein below. For
the land up to 15 meters (in the event of the site or part of the site
falling within 15 meters of the defined boundary of the water course)
shall be paid the amount as determined by the Land Acquisition
Officer in the award dated 04.08.2000.
46. Now that we have concluded that the land of the appellant except to
the extent of 15 meters from the defined boundary of the water course
is not covered by the no construction zone, the question arises as
to what should be the market value payable as on 03.06.1999. As
has been narrated earlier, the LAO in his Award (Exh. 46) awarded
an amount of Rs.5,61,000/- per hectare for the entire extent of
1,25, 937 sq. ft. which works out to Rs. 5/- per sq. ft. The Land
Acquisition Officer relied on a sale transaction pertaining to one parcel
of land in Survey No. 9/1A dated 24.04.1998. On a reference under
Section 18, after noticing the status of the land and after concluding
that the land is not covered under the blue zone and after finding
that the Land Acquisition Officer made no reference to the land being
on the blue zone in the award, the Reference Court awarded a sum
of Rs.100/- per sq. ft.
47. The Reference Court found that the property was within the Akoli City
Municipal limits and referring to Exh. 71, 73 and 74 had concluded
that the land had high potential and value. Thereafter, it relied on
the award of the Reference Court in LAC No. 183 of 2000 (Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6820 of 2023 and Civil Appeal
arising out of SLP (C) No. 2753 of 2023) and LAC No. 209 of 2002
dated 10.08.2006 (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6817 of
2023 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2324 of 2023)
which are appeals in this very batch.
48. Our discussion hereinbelow on LAC No.183/2000 dated 15.01.2015
shall insofar as they are relevant, also apply to the disposal by this
judgment of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6820 of 2023 and
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 2753 of 2023. Similarly, our
discussion on LAC No. 209 of 2002 dated 10.08.2006 shall insofar
as they are relevant also apply to the disposal by this judgment of
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 6817 of 2023 and Civil Appeal
arising out of SLP(C) No. 2324 of 2023.
2270 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
49. In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6820 of 2023 and Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2753 of 2023, the Section 4
notification was common. In those appeals, the land was situated
in Survey No. 7/2 of Akoli Village Bujurg (Bk). The Reference Court
by judgment dated 15.01.2005 in LAC No. 183 of 2000 awarded
Rs. 100 per sq. ft. which was the same rate awarded in
LAC No. 209 of 2002 dated 10.08.2006, though in those matters
lands were situated in Survey Nos. 6,7 and 60 at Akoli Khurd Village.
50. In matters involved in LAC No. 183 of 2000, the Land Acquisition
Collector awarded Rs.5,61,000/- per hectare. It is important to note
that even though the land was situated in Survey No. 7/2 of Akoli
Bujurg, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded equal value for
the lands in Survey No. 1 (the present appeals) as well as Survey
No. 7/2 and the Reference Court also awarded Rs.100/- per sq. ft.
for both the Survey Nos.
51. In LAC No. 209 of 2002, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded
Rs.72,400/- per hectare for the land situated in Survey Nos, 6,7 and
60 of Akoli Khurd Village. The Reference Court and the High Court
have awarded Rs.100/- per sq. ft. even for those set of lands, for
plotted area of 359684.44 sq. ft.
52. The only reason why in the present the High Court did not award
Rs.100/- per sq. ft. was the finding that the land was on the blue
zone, which finding we have already set aside. The Land Acquisition
Officer found similarity between the lands that are subject matter
of LAC No. 183 of 2000 dated 15.01.2005 and the present land. If
we are persuaded to hold that the order of the Reference Court in
LAC No.183 of 2000 with regard to the land in Survey No. 7/2 of
Akola Bujurg Village is correct then there is no reason why the same
value should not be awarded to the present appellant except to that
extent of the land, if any, falling within the 15 meters restriction from
the defined boundary of the water course as explained earlier.
53. If we peruse the award of the Reference Court dated 15.01.2005 in
LAC No. 183 of 2000, as an exemplar, a sale deed marked in that
case as (Exh. 45) executed by one Usha Santosh Gode in favour
of Ashok Krushnarao Sapkal dated 12.02.1999 in respect of plot
no. 78 was relied upon. This is the sale deed set out in the present
case in the claim statement as well as in IA No. 85664 of 2019
which is an application for permission to file additional documents
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2271
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
as Annexure-A3. Though what is given in the present case is an
index of sale-purchase details as on 21.05.1999, the sale Exh.45
referred to in C.A. arising out if SLP (C) No. 6820 of 2023 and
C.A. arising out of SLP (C) No. 2753 of 2023, is mentioned at entry
No. 8 dated 12.02.1999. There an extent of 1500 sq. ft. was sold
for Rs.1,50,000/- which would be @ 100 per sq. ft. Ultimately in
the order of the Reference Court in LAC No. 183 of 2000 dated
15.01.2005, the Court considered the valuation offered by the valuer
in that case of Rs.200/- per sq. ft.; sale instance of Rs.175/- per sq.
ft. in one of the exemplars and after reducing the value of the land
for fluctuations in the market value and the prevailing ambience had
arrived at a figure of Rs.100/-. This coincidentally tallies with the sale
instance mentioned in Exh. 45 therein. In that case, other statutory
benefits were awarded.
54. Be that as it may, in law what is mandated is to examine the potentiality
of the land. Indisputably, by a common award the appellant’s land
and the land in Survey No. 7/2 in Akoli Bujurg were treated on par
by the Land Acquisition Officer. Admittedly, the surrounding areas
have lands for which non-agricultural permission had been given. It
has also come in evidence that the land is in a locality surrounded by
bustling commercial establishments and educational institutions and
even the evidence of the acquiring body admits that the Tehsil’s office
and Collector’s office in Akola District and Akola Taluk are located
in the nearby area (evidence of DW-1). Photographs produced by
PW-2 also show that there have been developments around the area.
55. The question here is whether in the present appeals the Reference
Court was justified in following the award in LAC No. 183 of 2000.
The High Court has held that the land fell in the blue zone which
finding we have set aside. It further held that while the land of the
appellant was on the bank of the river Morna, other Survey Nos.,
namely, Survey Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were above Survey No.1 and beyond
the Gaothan of Akoli Bk. and away from the bank of river Morna. It
also held that Survey No.7/2 was converted into non-agricultural use.
