Supreme Court of India
STATE OF GOA & ANR.versusGOPAL BABURAO GAUDO & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1134
- Decided
- 14 September 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
A strip of land adjoining a highway, even within the prohibited‑construction zone, possesses market value and must be compensated accordingly; statutory benefits are separate and do not affect the market‑value assessment.
Summary
The State of Goa sought compensation for a 2,715 sq. m. strip of land acquired for the Panda By‑pass road, arguing that because the land lay within the 40‑metre prohibited‑construction zone alongside a highway it had no development potential and therefore should be valued as valueless. The Supreme Court held that such a strip, even though construction is prohibited, can serve as access and frontage to rear land, enhancing its value, and therefore must be assessed at market value like comparable land. The Court also clarified that statutory benefits—solatium under s.23(2), additional amount under s.23(1A), and interest under s.28—are distinct from market‑value determination and cannot be factored into the valuation. Consequently, the High Court’s award of compensation was affirmed. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a narrow strip of land adjoining a highway, within the prohibited‑construction margin, is to be treated as land without development potential for compensation purposes.
- Whether statutory benefits under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should be taken into account while determining the market value of the acquired land.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23(1), s. 23(1A), s. 23(2), s. 28
Subjects
land acquisitionmarket valuecompensationstatutory benefitssolatiumadditional amountinteresthighwaydevelopment potential
Judgment
t
f
[2009) 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R. 496
:.
A STATE OF GOA & ANR. ..,,,____
~
v.
GOPAL BABURAO GAUDO & ORS.
~
·(Special Leave Petition (C) No.10598 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2009
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND 8. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894
>-
·C s. 23 - Acquisition of tand adjoining highway -
Construction on the land prohibited - Compensation - Held: }-
A long strip of land lying alongside and adjQining the Highway
cannot be treated as a land without value or without any
potential for development, merely on the ground that the law
..;~
D relating to Highways prohibited construction on elther side of
the Highway - Potential of such land is in its being
...
appurtenant to the land to its rear - In the event, the strip of
land becomes the 'access' to the rear--side land from the main
l.-
road and also becomes the frontage of the aggregate land, it
enhances potential and value of the rear-side land, as also
E
creates a potential for its own use. ~
I
ss. 23(1), 23(1A), 23(2) and 28- Determination of market ~
value of acquired land - Plea that while determining ~
compensation, statutqry benefits like solatium, additional ~
F amount and interest should be taken note of- Held: Solatium, I
additional 'amount and interest have no bearing on '•
determination of market value under first clause of s.23(1) -
The reason for grant of the additional statutory benefits are
clearly different- Additional amount uls 23(1A) is to mitigate
·G the hardship to the owner on account of deprivation of
enjoyment of the land because of the delay in making the .....
award and offering payment - Solatium u/s 23(2) is in
consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition - Interest
u/s 28 of the Act is paid for delay in paying the compensation
H 496
STATE OF GOA & ANR. v. GOPAL BABURAO GAUDO 497
& ORS.
... )<.
from the date on which possession is taken - They are distinct
from the determination of market value - The fact that the
A
landowner would also be entitled to statutory benefits cannot
be taken into account while determining market value of the
acquired land for purpose of compensation.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
10598 of 2005.
From the Judgment & Order dated 6.8.2008 of the High
Court of Bombay at Goa in First Appeal No. 242 of 2002.
c
A Subhashini for the Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
.- ORDER
....j
D
Acquisition proceedings were initiated in regard to several
lands including Survey No. 85 of Curti Village belonging to the
respondents under preliminary notification dated 14.2.1991 for
construction of Panda By-pass road. The Land Acquisition
Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq.m. E
The Reference Court increased the compensation to Rs. 154/
- per sq.m. The High Court did not disturb the amount awarded
. by the Reference Court, as it found that in an appeal arising
from the award in LAC No. 48/1995 relating to a comparable
land compensation at a higher rate had been awarded at the
F
rate of Rs.200/- per sq.m. Leave is sought to challenge the said
judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal of the
petitioner.
