THE PRESIDENT, A.P.M.C., TALUKA DARWHA, DISTRICT YAVATMAL,MAHARASHTRAversusMANIKANT AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 1196
- Decided
- 11 October 1996
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K RAMASWAMY
Holding
Enhancing compensation on a per‑square‑foot basis for a large acquisition, such as a market yard, is an error of law; compensation must be based on market value per acre or comparable sale transactions.
Summary
The President of A.P.M.C. appealed to the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court's enhancement of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land, about 3 acres, was acquired for a market yard and the acquisition officer had fixed a market value of Re.0.36 per square foot, which the reference court enhanced to Re.1 per square foot and the High Court further raised to Re.1.30 and Re.1.70 per square foot for different portions. The appellants relied on sale deeds showing much higher per‑acre prices, arguing that a large tract of land cannot be valued on a per‑square‑foot basis because no willing purchaser would buy it that way. The Supreme Court held that enhancing compensation on a square‑foot basis for such large acquisitions is a legal error and that the High Court's enhancement must be set aside. Consequently, the Court restored the reference court's award as final and dismissed the High Court's judgment.
Issues considered
- When is it appropriate to enhance compensation on a per‑square‑foot basis under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
- Does the High Court's enhancement of compensation for a large tract of land acquired for a market yard constitute an error of law?
- Should compensation be determined based on market transactions and per‑acre rates rather than per‑square‑foot rates for extensive acquisitions?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4, s. 48
Subjects
Judgment
THE PRESIDENT, A.P.M.C., TALUKA DARWHA, DISTRICT A
YAVATMAL,MAHARASHTRA
v.
MANIKANT AND ORS.
OCTOBER 11, 1996
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Compensation-Award of-Enhancement of by Courts below-Held: C
When large extent of land is acquired no willing purchaser would be prepared
to purchase the land on square foot basis-171erefore the High Court was in
error in enhancing the compensation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.13268 of
1996. ])
From the Judgment and Order dated 30/31.7.92 of the Bombay High
Court in F.A.No.241 of 1988.
S.V. Deshpande for the Appellant.
E
V.A. Mohta, R.S. Lambat and D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
Leave granted. F
Heard learned counsel on both sides.
Notification under Section 4 [1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
[for short, the "Act"] was published initially on January 8, 1970 acquiring G
an extent of nearly 3 acres and odd of land; part of the same was withdrawn
by notification under Section 48 [1]. Subsequently, another notification was
issued on September 6, 1993 acquiring a part of the land which was
withdrawn by notification under Section 48(1]. Ultimately, the land ac-
quired now remains is 3 acres 33 gunthas. The Land Acquisition Officer
determined the market value @ Re.0.36 per sq. foot. On reference, the H
621
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A Civil Judge enhanced the market value to Re.1 per sq. foot. The appellants
have not carried the matter in apptal to the High Court against the market
value enhanced by the reference Court. On further appeal by the claimants,
the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1.30 per sq. foot for the
land covered under the second notification by impugned judgment dated
B July 30/31, 1992 made in Appeal No.241/88. Thus this appeal by special
leave.
The Land Acquisition Officer in his award has described the typo-
graphy and potentiality of the land thus :
c · "The land under acquisition falls within the Municipal limit of
Digras. Digras is a pressures [sic] and commercial town. Previously
it was a renowned cotton market. This land falls on Digras-Manora
District Major road. It is also adjoining to Darwha-Pusad Road.
The market yard, godown and offices of A.P.M.C. Digras, are just
adjoining to the Abadi of the town. A new locality of Shastry Nagar
D
is on the Western side of this land. Now constructions of the
buildings are in progress in the vicinity of this land. This is a plan
and table land. The Ginning Factory of Digras cooperative Society
is also adjoining to this land. The existing cotton market is just
adjoining to this land. The shade of the grain market is also
E adjoining to this land. The construction of residential houses of
D.Y.K. S. Cooperative Society are also constructed on eastern side
of this land. Since the plot No. sheet no. is given in Nazul record
to this land it was already converted into non-Agricultural pur-
poses. So this land had non-agricultural potentiality in view of the
above description."
F
That was affirmed by the reference Court. The claimants relied upon
the sale deeds, Exs. 43, 40 and 61. Ex. 43, sale deed executed on January
8, 1970 relates to 4 acres of land sold at the rate of Rs.4000 per acre. It
was on the same date of publication of the notification. Ex.40 relates to
G sale transaction of 1 acre of land dated December 6, 1970, one year
thereafter sold for Rs. 15,000. Ex. 61 is dated August 27, 1971 under which
3 acres 33 gunthas of land was sold for Rs. 61,501 which worked out to the
rate of Rs. 16,000 and odd per acre. Therefore, the courts below were not
justified in enhancing the compensation @ Re.I per sq. foot and Rs.1.30
H and Rs.1.70 sq. foot as . determined therein.
PRESIDENT, AP;M.C. v. MANIKANT 623
It is now well settled legal position that when a large extent of land A
was acquired for establishment of market yard, no willing purchaser would
be prepared to purchase the land on square foot basis. Therefore, the very
principle on which the courts below had proceeded to determine the
compensation is vitiated by obvious error of law. However, the appellants
did not challenge the award of the reference Court which had become final B
as against them. Therefore, any inference even by this Court would not be
beyond what was determined by the reference Court though done wrongly
on the square foot basis. The High Court, therefore, was in error in
enhancing the compensation to Rs.1.30 per square foot in relation· to the
first notification and Rs.1.70 per square foot in relation to the second
notification. C
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree of
the High Court stand set aside and that of the reference Court stands
restored as having attained finality. No costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed. D
...
-;
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.