It held that Survey No. 1 was never converted to non-agricultural
land and hence Exh.71 sale deed of 10.05.1999 could not be relied
upon. The High Court also relied on Exh.67 a letter dated 25.02.2000
wherein it is mentioned in para therein that Survey No. 1 (suit land)
Survey No. 5/2, Survey Nos. 5/1, 7, 8 2, 25, 9/1-A of mauza Akoli fell
in the no Development zone and therefore could not be converted
2272 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
into non-agricultural purpose though the said lands fell within the
municipal town. This finding has been countered by the appellant
by stating that in fact non-agricultural permission has been granted
for Survey Nos.5/1, 7 8, 9/1-A and 28 in the written submissions.
The same has not been converted by the respondent-authorities.
56. The surrounding land to the appellant’s land has already been
converted and the appellant has been granted the Nazul sheet and
necessary charges have also been paid. We say nothing more on
this aspect except that while determining the market value we are
really concerned with the potentiality of the land. If except to the
extent of 15 meters from the defined boundary of the water course
the other land was not in the no construction zone, there is no
reason why the same market value could not be awarded. In view
of the above, considering the potentiality of the land and its situs,
except for the lands upto 15 meters from the defined boundary of
the water course, we are inclined to award Rs.100/- per sq.ft. for
68.3% of the total admeasuring area. It should not be forgotten that
the LAO treated the land in Survey No. 7 Akoli Bk. No.1, namely,
the appellant’s land alike. The Reference Court also awarded them
@ Rs. 100/-. The High Court proceeded on the basis that the land
was purportedly in the blue zone and set aside the order of the
Reference Court and the award.
57. We are inclined to restore the award insofar as the land if any within
the 15 meters of the defined boundary of the water course and for
the rest of the land in Survey No.1 belonging to the appellant for the
68.3% of the balance area, we award the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.ft.
58. LAC No. 209 of 2002 dated 10.08.2006, is the Reference Court order
which is under consideration in C.A. No. @ SLP (C) No. 6817 of 2023
and C.A. No. @ SLP (C) No. 2324 of 2023 which are part of this
very batch of matters. The Land involved in the said reference case
is situated in village Akoli Khurd bearing Survey Nos. 6, 7 and 60.
Here again, the Section 4 notification was issued on 03.06.1999. The
lands were no doubt converted to non-agricultural use on 03.03.1983.
59. The plot area involved in LAC No. 209/2002 is 33415.50 sq. mts and
the applicants were claiming for the plotted area and not claiming
compensation for the open area and roads. In LAC No. 209/2002,
the LAO awarded Rs. 72,400 per hectare resulting in a reference
under Section 18. There is no case for the government that the land
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2273
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
is adjacent to Morna river. The Land in question in LAC No. 209/2002
was situated near several educational and other religious institutions.
The claim for enhancement in LAC No. 209/2002 was based on
Exh. 78 dated 10/11.05.1999 where plot no. 50 Survey No. 7/2 of
Akoli Bk. was sold @ Rs. 175/- per sq. ft. The LAO admits that
the Akoli (Bk) and Akoli Khurd are adjoining twin villages. It is also
recorded that the lands lying therein are similar in nature. Based on
the previous award Rs.100/- per sq. ft. was awarded. The High Court
upheld the said award. Exh. 75 was the sale deed of 12.02.2009
of plot no. 75 of Akola Survey No.8 and Survey No. 5/1. The price
in the said sale deed was Rs. 100 per sq.ft. for an area of 1500
sq.ft. This is the document which is Exh.45 in C.A.No. @ SLP (C)
No. 6820 of 2023 and C.A. No. @ SLP (C) No. 2753 of 2023 and this
document is also one of the basis for the enhancement. According
to our conclusion in this batch of appeals, decided hereinabove, the
High Court was right in rejecting the other sale deeds.
Relevant Legal Principles:
60. It is well settled that in determining the compensation the court would
take into consideration the potentialities of the land existing as on
the date of the notification published under Section 4(1) (State of
Orissa vs. Brij Lal Misra and Others (1995) 5 SCC 203)
61. This Court in Sardara Singh and Others v. Land Acquisition
Collector, Improvement Trust, Rupnagar and Others (2020)
14 SCC 483, has held that the rates of compensation awarded in
adjacent villages cannot be disregarded if in the given set of facts
and evidence, similarity is established. Similarly, in Om Parkash and
Others v. State of Haryana (2016) 13 SCC 190, the Court held that
compensation awarded in the adjoining village can be considered
when there was similarity in potentiality. [See also Special Land
Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda and Others (2010) 5 SCC 708].
In view of this settled position of law, we see no ground to interfere
with this finding.
62. When there is a choice between an exemplar where the transaction
is between unrelated parties dealing at arm’s length and between
an exemplar where the transaction is between related parties of a
higher value, both of which are broadly around the same period,
prudence would dictate and common sense would command
that we accept the value of set out in the transaction between
2274 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
unrelated parties. We are inclined to accept the transaction which
is at arm’s length and accept the market value of the amount of
Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. and reject the claim of Rs. 175/- per sq. ft.
63. It is well settled that market value is determined based on the price
of a willing buyer- a willing seller at arm’s length. In Administrator
General of West Bengal Vs. Collector, Varanasi (1988) 2 SCC
150, it was held :
“8. The determination of market value of a piece of land with
potentialities for urban use is an intricate exercise which
calls for collection and collation of diverse economic criteria.
The market value of a piece of property, for purposes of
Section 23 of the Act, is stated to be the price at which the
property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing,
but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arm’s 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.
Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages
and potentialities under 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
of sale of similar lands is not available.”
64. In this case, when we have two exemplars, one between two
independent parties and the other between two admittedly related
parties and both transactions have taken place without much of a
time gap.
65. Insofar as the where the exemplar is a small extent of land is
concerned, it is now clear that even in these lands in Survey No. 1
where the permission is not yet obtained, except to the extent of
those lands falling within the 15 meters from the defined boundary of
the water course, they were also ripe for use for building purposes
and hence to adopt the same value as was done in the case of
sale deed dated 12.02.1999 @ Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. is justified.
There is evidence on record to the effect that the area was plotted
to the extent of 7948 sq. mtrs. and there were 43 plots. It is also
in evidence given by them that roads were constructed. Though
this is disputed in the evidence of the acquiring body, the evidence
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2275
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
led by them is to the effect that the land is of agricultural use,
barren and there is no development. There is no specific denial
that there were no demarcated plots. It is also true that on the date
of the acquisition there was no non-agricultural permission though
the case of the appellant is he had taken preparatory steps and
deposited the fees.