2. The petitioner alleges that the acquired land measuring
. ~
2715 sq. meters, was a narrow strip which fell within the 40 G
meters margin from the centre of the highway where
constructions were prohibited. It is contended that as the
acquired land could not be used for construction, the land had
to be considered as not having any development potential; and
that therefore it could not be compared with the land (which was· H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A the subject matter of LAC No. 48/1995) for which compensation .'f '
had been determined having regard to its potential for
development. It was also contended that being a narrow strip
it was also not of much use even for agriculture purposes.
B
3. A long strip of land measuring more than two-third of
an acre lying alongside and adjoining the Highway cannot be
treated a~ a land ~ithout value or without any potential for
development, merely on the ground that the law relating to
).._
Highways prohibited construction. on either side of the Highway,
upto a depth of 40 meters from the centre of the Highway. All
c that was required to create or realize potential of such land was
to annex or merge the said strip of land with the land to its·rear.
In that event, the strip of land will become the 'access' to the
rear-side land from the main road and will also become the
frontage of the aggregate land, thereby enhancing the potential -.
D and value of the rear-side land, as also creating a potential for ~
its own use. The contention that a land adjoining the Highway
should be treated as having no development potential (and
therefore as land without much value except as ordinary
agricultural land), while considering the lands to its rear which
E are farther away from the road, or other adjoining lands of the
same extent, but having more depth (s0 as to extend beyond
the 40 meters margin) as having potential for development, is
illogical and cannot be accepted.
•
4. We may demonstrate the absurdity of such a contention
F
with reference to an illustration. Let us take the example of a
residential plot of land measuring 60' X 100'. Let us assume
that the Municipal Bye-laws require a front (rc3d side) set-back
of 20' for construction of houses in a plot of that size. Therefore,
the owner would leave a twenty feet wide front strip in the said
G plot free of any construction while putting up the construction in
-+ .
the plot. Obviously, he cannot thereafter construct in that front
strip. Let us further assume that the front strip is acquired for
road widening. Can the acquiring authority deny compensation
to that strip on the ground that the said 20' strip acquired for
H road widening could not in any event be used for any
STATE OF GOA & ANR. v. GOPAL BABURAO GAUDO 499
& ORS.
)-
construction purpose and therefore, was not of any value? A
Obviously not.
5. Therefore, determination of market value of the acquired
land with reference to the value of comparable land cannot be
faulted. B
6. Another argument put forth by the petitioners is that if
the statutory benefits like solatium under section 23(2) and
additional amount under section 23(1A) of Land Acquisition Act,
....\
1894 ('Act' for short), and interest are added to the
. compensation awarded, the compensation would bloat up c
having severe financial implications, and therefore, while
determining compensation, the extent of statutory benefits
should be taken note of or kept in view. There is absolutely no
merit in the said contention. It is well-settled that the solatium,
additional amount and interest have no bearing on the D
~
determination of the market value under first clause of section
23(1) of the Act. The reason for grant of the additional statutory
benefits are clearly different. The additional benefit under
section 23(1A) is to mitigate the hardship to the owner on
account of deprivation of enjoyment of the land because of the E
delay in making the award and offering payment. The solatium
under section 23(2)is in consideration of the compulsory nature
ct of acquisition. Interest under section 28 of the Act is paid for
delay in paying the compensation from the date on which
possession is taken. They are distinct from the determination F
of market value. The fact that the landowner would also be
entitled to statutory benefits cannot be taken into account, when
determining the market value of the acquired land for purpose
of compensation.
. i..
7. We find that the High Court has rightly decided the
matter with reference to the facts of .the case. The judgment
G
does not call for interference. The Special leave petition is
therefore dismissed as having no merit.
R.P. Special Leave Petition dismissed. H
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