66. In Administrator General of West Bengal (Supra) dealing with the
aspect of valuing large tracts of land based on the price fetched for
smaller plots, this Court held as under:
“12. It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small
plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts
of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See
Collector of Lakhimpur v. B.C. Dutta [(1972) 4 SCC 236] ;
Mirza Nausherwan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition),
Hyderabad [(1975) 1 SCC 238] ; Padma Uppal v. State
of Punjab [(1977) 1 SCC 330] ; Smt Kaushalya Devi
Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad [(1984) 2
SCC 324] The principle that evidence of market value
of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in
valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its
proper perspective. The principle requires that prices
fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be
adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown
that the large extent to be valued does not admit of and
is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots
that could be laid out on the land would be good selling
propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method
of hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted,
then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation
indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area
at or about the time of the notification would be relevant.
In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of
land required for the formation of roads and other civil
amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying
out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and
the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment
of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture
etc. are to be made…. …”
2276 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The appellant was claiming compensation @ Rs. 500 per sq. ft. and
examined the valuer to substantiate the same which the Reference
Court was not inclined to award and we agree with the Reference
Court in that regard. We are also not awarding any amount for the
32% (approx.) of the land which, even according to the claimant,
pertain to the area covered by roads and open space. We are not
inclined to award any compensation or damages. Additionally for that
reason also, we are not inclined to make any deductions from the
market value fixed @ Rs. 100 per sq. ft. for the 68.3% (approx.) of
the land. We have evidence to show that the land was ripe for use
for building purposes. We are not inclined to, in the special facts
and circumstances of the case, to order any deduction based on
extent of land and the cost for incurring development. The LAO in
the award which in law is an offer, treated the appellant’s land and
the land in Survey No. 7/2 (subject-matter of LAC No. 183/2000) on
par and the Reference Court also treated them on par.
67. In this case since the acquisition is for construction of a flood
protection wall, the question of there being any development or
any cost thereof cannot arise. It is well settled that the purpose for
which the land is acquired must be taken into consideration while
determining development charges.
68. In Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
(2013) 16 SCC 392, this Court, dealing with the issue of deduction
of development charges in the context of acquisition for a railway
line held as under:
“33. The approach adopted by the Reference Court and
the High Court in making deductions towards the cost of
development/development charges from the market value
determined on the basis of the sale deeds produced by the
appellants was clearly wrong. The respondents had not
even suggested that the development envisaged by the
Reference Court i.e. laying of roads, drains, sewer lines,
parks, electricity lines, etc. or any other development work
was required to be undertaken for laying the railway line.
Therefore, 25% deduction made by the Reference Court
and approved by the High Court under two different heads
is legally unsustainable.”
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2277
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
69. Insofar as the Development charge is concerned, as held in
Himmat Singh, where no Development is envisaged like laying of
roads, drains, sewer lines, parks etc. and what is required is only
construction of a flood control wall, the question of deducting any
development charge cannot arise. [See also Nelson Fernandes vs.
Land Acquisition Officer (2007) 9 SCC 447 ].
70. The VIDC has relied upon certain circulars to show the consequence
of blue zone. Since the finding is that no construction area is limited
to 15 meters from the boundary, the circulars do not carry the case of
the State any further. In any event, the State Government’s affidavit
has clearly stated that what was in vogue in the relevant time was the
Standardized Building Byelaws and Development Control Rules for
B and C Class Municipal Councils of Maharashtra which was made
applicable to even areas outside Municipal limits by Government
resolution of 02.04.1974. The State does not in its affidavit make
any reference to any applicable circular.
71. The appellant had averred that out of the total extent of 125937.8 sq. ft.,
he had claimed @ Rs, 500/- per sq. ft. for 84481 sq. ft. which
constitutes 68.3% (approx.) of the total extent. The balance area of
41404 sq. ft. which constituted approximately 32%, according to him
were the area covered by roads and open space. He had claimed
Rs.25 lakhs for the extent of making the roads and also prayed for
damages at Rs. 50 lakhs.
72. In view of our judgment, the appellant will be entitled to Rs.100/- per sq.
ft. for the 68.3% (approx.) of the balance area, after excluding the land
area, if any, which falls within the 15 meters from the defined boundary
of the water course. For the land falling within the no construction
zone, if any, as per the Standardized Building Byelaws, he will be
paid at the rate determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
in the award. Insofar as the market value of the land in question and
other statutory benefits are concerned, the judgment of the Reference
Court will continue to operate, subject to one modification. The
possession of the land in this case was taken on 15.11.1998 before
the issuance of Section 4 notification. In another Appeal decided by
us in this batch today, we have held the appellant entitled to rental
compensation at the rate of 8% of the awarded amount for the period
from 15.11.1998 to 04.08.2000, the date of the award. In view of the
same, direction no. 5 in the operative order of the Reference Court
requires to be modified. That direction was under Section 28 of the
2278 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Act. In view of the entitlement for the rental income till 04.08.2000,
the appellant shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount
at 9% for a period of one year from 04.08.2000 and at the rate of
15% for the period thereafter till payment of amount in the court. If
the amount is already deposited, nothing further needs to be done.
If not, the State may pay the deficit, if any.
73. In view of our findings hereinabove, Civil Appeal Nos. 6776-6777 of
2013 are partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 17.06.2013
in First Appeal No. 1210 of 2008 and First Appeal No. 6 of 2009
are set aside and will stand superseded by our present judgment.
No order as to costs.
II. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21611 of 2018
(Kazi Akiloddin Sujaoddin Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
74. Leave granted.
75. In this case, the facts are identical with Civil Appeal Nos.
6776-6777 of 2013. The question involved is about the payment
of rental compensation for the period from 15.11.1998 (when the
possession of the appellant’s land was taken) to 04.08.2000 (when
the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer). After the
Reference Court enhanced the compensation on 02.08.2008, the
appellant and the State filed Appeals and cross Appeals in the High
Court, namely, First Appeal No. 1210 of 2008 by the appellant and
First Appeal No. 6 of 2009 by the State. Pending the Appeal in the
High Court, the appellant applied to the 3rd respondent herein, the
Special Land Acquisition officer, for grant of rental compensation
on the basis of enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference
Court by its order dated 02.08.2008. Receiving no reply, the appellant
filed Writ Petition No. 2763 of 2009 before the High Court. That Writ
Petition was disposed off on 06.07.2009 by recording the statement
of the Assistant Government Pleader that the application of the
appellant would be decided on merits at the earliest.
76. Thereafter, on 05.10.2009, the application was rejected on the ground
that order of the Reference Court was under challenge before the
High Court.
77. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 3883 of 2010. By
the judgment of 15.09.2011, Writ Petition No. 3883 of 2010 was
allowed directing that enhanced rental compensation @ 8% of the
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2279
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
enhanced amount as directed to be paid by the Reference Court,
be deposited in the High Court. It further directed that the appellant
could withdraw half the amount by furnishing the security and
remaining amount to be kept in fixed deposit. It is undisputed that
8% was calculated for the period 15.11.1998 till the date of award
i.e. 04.08.2000.
78. The State Government did not challenge the order dated 15.09.2011
which determined the entitlement for rental compensation from
15.11.1998 (the date of taking advance possession) till 04.08.2000
(date of the award). The appellant, aggrieved by the judgment of
15.09.2011 in Writ Petition 3883 of 2010, filed Civil Appeal No. 5084
of 2013 before this Court which was disposed off on 3rd July, 2013,
directing that in case compensation is enhanced, the appellant shall
be entitled for the rental compensation as per the enhanced amount.
It did not interfere with the order of the High Court directing the State
Government to deposit the rental compensation @ of 8% of the
amount awarded by the Reference Court with the Appellate Court
and allowing the appellant to withdraw only half the amount. Liberty
was also reserved to the appellant to claim proportionate higher
rental compensation, if the order of the Reference Court is upheld
or further enhancement of compensation is made by the Appellate
Court. So holding, the Appeal of the appellant was dismissed.
79. What is significant is that this Court by its judgment referred
to above of 3 rd July, 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 5084 of 2013
[Kazi Akiloddin Sujaoddin Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]
reported in (2013) 14 SCC 8, in the absence of any appeal by the
State had no occasion to disturb the mandamus issued in Writ
Petition 3883 of 2010 by the High Court, insofar as it fixed the
entitlement to the rental compensation for the period 15.11.1998
till 04.08.2000. Hence, the State cannot challenge the period for
which the appellant was entitled to rental compensation, in these
proceedings. The rental compensation and the period were based
on the Government Resolutions dated 02.05.1961, 01.12.1972,
02.04.1979 and 24.03.1998.
80. Hence, the appellant is entitled for the rental compensation for the
period 15.11.1998 till 04.08.2000 on the basis of 8% of the awarded
amount as decided by us today in Civil Appeal Nos. 6776-6777 of
2013 by this very judgment. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the above
2280 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
terms and the impugned judgment in Writ Petition No. 4062 of 2018
dated 10.07.2018 stands superseded by the present judgment.
No order as to costs.
III. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6490 of 2022 (Sau.
Dwarkabai Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.)
81. Leave granted.
82. The present Appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in First Appeal No.
896 of 2016 dated 18.02.2021. The facts are as follows. Section 4(1)
notification under the Act was published on 11.03.1999. The land of
the appellant situated in Field Gut No. 4/2 admeasuring 0.86 Hectares
i.e. 2 acres and 6 Gunthas at village Hingana Mhaispur, Tq. & District
Akola (Maharashtra) was sought to be acquired by the respondents
for the purpose of construction of a flood protection wall for Akola
city. Thereafter, on 22.06.2000, award was passed awarding a total
compensation of Rs. 56,588/- per hectare. On a reference being
made under Section 18 of the Act, the appellant claimed higher
compensation. Four witnesses were examined on the side of the
appellant. The appellant examined himself as PW-1. A map was
produced by him to show that the surrounding area was completely
non-agricultural and developed. Three certified copies of sale deeds,
one of which is a post-notification deed was also produced. A list
pertaining to plots sold in Survey Nos. 7/1 and 7/2 of Akola Bujurg was
also produced. The appellant contended that the situation of the land
was in a developed area adjoining to Ramakrishna Vivekanand Vikri
Kendra, Maratha Sewa Sangh, Vyankatesh Restaurant, Agricultural
Produce Market Committee etc. Strangely, the State did not subject
the appellant to any cross-examination.
83. The appellant examined two Talathies of the village, namely,
Sudhakar Namdeorao Ambuskar (PW-3) and Bhagwan Shamrao Thite
(PW-4). PW-3 marked the sketch of Hingana Mhaispur to establish
that towards the north of the property is a cart track and towards
the south of the cart track is the boundary of village Akoli. In the
cross-examination, he deposed that Survey No.4 was adjacent to
the river and since there was a possibility of proceeding of water
only, it was not useful for non-agricultural purpose. To the similar
effect is the evidence of PW-4.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2281
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
84. The respondents did not adduce any evidence. The Reference Court
awarded Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. Para 9, 10 and 11 of the order of the
Reference Court are extracted herein below:
“9. The acquired land physical situation is supported by
oral evidence of P.W. Nos.3 and 4, who are Talathi and
concern with the said landed portion. Both these witnesses
have proved the vicinity of the landed portion, which is
acquired. Not only the oral evidence of P.W. Nos.3 and 4
support to the vicinity of landed portion allegedly contended
by the petitioner, but it is also supported to the blue-print
map, which is available on record and other maps also
available, which are drawn by the revenue authorities
itself. There are two maps filed on record. One is of Akoli
Kd. and another is of Hingana Mhaispur. These two lands
appears to be accessible and fetchable for the residential
purposes before the time of notification. There is no any
rebuttable evidence regarding the physical status of landed
area in question and objection raised by respondent in
their written statement.
10. It is exfacie proved on the basis of sale-deeds, maps,
oral evidence in support of petitioner’s case that the landed
zone of Akoli Kd. and Hingana Mhaispur having concern
with the residential zone, and therefore, there are so many
possibilities of high escalation in market value that too,
since the time of notification.
11. ...On the basis of materials on record and the oral
evidence supported to the case, the petitioner’s case
for enhancement of the compensation appears to be
well founded. Not only this, petitioner has supported
with the relevant judgment passed in L.A.C.No.183/2000
dated 15/01/2005. Certified copy is on record, which
clearly shows the fetchable prevailing rate as per market
valuation of the concern land was Rs.100/- per square
feet. This rate cannot be remained constant. In the present
circumstances, there must be escalation in the market
valuation. Considering this fact, petitioner did not make
any amendment in his pleading. At the stage of argument
vide written argument Exh.48 on Page No.8 of it, claiming
2282 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.100/-, that
found me justifiable and natural and supported with all
backgrounds about market valuation.”
Other statutory benefits were also awarded.
85. Aggrieved by the order of the Reference Court, the State preferred
First Appeal No. 896 of 2016 before the High Court. The State
contended that reliance placed by the Reference Court on
LAC No. 183/2000 was not justified as the judgment in the said
LAC No. 183/2000 was pending Appeal in the High Court; that the
land that was subject matter of LAC No. 183/2000 was located in
a different village and the land was not similar in nature; that the
judgment in LAC No. 183/2000 has been mechanically relied upon
without considering its applicability to the case at hand; that the
sale deeds relied upon related to small non-agricultural plots which
had construction potentiality and are not comparable instances. The
State further argued that in another First Appeal No. 1210 of 2008
arising from LAC No. 140/2000 (subject matter of the Appeal in Civil
Appeal Nos. 6776-6777 of 2013 herein), the Appeal of the State was
allowed and the compensation fixed at Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. was set
aside and the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer at
Rs. 5.30/- per sq. ft. was restored.
86. Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that though the land is situated in Village Hingana
Mhaispur, the said village is separated from Village Akoli (Bk) only
by a bullock-cart track; that civic amenities were available in and
around the acquired land; that the land had construction potentiality;
that the judgment in LAC No.183/2000 was not the only basis and
that sale deeds dated 04.05.1999 (Exh.40), 11.06.1998 (Exh.41)
and 15.07.1998 (Exh.42) were relied upon which showed that the
land located in the same vicinity was sold @ of Rs. 110/- per sq.
ft., Rs. 60/- per sq. ft. and Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. It was also submitted
that there was no evidence to show that the land was along the
riverbank and was prone to flooding. It was also submitted that the
judgment in First Appeal No. 1210 of 2008 (subject matter in Civil
Appeal Nos.6776-6777 of 2013 herein) had not attained finality.
87. The High Court, in the impugned order, proceeded as if the only
basis of the judgment of the Reference Court was the order in
LAC No. 183/2000. That is clear from the reading of para 8 of
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2283
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
the impugned order which states that “the Reference Court has
determined the market rate of the acquired land on the basis of the
judgment in LAC No.183/2000.” This may not be entirely an accurate
statement as a careful perusal of the portions of the Reference
Court judgment extracted herein above indicates that the order in
LAC No. 183/2000 was an additional factor. Be that as it may, the High
Court held that the land in LAC No. 183/2000 pertained to a small plot,
namely, Survey No. 7/2 which was converted to non-agricultural use
way back in the year 1982. It was also found that unlike the present
plot, the land that was subject matter in LAC No. 183/2000 was not on
the riverbank. The High Court found that the sale deed of 04.05.1999
(Exh.40) was a post notification transaction. As far as the sale deeds
dated 11.06.1998 (Exh.41) and 15.07.1998 (Exh.42) are concerned,
the High Court held that they pertained to plot nos. 117, 162 and 12
respectively carved out from Survey Nos. 6, 7 and 60 of village Akoli
(Khurd) which was converted to non-agricultural land way back in the
year 1982. Thereafter, the High Court held as follows:
“11. The Respondent had also relied upon the sale-deed
dated 04/05/1999 at Exh.40, which is a post notification
transaction. The said sale-deed as well as sale-deeds
dated 11/06/1998 at Exh.41 and 15/07/1998 at Exh. 42
relate to plot Nos.117, 162 and 12 respectively carved
out from Survey No.6, 7 and 60 of village Akoli (khurd),
which was converted to non-agricultural land way back
in the year 1982. These sale-deed plots were sold at the
rate of Rs. 50-60 per sq.ft. It is not in dispute that these
sale-deed plots are situated in village Akoli khurd which
is separate from village Hingana by a bullock cart track.
These sale-deed plots were small in size and were suitable
for construction purpose. Moreover, these sale-deed plots
were away from the river bank and were not prone to
getting submerged during rainy season or floods.
12. As compared to the sale-deed land, the acquired
land is a vast track of agricultural land, along the river
bank and was prone to getting inundated during rainy
season and hence was not suitable for construction
purpose. On account of these dissimilarities, the acquired
land would not have fetched the same price as that of
the sale-deed land. The above stated disadvantageous
2284 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
factors possessed by the acquired land would warrant
appropriate deductions.
13. The above referred sale-deed plots were sold in the
year 1998 at the rate of Rs. 50-60 per sq.ft.. Considering
the fact that the notification under Section 4 is of the year
1999, and further considering increase in the price of land
at 10% per annum, the rate of these developed plots can
be considered at Rs.60/- per sq.ft. upon deducting 30%
towards development charges, 30% towards the difference
in area and 15% in view of disadvantageous location of
the acquired land vis-a-vis the sale-deed land, the price
works out to Rs.15/- per sq. ft.”
So holding, the compensation was fixed at Rs. 15/- per sq. ft. The High
Court not only deducted 30% towards development charges, which
we find is unjustified, it further went on to deduct 30% towards the
difference in area and 15% in view of the disadvantageous location.
88. We notice that the State is not in the Appeal in this matter and there
is no dispute about the applicability of the exemplars Exh.41 dated
11.06.1998 and Exh.42 dated 15.07.1998 to determine the base
value. We also note that the appellant’s own witness PW 3 and 4
deposed in cross-examination that the land could not be put to
non-agricultural use. The appellant did not re-examine them.
89. While we do not fault the judgment of the High Court in fixing Rs.
60/- per sq. ft and applying 30% towards difference in area, we
feel that further deduction towards development charges while
the acquisition was for the construction of the wall involving no
development and further 15% due to disadvantageous location was
completely unjustified. Hence, we award the compensation for the
land in question in this Appeal @ of Rs. 42/- per sq. ft. The Rest
of the order with regard to the statutory benefits and interest is
maintained. We are conscious that the amount of Rs. 42 per sq. ft.
awarded by us is above the amount claimed.
90. In the affidavit-in-chief of the appellant, there is a poignant averment
to the following effect “…. But as I could not be able to arrange for
the Court fee, I have claimed the price of the land @ Rs. 30/- per sq.
ft. which comes to Rs.19,35,000/-. The Land Acquisition Officer paid
Rs. 56,585/- towards the value of the land and hence I am claiming
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2285
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Rs.18,78,450/- towards the balance market value of the land along
with all other benefits, interest and solatium and also give other
benefits given to landless persons. I have no land on my own now.”
91. We are supported in this course of action by the earlier judgments
of this Court in Bhag Singh and Others vs. Union Territory of
Chandigarh through the Land Acquisition Collector, Chandigarh
(1985) 3 SCC 737 where Chief Justice Bhagwati held while tempering
law with justice:-
“3… The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
should not have, in our opinion, adopted a technical
approach and denied the benefit of enhanced compensation
to the appellants merely because they had not initially paid
the proper amount of court fee. It must be remembered
that this was not a dispute between two private citizens
where it would be quite just and legitimate to confine the
claimant to the claim made by him and not to award him
any higher amount than that claimed though even in such
a case there may be situations where an amount higher
than that claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for
instance where an amount is claimed as due at the foot of an
account. Here was a claim made by the appellants against
the State Government for compensation for acquisition of
their land and under the law, the State was bound to pay
to the appellants compensation on the basis of the market
value of the land acquired and if according to the judgments
of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, the
market value of the land acquired was higher than that
awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional
District Judge, there is no reason why the appellants should
have been denied the benefit of payment of the market
value so determined. To deny this benefit to the appellants
would tantamount to permitting the State Government to
acquire the land of the appellants on payment of less than
the true market value. There may be cases where, as for
instance, under agrarian reform legislation, the holder of
land may, legitimately, as a matter of social justice, with
a view to eliminating concentration of land in the hands
of a few and bringing about its equitable distribution, be
deprived of land which is not being personally cultivated by
2286 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
him or which is in excess of the ceiling area with payment
of little compensation or no compensation at all, but where
land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it
would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land
without payment of the true market value when the law, in
so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market
value. The State Government must do what is fair and just
to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in
cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without
protest or where the State Government would otherwise
be irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to
defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen. We are,
therefore, of the view that, in the present case, the Division
Bench as well as the learned Single Judge should have
allowed the appellants to pay up the deficit court fee and
awarded to them compensation at the higher rate or rates
determined by them.”
The said principle has been followed in other cases including in
Ashok Kumar and Another vs. State of Haryana (2016) 4 SCC 544
wherein para 7 it was held as under: -
“7. The pre-amended provision puts a cap on the maximum :
the compensation by court should not be beyond the amount
claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, puts a
cap on the minimum : compensation cannot be less than
what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The
cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and
the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the
amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer
restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the
duty of the court to award just and fair compensation taking
into consideration the true market value and other relevant
factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner.
92. The above are classic instances where this Court ensured that justice
and fairness triumphed over technicalities. By the said course, it is
ensured that a balance was struck between recognizing the right of
the State in exercising its power of eminent domain with the right
of the citizen to receive what was legally due. In accordance with
the above judgment, we also direct that the deficit court fee which
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2287
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
will now become payable when compensation is awarded @ of
Rs. 42/- per sq. ft along with other statutory benefits shall be payable
by the appellant.
93. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the above terms and the impugned
judgment dated 18.02.2021 in First Appeal No. 896 of 2016 stands
set aside and will be superseded by the present judgment insofar
as fixing the market value is concerned. All statutory and other
benefits as ordered by the Reference Court shall continue to operate.
No order as to costs.
IV. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6817 of 2023
(Smt. Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia & Ors. Vs. State
of Maharashtra & Anr.) and Civil Appeal arising out of
SLP(C) No. 2324 of 2023 (The Executive Engineer Vs. Smt.
Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia & Ors.)
94. Leave granted in both the matters.
95. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) 6817 of 2023 is filed by the
family of landowners aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in First Appeal No. 643
of 2006 dated 27.09.2022. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) 2324 of
2023 is filed by the State against the dismissal of their First Appeal
No. 541 of 2007 by the same judgment dated 27.09.2022. By virtue
of the said judgment, the High Court confirmed the judgment of the
Ld. Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Akola awarding compensation
@ of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. for the plot area admeasuring 359684.44
sq. ft., further @ of Rs. 50/-per sq. ft. for open belt area admeasuring
108501.12 sq. ft. and @ of Rs. 25/- per sq. ft. for the plot area created
due to division admeasuring 28809.84 sq. ft. with consequential
benefits.
A. Brief Facts:
96. Brief facts giving rise to the case are as follows. The lands of the
claimants are situated in Survey Nos. 6, 7 and 60 at Mauza Akoli
Khurd district Akola. According to the appellants, on 03.03.1983 the
land was converted to non-agricultural use. Survey No. 7 was reserved
for development of residential tenements by the Nagpur Housing and
Area Development Board vide gazette notification dated 11.10.1984.
A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 03.06.1999
for acquiring the land for construction of flood protection wall.
2288 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
On 06.10.1999, notice under Section 6 of the Act was published.
On 09.04.2001, an award was passed @ of Rs. 72,400/- per hectare.
The appellants have a case that originally the award was proposed for
higher amount but the same was re-evaluated and reduced ultimately
in the final award of 09.04.2001. This issue need not detain the Court
as ultimately there is no dispute that the amount as awarded by the
Land Acquisition Officer was Rs. 72,400/- per hectare. In fairness to
the claimant owners, no serious argument in this Court was even
canvassed. In fact, a Writ Petition was filed, namely, Writ Petition
No. 753 of 2003 challenging the decision of the Commissioner in
reducing the compensation. That Writ Petition was dismissed and
in Civil Appeal No. 2045 of 2003 filed in this Court, an order was
made on 12.02.2004. By the said order, the claimant owners were
asked to raise all the issues before the Reference Court.
97. In the meantime, on 13.05.2002, aggrieved by the award passed by
the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants filed reference application
bearing LAC No. 209 of 2002. Evidence was adduced about the
situs of the land and a claim was made that compensation should
be awarded @ of Rs. 175/- per sq. ft. Primarily, four sale deeds
were relied upon being (i) Exh.75 dated 12.02.1999 pertaining to
plot no. 78 of Akoli (Bk) from Survey Nos. 8 and 5/1. The total area
of the plot was 1500 sq. ft. and it was sold @ of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft.
(ii) Exh.76 dated 04.05.1999 pertained to plot no. 58 from Survey
Nos. 6, 7 and 60 of Akoli (Kh) and it was sold @ of Rs. 100/- per
sq. ft. (iii) Exh.77 dated 04.05.1999 was in respect of plot no. 117 from
Survey Nos. 6, 7 where the plot was sold at Rs. 110/- per sq. ft. and
(iv) Exh. 78 is the sale deed of Plot No. 50 dated 11.05.1999 from
Survey No. 7/2 of Akoli (Kh) and it was sold @ of Rs. 175/- per sq. ft.
98. The main case of the claimant owners is that compensation should
have been awarded based on the sale deed of 11.05.1999 which
pertained to plot No. 50 from Survey no. 7/2 of Akoli (Bk) where the
price was Rs. 175/- per sq. ft.
99. By the judgment of 10.08.2006, the Reference Court awarded
enhanced compensation. For the plot area admeasuring 359684.44
a sum of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. was awarded. For area under open
belt admeasuring 108501.12 sq. ft. enhanced compensation at
Rs. 50 per sq. ft. was awarded. For the balance area of divided
plots admeasuring 28809.84 sq. ft., Rs. 25/- per sq. ft. was awarded.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2289
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
100. This judgment dated 10.08.2006 was challenged by filing First Appeal
No. 643 of 2006 by the claimant owners and the First Appeal No. 541
of 2007 by the State. The High Court by the impugned judgment
has affirmed the findings of the Reference Court. The appellants
and the State are in Appeal.
B. Contentions:
101. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellants
contended that land was developed non-agricultural land converted to
non-agricultural use on 03.03.1983; that the area around the land is
fully developed and is abutting the road leading to national highway
at 1 km; that roads are available; development works were going on
and that the land did not fall under ‘Blue Zone’ and in any case the
said contention was given up by the State insofar as the appellant’s
land was concerned. The learned senior counsel further contended
that the highest exemplar at Rs. 175/- per sq. ft. ought to have been
taken and the stand that the sale was between the related parties
ought to be rejected since there was no evidence to show that the
sale was intended to obtain higher compensation. Additionally, the
sale was in favour of the legal entity. The learned counsel relied
upon the judgments in Munusamy v. Land Acquisition Officer
(2021) 13 SCC 258 and Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered),
Faridkot and Others v. State of Punjab and Others (2012) 5
SCC 432 to contend that Exh. 78 the sale dated 11.05.1999 of
plot no. 50 in Survey No. 7/2 of Akoli (bk) should have been taken
being the highest exemplar. The learned senior counsel also submits
that no deduction for development charges ought to have been made.
According to learned counsel, since it is for the construction of a flood
wall no development is required and in any event no compensation
has been awarded for the portions of the land consisting of roads,
lanes and open space. Learned counsel relied on Bhagwathula
Samanna and Others Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition
Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam (1991) 4
SCC 506; Charan Dass (Dead) by LRs. Vs. H.P. Housing & Urban
Development Authority & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 398 and State of
M.P. vs. Radheshyam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162.
102. Rebutting the arguments, Shri Uday B. Dube, learned counsel for
the Vidharbha Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as ‘VIDC’) contends that of the four sale deeds, Exh.75
dated 12.02.1999 was a transaction between unrelated parties.
2290 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The other three Exh.76, Exh.77 and Exh.78 were also executed
just prior to the issuance of the Section 4 notification and were
between the related parties. The sale deeds were executed just
prior to the initiation of the acquisition and according to the State,
the parties had full knowledge regarding sanction of the project
for construction of flood control wall and as such sale deeds are
suspicious in nature and are intended only for the purpose of
getting more compensation for the plots which could not be sold for
15 to 16 long years. The State relied upon State of Maharashtra
and Others Vs. Digamber Bhimashankar Tandale & Ors. (1996)
2 SCC 583 to contend that though the lands were converted for
non-agricultural purpose, there was no development and hence
compensation on per sq. ft. basis could not have been awarded.
According to the State, the claimant owners were not available to
sell a single plot for 15 to 16 long years.
103. It is further contended that the land extend to more than 7 lac sq. ft.
in all the matters pertaining to the family and as such compensation
at Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. relying on an exemplar sale deed involving
sale of an area measuring 1500 sq. ft. was not justified.
104. The State vehemently argues that the intra family sale deed Exh.
78 dated 11.05.1999 executed just twenty-three days prior to the
notification under Section 4 cannot be the basis for the award of
compensation @ of Rs. 175/- per sq. ft. In fact, the claimants prayed
only for an average compensation of Rs. 121.25/- per sq. ft. So
praying, the State prayed for restoration of the award passed by
Land Acquisition Officer.
C. Findings of the High Court:
105. The High Court in the impugned order has found that the land was
reserved for development of residential tenements. It relied on
Exh. 67 a notification dated 21.09.1984 published in the Government
Gazette. In fact, the High Court records that the witness for the
respondent-State had not countered this fact that the document was
produced and the document had remained unrebutted. Dealing with
the argument of the claimants/land owners that the Commissioner
could not sit in appeal against the proposed award, the High Court
rightly rejected the plea stating that in the reference proceedings
all the issues have been raised and as such no prejudice has been
caused to the claimant land owners. Dealing with the situs of the
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2291
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
land, the High Court recognized the fact that the land was in close
proximity to the various institutions of prominence in Akola City. It
recorded the following finding:
“20. ….It is to be noted that in the award passed by the
SLAO, a reference has been made to the prominent
location of the acquired land. The distance of the acquired
land from various institutions of prominence and the close
proximity of the land to Akola city has been mentioned. It
has been proved that on the Northern side of the acquired
land, there are police quarters known as Rahat Nagar,
Sneh Nagar and to the North-west, there is Ambedkar
Nagar, Vijay Oil Industries and Krushi Utpanna Bazar
Samiti market. So also, near the acquired land, there are
Ramkrushna Vivekanand Ashram, Maa Sharda Balak
Mandir, Ramkrushna Vivekanand Sahitya Kharedi Vikri
Kendra and Saint Anne’s School of Hyderabad etc. It
has been proved that temple of Lord Vyankatesh Balaji,
Maratha Seva Sangh, Swami Vivekanand High School,
Jijau Vasatigruha. Vyankatesh Restaurant, Wholesale
Grain Merchant’s Housing and Commercial Complex
Society and Alankar Petrol Pump, are located in the close
proximity of the acquired land.
21. PW2 Brijmohan Modi, a registered valuer, examined by
the claimants has proved the Valuation Reports at Exhs.63
and 64. The map drawn by the valuer is at Exh.83. On
the basis of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, prominent
location of the acquired land in close proximity of Akola city
has been proved. It has been proved that in the vicinity of
the acquired land, there has been development. There are
residential and commercial complexes. Evidence adduced
in rebuttal by the respondents is not sufficient to disprove
the above aspects. The only statement reiterated time
and again by the respondents is that the acquired land
being situated on the bank of Morna river, it had no future
prospects of development. In our opinion, this contention
of the respondents cannot be accepted in view of the
positive evidence adduced by the claimants. Learned
Presiding Officer of the Reference Court has accepted
this evidence. We do not see any reason to discard or
disbelieve this evidence.”
2292 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
106. Analysing Exh. 75 to Exh. 78 relied upon by the Appellants, the High
Court observed as follows:
23. In order to prove that the market price of the land on
the date of Section 4 notification was not less than Rs.200/-
per sq.ft., the claimants have placed on record four sale
instances at Exhibits-75 to 78. Exh.75 is the sale deed
dated 12.02.1999 of plot no.78 of Akoli (Bk.) from survey
nos. 8 and 5/1. Total area of the plot was 1500 sq.ft. It
was sold @ Rs.l00/- per sq.ft. It has come on record that
this plot was sold by one Usha Santoshrao Gole to Ashok
Krushnarao Sapkal and Shalikram Ramkrushna Zamre.
It is to be noted that this sale transaction has been made
the basis for quantifying the enhanced compensation by
the learned Presiding Officer of the Reference Court. The
vendor and vendee are not concerned with the claimants
in any manner. In our opinion, therefore, the contention of
the respondents that this sale instance was brought into
existence to claim excessive and exorbitant compensation
by the claimants cannot be accepted. On a perusal of the
oral evidence adduced by the claimants and supporting
documentary evidence, we do not see any reason to
discard and disbelieve this sale instance.”
107. Hence, the High Court ultimately confirmed the order of the
Reference Court relying upon Exh. 75 sale deed dated 12.02.1999 for
Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. It expressly recorded that the vendor and vendee
were not concerned with the claimants in any manner and that was
also the admitted case of the State. Rejecting Exh. 76, Exh. 77 and
Exh. 78, the High Court recorded that the sale deeds were executed
by members of the family and as such it did not chose to rely upon
the same.
Findings:
108. We have already in this judgment while dealing with Civil Appeal
Nos. 6776-6777 of 2013 hereinabove, discussed the correctness of
the judgment and order in LAC No. 209 of 2002, which reference
concerned the present appellants. We have also discussed the law on
reliance of exemplars of unrelated parties and related parties and as
to how when there are two exemplars, one between unrelated parties
at arm’s length and the other between related parties mentioning a
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 2293
Kazi Akiloddin v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
higher value and when both are within reasonable time gap, prudence
would dictate and common sense would command the acceptability
of the exemplars involving unrelated parties. The same reasoning
applies here also.
109. We have also therein discussed the law on the applicability of the
development charges and also dealt therein the aspect of in what
circumstances the value fetched by smaller plots can be applied in
valuing larger tracts of land. Additionally, it has also to be borne in
mind that while Rs.100/- per sq. ft. was awarded by the Reference
Court for plotted area admeasuring 359684.44 sq. ft., for the open
belt area admeasuring 108501.12 sq. ft., the enhanced compensation
was only @ Rs. 50/- per sq. ft. Additionally, for the plot area created
due to division admeasuring 28809.84 per sq. ft., the enhanced
compensation was @ Rs. 25/- per sq. ft. For this reason also,
additionally, we are not inclined to make any deduction in the
amount of Rs.100/- per sq. ft. awarded for the plot area admeasuring
359684.44 sq. ft. In view of the above, both the Civil Appeals are
dismissed. No order as to costs.
V. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6819 of 2023
(Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia & Ors. vs. The State
of Maharashtra & Anr.) and Civil Appeal arising out of
SLP (C) No. 2892 of 2023 (The Executive Engineer Vs. Smt.
Vijayadevi Navalkishore Bhartia & Ors.)
110. Leave granted in both the matters.
111. These Appeals are similar to Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)
2324 of 2023 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6817 of
2023. The only difference being that the land is situated in Survey
No. 6 and Survey No. 7 in Akoli (kd) and measures 26016.59 sq.
ft. Section 4 notification under the Act was dated 21.07.2000; and
Section 6 notification of the Act was dated 02.02.2001. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer published the award on 27.06.2002 @ of
Rs. 96364/- per hectare. On 20.04.2006, the Reference Court allowed
LAC No. 53/2005 and granted Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. The High Court
has dismissed the First Appeal No. 384/2006 filed by the claimant
and First Appeal No. 621/2006 filed by the respondents. Both parties
have relied on the arguments raised in Civil Appeal arising out of
SLP (C) No. 2324 of 2023 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)
2294 [2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
No. 6817 of 2023 and as such whatever has been held therein holds
good for these Appeals also. In view of the above, both the Civil
Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
VI. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6820 of 2023
(Smt. Taradevi Chimanlalji Bhartia & Ors. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Anr.) and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)
No. 2753 of 2023 (The Executive Engineer Vs. Smt. Taradevi
Chimanlalji Bhartia & Ors.)
112. Leave granted in both the matters.
113. The claimants filed First Appeal No. 282 of 2005 and the State filed
First Appeal No. 155 of 2005 arising out of LAC No. 183/2000. The
facts are same as in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6817 of
2023 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 2324 of 2023. The
slight difference being the area involved i.e. plot area of 15562 sq. ft.
and open sub divided area of 9464 sq. ft. On 03.06.1999, Section 4
notification under the Act was issued and Section 6 notification under
the Act was issued on 02.12.1999. On 04.08.2000, the LAO made
award @ of Rs. 5,61,000/- per hectare. On a reference being filed,
the Reference Court in LAC No. 183/2000 awarded compensation
@ of Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. Both the claimants and the State filed
Appeals. We have already in this judgment affirmed the findings in
LAC No. 183/2002 out of which these Appeals arise. By the impugned
order, the High Court confirmed the order of the Reference Court.
Arguments are similar, hence, whatever has been held in Civil Appeal
arising out of SLP (C) No. 6817 of 2023 and Civil Appeal arising out
of SLP (C) No. 2324 of 2023 would hold good for these Appeals also.
In view of the above, the Civil Appeals of the appellant landowners
as well as the acquiring body are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Result of the case: Civil Appeal Nos. 6776-6777 of 2013 partly
allowed, and other connected Civil Appeals
disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land Acquisition"Sign in to search